Six Disconnect Rule

[jaggedben]

I took it to be the box where the service conductors enter the building (either from underneath or the other side of the wall). Perhaps it contains the service point, where the utility owned conductors are spliced to the customer owned conductors. I suppose I could be wrong.

And it would not have to be moved if a disconnect can fit above it. The box could stick out 6" farther than the disco. (110.26(A)(3)). The disco could be built out from the wall on strut if needed to achieve 6" or less.

 

[Electricalhelp]

The landlord has inquired why we can't consolidate at least three disconnects into one, and then separately feed the three meters.

But the problem is we still have 8 meters with 6 disconnect.

 

[ggunn]

The landlord has inquired why we can't consolidate at least three disconnects into one, and then separately feed the three meters.

But the problem is we still have 8 meters with 6 disconnect.

Eight meters isn't a problem; more than six disconnects is. I wonder, though, if what you describe, all in, with the rework necessary to build it, would be significantly cheaper than just wiring a single disco ahead of the split.

 

[Electricalhelp]

Eight meters isn't a problem; more than six disconnects is. I wonder, though, if what you describe, all in, with the rework necessary to build it, would be significantly cheaper than just wiring a single disco ahead of the split.

Awesome...I think we will go with this solution.

So we don't have to wait for the utility company for a new meter when we combine the electrical service.

 

[jaggedben]

Metering arrangements are completely outside the scope of the NEC but your utility and local jurisdiction may have rules about it.

 

[kwired]

Your utility co may or may not allow the disconnect ahead of the meters.

The main thing driving this typically is potential access to unmetered conductors.

A meter center with a main ahead of meters is designed to not have access to unmetered conductors without breaking POCO seals to do so and is generally accepted by most POCO's. A single enclosed breaker or fused disconnect however won't be acceptable to most POCO's.

 

[electrofelon]

Awesome...I think we will go with this solution.

So we don't have to wait for the utility company for a new meter when we combine the electrical service.

Your utility co may or may not allow the disconnect ahead of the meters.

The main thing driving this typically is potential access to unmetered conductors.

A meter center with a main ahead of meters is designed to not have access to unmetered conductors without breaking POCO seals to do so and is generally accepted by most POCO's. A single enclosed breaker or fused disconnect however won't be acceptable to most POCO's.

Yeah bottom line is OP needs to discuss options with the POCO. People are often in for a rude awakening when they come up with a plan of how they want to do things, or worse do it, involving meters and POCO won't allow.

 

[ggunn]

Yeah bottom line is OP needs to discuss options with the POCO. People are often in for a rude awakening when they come up with a plan of how they want to do things, or worse do it, involving meters and POCO won't allow.

I agree: any time you want to do anything with service conductors, you should probably consult the POCO's regulations to make sure they will allow it.

 

[JoeStillman]

All the POCO's I've worked with are ok with the main upstream of all the meters. They just want to put their seal on it. Nobody ever went to jail for cutting that little plastic tab off so they could do work safely.

 

[kwired]

All the POCO's I've worked with are ok with the main upstream of all the meters. They just want to put their seal on it. Nobody ever went to jail for cutting that little plastic tab off so they could do work safely.

NEC says the occupant(s) need access to their disconnecting means and overcurrent protection devices. Breaker enclosure that allows access to the handle or has external operator is probably fine, they wouldn't need to get inside to operate or reset. Typical fused disconnect - you need to get inside to replace fuses if they blow.

 

[electricalintern]

I have a building with 8 meters and 1 blank meter, lacking a service disconnect.

Due to the NEC 2020 revision, a meter bank is not permitted as it no longer allows a single enclosure to house grouped disconnects.

The client wishes to avoid adding a service disconnect.

Here are some reference pictures.

What options are available? Is it feasible to combine some services to limit the total number of meters to 6?

Is it allowed to have up to six service disconnects in a single room, alongside other disconnects? How would one determine which disconnect to trip in the event of a fire?

 

[Mr. Serious]

Is it allowed to have up to six service disconnects in a single room, alongside other disconnects? How would one determine which disconnect to trip in the event of a fire?

If there's a fire and you don't know which one to turn off, you turn off all of them. The service disconnects are required to be labeled. If they're missing the labels, then I guess theoretically you could have a whole wall full of a hundred disconnects, and not know which six kill all the power. But if you see this situation, the installation likely never met code.

 

[jap]

If these were (8) seperate structures, and, the power was CT'd at the Utility Transfomer, would setting an individual service disconnect at the 8 seperate building locations be code compliant? or would you still need (1) means of disconnect large enough to service all (8) Building?

JAP>

 

[jaggedben]

If these were (8) seperate structures, and, the power was CT'd at the Utility Transfomer, would setting an individual service disconnect at the 8 seperate building locations be code compliant?

Not unless the different buildings fit exception 1, 3, or 4 under 230.40. So in the OPs case, I'm guessing not.

or would you still need (1) means of disconnect large enough to service all (8) Building?

JAP>

You would still need (6) or less, not (1).

 

[jap]

I get so lost in this.

If you had a storage unit facility under single management that had 8 seperate storage units that required a 200 amp service to each unit.

Ct'ing at the pad mount and running 8 individual runs of service conductors to each unit and setting an individual service disconnect at each of the units is a violation?
and,
If so, why is it a violation?

JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

Not unless the different buildings fit exception 1, 3, or 4 under 230.40. So in the OPs case, I'm guessing not.


You would still need (6) or less, not (1).

I disagree. Note 230.40 is for service entrance conductors. Conductors from an outside transformer to an exterior service disconnect would not be service entrance conductors, and I see no restriction on number of sets or grouping requirements for service conductors.

 

[jap]

I disagree. Note 230.40 is for service entrance conductors. Conductors from an outside transformer to an exterior service disconnect would not be service entrance conductors, and I see no restriction on number of sets or grouping requirements for service conductors.

So, does the 6 movement rule start immediately at the load side of the utility transformer? and determined by the numbe or "Service" Disconnects?
or
Does the 6 movement rule start at the end of the individual service lateral from the utility xfmr run to the individual units if wired that way?

That's my delima.

JAP>

 

[jap]

In this scenario do we have (8) service disconnects that aren't a violation?
or
(8) Service disconnects that breech the (6) movement rule and "is" a violation.

JAP>

 

[jaggedben]

I disagree. Note 230.40 is for service entrance conductors. Conductors from an outside transformer to an exterior service disconnect would not be service entrance conductors, and I see no restriction on number of sets or grouping requirements for service conductors.

I don't know how you figure that. Maybe review the definition. Admittedly jap was a bit vauge about where the service point is so maybe we're making different assumptions there.

 

[electrofelon]

I don't know how you figure that. Maybe review the definition. Admittedly jap was a bit vauge about where the service point is so maybe we're making different assumptions there.

It is confusing and there are lots of definitions to muddle through. Without having time at the moment to fully analyze, my thinking is that if there are no service entrance conductors, then 230.40 can't apply to anything. For there to be no service entrance conductors, I would say the service disconnect at each building would have to be outside.