Service disconnect location 230.70(A)(1)

[tortuga]

@tortuga , I might not accept A if I was responsible for plan check but I don't know if I could site a proper code section. My only issue is what was mentioned previously, Those service conductors conductors are technically unprotected for that unspecified distance.

Thats the problem there is not a clear code section
I think Wyane and Ben nailed it,
it should read
"The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location. If service conductors enter a building or structure, the service disconnecting means shall be located inside nearest the service point"
The gripe I have is utilities moving into NEC territory, requiring that unnecessary disconnect, imagine if the NEC put a requirement on the Utility side?
NEC service disconnects should be sufficient for all parties including the utility.

 

[ggunn]

Thats the problem there is not a clear code section
I think Wyane and Ben nailed it,
it should read
"The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location. If service conductors enter a building or structure, the service disconnecting means shall be located inside nearest the service point"
The gripe I have is utilities moving into NEC territory, requiring that unnecessary disconnect, imagine if the NEC put a requirement on the Utility side?
NEC service disconnects should be sufficient for all parties including the utility.

Some utilities (one in particular that I deal with) have now decreed that the main service disconnecting means shall be on the outside of the building, and any PV system added to a building, be it interconnected on the line or load side, will result in a directive that the service be made compliant with this requirement. I have been told that after much haranguing with the above referenced POCO they decided to allow a shunt trip MSD inside the building with the initiator external to the building in situations where the building was in compliance with local code when it was built.

 

[tortuga]

Some utilities (one in particular that I deal with) have now decreed that the main service disconnecting means shall be on the outside of the building, and any PV system added to a building, be it interconnected on the line or load side, will result in a directive that the service be made compliant with this requirement.

If the state thought there was a legitimate safety reason for that disconnect location would it not be in the state code? I mean under the piles of red tape UL and NEC put on PV I think PV is pretty safe.
Have the utilies first tried to change the electrical code before writing their own?
I can see them having requirements for meters and connection points, but having arbitrary requirements past the meter is illegal undue market influence, as they are throwing up barriers to competition (PV).

 

[ggunn]

If the state thought there was a legitimate safety reason for that disconnect location would it not be in the state code? I mean under the piles of red tape UL and NEC put on PV I think PV is pretty safe.
Have the utilies first tried to change the electrical code before writing their own?
I can see them having requirements for meters and connection points, but having arbitrary requirements past the meter is illegal undue market influence, as they are throwing up barriers to competition (PV).

I cannot speak to any of that except to say that the changes they made are on the customer's side of the meter; the meters are all already outside the buildings.