service entrance rated - panel construction

malachi constant

Senior Member
Location
Minneapolis
I have always understood panels (breaker panel, distribution panel, switchboards, etc) that are rated "service entrance" to have two things different: a main bonding jumper and a UL sticker. However I have a situation that has me scratching my head.

I am the engineer and designed a service to a new building with a service-entrance rated distribution panel (with a main breaker) located inside the building. The contractor called up to say we need to add a disconnect outside...because otherwise they can't safely shut off power to the building without calling the utility company. But isn't that what the main disconnect is for, I ask? Yes, they say, but if we shut it off we still have to put on a moon suit to work on the panel since it has live feeders coming into it.

In review of the shops (screensnip attached, with identifying information removed) I see there is no listing anywhere of the equipment as service entrance rated. I see that the main breaker (1000A I believe) is nestled up in with the other distribution breakers - it appears to receive power into the breaker, and the breaker then feeds the bussing. I don't have a very responsive contact with this manufacturer so ran it past another manufacturer. My question being, weirdness aside of how the panel fed, do I need to start designing services with the disconnect in its own enclosure/section? This manufacturer stated that service entrance equipment has a barrier that physically separates the lugs from the rest of the panel, making it safe to work in "cold" once the switch has been turned off and bus has been confirmed as cold.

Where to begin in sorting this out...
1) Does service entrance rated mean that main lugs should include a physical barrier?
2) Service entrance rating aside - are service panels generally constructed with that kind of a physical barrier?
3) Does such a physical barrier allow for service panels to be worked on as if they were cold, even with hot utility conductors terminated within?
4) If not...how does one design something like this, with safety in mind? How does this work IRL? When an electrician needs to add a new breaker in a service panel, are they usually calling the utility company? Usually working as if it was hot, wearing proper PPE (though many panels will not have level of PPE listed)? Does one usually find a physical barrier separating the utility conductors, that allows you to work as if it was cold?

Then - almost an aside but actually the hot item right now - the electrician is adamant we need a disconnect outside. The panel does not appear to have a service entrance rating but does have a main breaker. Does the proposed exterior disconnect need to be service rated? Does it need to be fused, or is this now acting only as a safety switch so it can be non-fused? If the disconnect is not fused or service rated, the can the electrician bond the neutral and ground within the "service" panel that is already ordered?

I need to engage the manufacturer and the electrician to get on the same page here, but am hoping the community here can clarify my thinking a bit first. Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Snipaste_2025-02-16_17-50-30.png
    Snipaste_2025-02-16_17-50-30.png
    37.5 KB · Views: 22
It’s kinda two different options, rather than a requirement. Since it’s commercial. A fireman’s disconnect may, or may not be required on the outside, depending on local codes. The second, is to make compliance with 70e easier. If the main is inside, full PPE is still required when working in the enclosure the main is in, where if outside, if that main is off, the inside gear will not require the use of arc flash gear once the absence of voltage is verified, and the outside main is locked off. You could design it with the service disconnect on the outside, and the inside panelboard would be MLO.
 
Then - almost an aside but actually the hot item right now - the electrician is adamant we need a disconnect outside.
There is no NEC requirement for an outside disconnect on a commercial installation (there may be local requirements). For the NEC requirements see 230.70
The panel does not appear to have a service entrance rating but does have a main breaker. Does the proposed exterior disconnect need to be service rated? The "service disconnect" does need to the "service rated". The presence of a main does not necessarily mean the panel is service rared. There may be several manufacturer difference in service rated such as bus bracing.
Does it need to be fused, or is this now acting only as a safety switch so it can be non-fused?
Normally the service disconnect will have integral OCP (fuse or breaker)See 230.91
If the disconnect is not fused or service rated, the can the electrician bond the neutral and ground within the "service" panel that is already ordered? The neutral-equipment ground bond should be in the service panel. The bonding can normally removed if its not going to be used as a service panel.
 
A couple comments:

1. The electrician's /electrical contractor's statement is puzzling. As has been stated, there is no requirement for an outdoor disconnect. I don't understand why he is attempting to make a determination about rearranging the setup so the panel can be completely de-energized. Maybe that is prudent depending on who will be working on it, how frequently, hot work rules etc, but it doesn't seem like it's any of his business

2. I would be very surprised to find a piece of equipment not suitable for use as service equipment.

3. Some equipment is better than others at covering the supply side lugs. I've always found it very puzzling how equipment is allowed to have such poorly covered supply side lugs. I believe they are more strict about that in Canada.
 
