jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
I have a site with a 400A switch at the service, unfused I believe.
The conductors from this switch go through a utility CT cabinet and then into a gutter where they are spliced into two sets of conductors that feed (2) 200A panels. These panels do not have main breakers, which is an obvious code violation if the switch is unfused. But I'm looking at adding main breakers to make this compliant. We'd also add a third disconnect (fused) for a solar system. The latter would all be grouped, and only 4-5ft from the 400A switch.
Do you think this would be code compliant? I believe code says that service overload protection must be in or immediately adjacent to the disconnecting means, but I don't have code handy. Does this qualify?
Or do I argue that the switch is not the service disconnecting means? I guess I might have to move N-G bonding.
Opinions wanted.
The conductors from this switch go through a utility CT cabinet and then into a gutter where they are spliced into two sets of conductors that feed (2) 200A panels. These panels do not have main breakers, which is an obvious code violation if the switch is unfused. But I'm looking at adding main breakers to make this compliant. We'd also add a third disconnect (fused) for a solar system. The latter would all be grouped, and only 4-5ft from the 400A switch.
Do you think this would be code compliant? I believe code says that service overload protection must be in or immediately adjacent to the disconnecting means, but I don't have code handy. Does this qualify?
Or do I argue that the switch is not the service disconnecting means? I guess I might have to move N-G bonding.
Opinions wanted.