Six Disconnect Rule

[jap]

I don't think it really matters for the theoretical discussion, I see no language in the NEC where the location of the meter determines anything. As I said, it would look a lot more like 8 services with a meter on each structure but there's no code language to give that any clout.

If the metering location doesn't determine anything, and the buildings are 8 different premises, why then couldn't the Padmount be Ct'd to cover the electrical charges for all 8 premises and a service disconnect be placed on each of the individual buildings at different locations ?

Oh well,,,,

JAP>

 

[jaggedben]

If the metering location doesn't determine anything, and the buildings are 8 different premises, why then couldn't the Padmount be Ct'd to cover the electrical charges for all 8 premises and a service disconnect be placed on each of the individual buildings at different locations ?

Oh well,,,,

JAP>

I would guess because it's very much against most utility record keeping practices to have more than one service for a meter, but not for any other reason.

Also the AHJ would have to agree that the buildings are each a premise. AHJ may choose to define that by property line. NEC gives no guidance on that.

This is all at the nexus of things that the NEC does and does not cover or strictly define. So the customer would have to get utility and building department to be all on the same page as to how many premises and services there are. The NEC does not really say how to do that.

 

[wwhitney]

If the conductors leave the spades of a padmount transformer and go dirrectly to the lugs of a main breaker in a switchboard, where is the trasition from "Service" conductors to "Service Entrance" conductors?

There may be no Service Entrance Conductors in that scenario. See the fine print note after "Service Entrance Conductors, Underground System."

If I understand correctly, the sticking point in this discussion is 230.71, which starts off (2020 and 2023 NEC) "Each service shall have only one disconnecting means unless the requirements of 230.71(B) are met." And then 230.71(B) starts off "Two to six service disconnects shall be permitted for each service permitted by 230.2 or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No 1, 3, 4, or 5."

I find it odd that 230.71(B) doesn't address the idea of multiple overhead or underground service conductors connected to a single service drop or service lateral, respectively. However, we can read 230.71(B) as allowing the 8 service disconnects in the OP's example, without even addressing whether that example is 1 service or 8 services, and whether it is 1 premises or 8 premises.

Namely, 230.71(B) allows multiple service disconnects per "service permitted by 230.2". Note that is says "permitted by 230.2" not "actually installed." Since 230.2 would permit one service per building, we can have 2-6 service disconnects per building per 230.71(B). And since we have met the "requirements of 230.71(B)" we are freed from the restriction of one disconnecting means per service, so one service disconnect per building is also OK.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

I would guess because it's very much against most utility record keeping practices to have more than one service for a meter, but not for any other reason.

Also the AHJ would have to agree that the buildings are each a premise. AHJ may choose to define that by property line. NEC gives no guidance on that.

This is all at the nexus of things that the NEC does and does not cover or strictly define. So the customer would have to get utility and building department to be all on the same page as to how many premises and services there are. The NEC does not really say how to do that.

One service per meter to a utility has a different meaning than what service means in the NEC.

Can have 30 apartments all on one service (per NEC) but utility is providing their service to 30 separate account holders.

 

[wwhitney]

To reiterate and briefly summarize my analysis, 230.71(B) allows at least one service disconnecting means per service allowed by 230.2, and 230.2 allows one service per building, so we are always allowed at least one service disconnecting means per building.

Edit: but maybe this would all be clearer if 230.71 were changed to start off "Each building shall have only one service disconnecting means unless . . ." rather than "Each service"?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

To reiterate and briefly summarize my analysis, 230.71(B) allows at least one service disconnecting means per service allowed by 230.2, and 230.2 allows one service per building, so we are always allowed at least one service disconnecting means per building.

Edit: but maybe this would all be clearer if 230.71 were changed to start off "Each building shall have only one service disconnecting means unless . . ." rather than "Each service"?

Cheers, Wayne

When there is allowance for more than one service to a building you are permitted 1 to 6 disconnects per allowed service.

I don't believe there is any requirement to group all the services together though - in fact for things like a fire pump they sort of want it to be separated from the other service disconnects so it doesn't inadvertently get disconnected in a time when it may need to be utilized.

 

[Mr. Serious]

I have NEVER seen a residential service with service point on the load side of a meter socket

It's extremely common around here. For underground services, not overhead. For overhead services, the customer also owns the wires inside the riser (and the riser itself), but for underground services, the utility owns the underground wires between the transformer and the meter, the utility owns the meter and the meter can, and the customer only owns the wires and conduit and whatever they feed on the load side of the meter.

 

[jaggedben]

It's extremely common around here. For underground services, not overhead. For overhead services, the customer also owns the wires inside the riser (and the riser itself), but for underground services, the utility owns the underground wires between the transformer and the meter, the utility owns the meter and the meter can, and the customer only owns the wires and conduit and whatever they feed on the load side of the meter.

If the customer owns the meter can, then perhaps the service point is the *line* lugs of the meter. But not the load lugs like I said in my post.

 

[Mr. Serious]

The utility normally owns the meter and the meter can around here. I understand in other areas it's common for the customer to own the meter can.