Thanks all.

There is no local requirement here for a fire fighters / exterior disconnect.

The EC's motivation seems to be they want to energize the service panel so the trades can get started on equipment startups. But the EC is not complete with their work in the service panel, and don't want to work on it live, nor deal with the hassle of getting the utility to turn off and on the power when they need to work in it. Hence they want the exterior disconnect. They argue the Owner will need the disconnect in order to work on the service panel in the future.

They are vaguely claiming a design deficiency, and that the Owner should pay for the exterior disconnect. They wanted me to tell them what disconnect to buy, but I got them to present to me an option of what they would like to install. (My argument being I don't know lead times or prices, or dimensions they are working with, or what conduit they already have roughed in, etc.) They have presented an exterior disconnect, that does not appear to have a service rating, and they are asking for me to advise if it needs to be fused or if it can be non-fused.

One question - if we determine that the gear on the inside of the building is actually service-entrance rated, and they still want to add an exterior disconnect, does that disconnect also have to be service entrance rated? To me, functionally, it doesn't make sense for it to need that rating. I am not aware of anything in code that says disconnects or OCPD outside the building must be SUSE, only that a building must have it at the point of entry.

I think I only solve this by getting on a call with a representative from the manufacturer plus the electrical contractor.

"Some equipment is better than others at covering the supply side lugs" - that is good info. I think (going forward on future projects) I need to talk with a few manufacturers about their offerings and beef up our spec to include this language. We all want installations that are safe(r) for our industry to work on - I embrace that as a value. But here they have picked out the crappiest "service" panel they can find, it's not my fault they have to put on a lot of PPE to finish their job. That's where I'm at right now.
 
Last edited:
I disconnect on the outside would need to be your service disconnect. If it doesn't have overcurrent protection integral to it it must be installed " immediately adjacent thereto". Note that a non-fused disconnect would only have a 10K sccr which will probably be a problem with that size service. You could just put a fused disconnect or enclosed circuit breaker outside and then you could skip the main breaker inside which would save a chunk of money.

It seems to me they are being high maintenance, if they are not satisfied or comfortable with the barriers supplied, why don't they just cover any live parts themselves to their comfort level?
 
I disconnect on the outside would need to be your service disconnect. If it doesn't have overcurrent protection integral to it it must be installed " immediately adjacent thereto". Note that a non-fused disconnect would only have a 10K sccr which will probably be a problem with that size service. You could just put a fused disconnect or enclosed circuit breaker outside and then you could skip the main breaker inside which would save a chunk of money.

It seems to me they are being high maintenance, if they are not satisfied or comfortable with the barriers supplied, why don't they just cover any live parts themselves to their comfort level?
They just don’t want to follow 70e which would require them to wear the proper PPE. Additional breakers can be added later without a utility shutdown, but because of the voltage available at the line side of the main, even with barriers, full PPE would still be required the entire time. Also utility shutdown would require work to be permited to get it turned back on.
 
The safety rules have made it impossible to do anything at all live on 480V gear unless your a multi million-dollar company with moonsuits.
A large facility that we work on (think regional airport) has changed their safety policy such that we (contractors) can't work on anything 480V hot.
Another unrelated old building we work on was originally 240V three phase, then upgraded to 480V for a set of machines with a 240 transformer to supply the old part of the building including HVAC and elevators.
The 480V machines are long gone and the building is getting a new elevator, instead of upgrading the elevator to 480 the EE is scrapping out the entire 480V service and going back to a 240V due to cost, working clearance and safety rules around 480 gear.
 
Not wanting to wear moon suits could certainly be a valid excuse. To me, this is a decision for the company to make. How often will circuits be added or modified? Can you afford to wait to schedule a utility shutdown and restart? How painful is it to suit up? I think it was the 2017 code that began to require lug covers on the service conductors in service disconnects. I don't know if that gives any alleviation to NFPA 70E requirements. May be worth an OSHA or state version of the same to discuss if PPE can be reduced when working in the main panel with the main breaker off and line lug covers installed (I doubt it helps, but it may). If this is going to happen a lot, a separate disconnect, either outside or inside, may be prudent to install.

One thing most electricians did where I worked was install wireways above and below the panels. This let them run new circuits up to the wireway and leave a bundle of wire in the wireway for final makeup later to the panel. Shutting down any panel at our facility took about 2 weeks to coordinate in order to make sure all users had no issue with a scheduled shutdown. PPE was a secondary issue. At this shutdown, the new circuits would be connected to the panel from the wireway and any old ones no longer needed were disconnected and their wire pulled back to the wireway. Then, after the panel was re-energized, they would remove the wires and maybe the conduits from the removed circuits in the wireway.
 
The safety rules have made it impossible to do anything at all live on 480V gear unless your a multi million-dollar company with moonsuits.
A large facility that we work on (think regional airport) has changed their safety policy such that we (contractors) can't work on anything 480V hot.
Another unrelated old building we work on was originally 240V three phase, then upgraded to 480V for a set of machines with a 240 transformer to supply the old part of the building including HVAC and elevators.
The 480V machines are long gone and the building is getting a new elevator, instead of upgrading the elevator to 480 the EE is scrapping out the entire 480V service and going back to a 240V due to cost, working clearance and safety rules around 480 gear.
I had a number of proposals on this that were watered down to the shock protection barriers. Had my proposals been accepted the service disconnect would have been in its own metal enclosure, either an enclosure within the overall service equipment or a completely separate enclosure. The Canadian Code requires this type of separation for the service disconnect.
 
Things I learned today:
* 2017 NEC requires lug covers on the service conductors of service disconnects (thank you suemarkp - and I confirmed it was 2017).
* For this particular installation, the equipment has a sticker listing it as suitable for use as service entrance - but "suitable for use as" is not the same as "service entrance rated". But the manufacturer stated by adding lug covers - which are readily available - it is service entrance rated. They will run this past the local inspector.

Owner still wants a disconnect ahead of the main service panel. Owner wants this disconnect located inside, adjacent to the service. We are debating if it needs to be fused or non-fused, or if it needs to be service rated. They will run past the inspector. My thoughts are if they field-label the heck out of it "safety switch only, not service entrance" and provide a one-line, there would be minimal future confusion, and no safety issues, and it is probably code compliant.

Whew!
 
.

Owner still wants a disconnect ahead of the main service panel. Owner wants this disconnect located inside, adjacent to the service. We are debating if it needs to be fused or non-fused, or if it needs to be service rated. They will run past the inspector. My thoughts are if they field-label the heck out of it "safety switch only, not service entrance" and provide a one-line, there would be minimal future confusion, and no safety issues, and it is probably code compliant.

Whew!
I already answered these questions, See post #6 (whether it is inside or outside makes no difference). Also see 230.82, and note the implications of this, that you can't put a disconnect ahead of a service disconnect. I would put a fused disconnect or enclosed circuit breaker as your service disconnect and then skip the main breaker in the distribution panel and make it MLO.

I think "suitable for use as service equipment" is the only phrase there is. I don't think there is technically any meaning to "service entrance rated", but is it it is often used as a synonym for "suitable for use as service equipment".
 
I think "suitable for use as service equipment" is the only phrase there is. I don't think there is technically any meaning to "service entrance rated", but is it it is often used as a synonym for "suitable for use as service equipment".
The UL terms have been "Suitable for use as Service Entrance" or Suitable only for Service Entrance" the difference was a field installable/removable neutral to ground link versus a non removable factory installed one. The addition of 'lug covers' is fairly recent.
 
What is the point of something having to be marked suitable for use as service equipment? Couldn't one just field install a jumper where bonding is necessary if the manufacturer didn't provide an integral bonding means?
There are some switches and panels that don't have the minimum SCCR needed for service equipment even if you could provide a bonding jumper. Think it is a "Listing" requirement.
 
What is the point of something having to be marked suitable for use as service equipment? Couldn't one just field install a jumper where bonding is necessary if the manufacturer didn't provide an integral bonding means?
There are other construction issues that can affect larger, like those over 400A, equipment; utility barriers and neutral isolation are some that come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Owner still wants a disconnect ahead of the main service panel. Owner wants this disconnect located inside, adjacent to the service.
This a new smart design call, the service disconnect has to be in its own enclosure due to NFPA 70E, the owner is spending more now to save on never ending safety compliance costs. All that needs to be service rated now is that first disconnect, which will now be the service disconnect.
 
Top