Six Disconnect Rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
ggunn said:
Conductors from a utility transformer ahead of any OCPD are service conductors. Is there a difference between service conductors and service entrance conductors?
Click to expand...
We had a thread on this a bit ago, but I can't remember the specifics. Actually that is largely why I originally disagreed with @jaggedben on as my recollection was there was a lot more leeway if one could avoid having SEC's. But perhaps I am not recalling that thread correctly or we forgot about the grouping requirements in that thread....
 
electrofelon said:
It depends where the service point is. If there is a lateral heading to each building, then each building has its own service. If these are underground service conductors, then they are customer owned and it's all one service and the disconnects for that service need to be grouped (unless a 230.40 exception applies
Click to expand...
I don't even think the service point matters.

The fact it is multi occupancy lets you have service to each occupancy - if you have separate drop/lateral or overhead/underground service conductors to them.

So you can have one service point on one set of conductors that feeds one to six service disconnects at one location or you can have 8 service points that feeds one to six service disconnects at each occupancy.

Meters? you could have a hundred meters and NEC wouldn't really care, it's all about service conductors and disconnecting means meters are just a bulge in the conductors so to speak.
 
To paraphrase the NEC definitions...

Service Conductors are never utility owned.
A Service Drop or a Service Lateral is utility owned, but are not NEC Service conductors.

Service Conductors can be Overhead, Underground, or Service Entrance Conductors.

Service Entrance Conductors are service conductors that aren't underground or overhead.
 
jap said:
This is exhausting.

After all this I think it's just best to meet with the power company and inspecotr and say "Hey,,, what can we do here?"

JAP>
Click to expand...
That's probably best. POCO can sort of supply with whatever they want, once on your side of the service point NEC kicks in.

Not all inspectors are created equal plus you can have local rules that are different than code anyway. At least you are hopefully on same page if you get together before making a final design for this. That is supposedly an advantage for places that want plans approval before you begin.
 
jaggedben said:
To paraphrase the NEC definitions...

Service Conductors are never utility owned.
A Service Drop or a Service Lateral is utility owned, but are not NEC Service conductors.

Service Conductors can be Overhead, Underground, or Service Entrance Conductors.

Service Entrance Conductors are service conductors that aren't underground or overhead.
Click to expand...
Those definitions were tweaked back when they added the term "service point" which I believe was sometime around 2005 or 2008 NEC. 2011 maybe the latest. It was an attempt to clarify what is POCO components and what does NEC apply to. For the most part it is working IMO, presuming an actual service point is defined for each installation.
 
kwired said:
I don't even think the service point matters.

...

So you can have one service point on one set of conductors that feeds one to six service disconnects at one location or you can have 8 service points that feeds one to six service disconnects at each occupancy.
Click to expand...

You're second paragraph here completely contradicts your first one.

The fact it is multi occupancy lets you have service to each occupancy - if you have separate drop/lateral or overhead/underground service conductors to them.
Click to expand...
Only correct for service drop/lateral because those are utility owned, between the service point and utility.

Overhead and underground are customer owned between the service point and the service equipment (disconnect). That's the whole difference in meaning between the terms. So no, you cannot have as many overhead or underground service conductors as you want on a single service, if you need more than 6 disconnects for them.

230 71, via 230.40 exception 1, allows mutliple service entrance conductor sets for mutliple occupancies *on the same building.* It does not give the same consideration for multiple non-residential buildings. So to get more disconnects for mutliple buildings you have to have an additonal *service*. And the service point matters.
 
jaggedben said:
To paraphrase the NEC definitions...

Service Conductors are never utility owned.
A Service Drop or a Service Lateral is utility owned, but are not NEC Service conductors.

Service Conductors can be Overhead, Underground, or Service Entrance Conductors.

Service Entrance Conductors are service conductors that aren't underground or overhead.
Click to expand...

At what point do "Service Conductors" become "Service Entrance Conductors" if they can't be underground or overhead?

On an underground feed do they become "Service Entrance Conductors" inside the pipe at ground level?

JAP>
 
jaggedben said:
You're second paragraph here completely contradicts your first one.


Only correct for service drop/lateral because those are utility owned, between the service point and utility.

Overhead and underground are customer owned between the service point and the service equipment (disconnect). That's the whole difference in meaning between the terms. So no, you cannot have as many overhead or underground service conductors as you want on a single service, if you need more than 6 disconnects for them.

230 71, via 230.40 exception 1, allows mutliple service entrance conductor sets for mutliple occupancies *on the same building.* It does not give the same consideration for multiple non-residential buildings. So to get more disconnects for mutliple buildings you have to have an additonal *service*. And the service point matters.
Click to expand...
I do not see 230.40 exception 1 being limited to residential buildings. In fact I don't see it being limited to any occupancy type.

You can have one set of supply conductors to each service that is permitted by 230.2 and each permitted service can have up to six disconnecting means is more or less a summary of what this all says, there is no mentioning of occupancy type.

Your 8 unit example can be apartments/condos or it can be professionals offices doesn't really matter. Could even be a mix of each and still doesn't matter.
 
kwired said:
I do not see 230.40 exception 1 being limited to residential buildings. In fact I don't see it being limited to any occupancy type.

You can have one set of supply conductors to each service that is permitted by 230.2 and each permitted service can have up to six disconnecting means is more or less a summary of what this all says, there is no mentioning of occupancy type.

Your 8 unit example can be apartments/condos or it can be professionals offices doesn't really matter. Could even be a mix of each and still doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
But it has to be ONE BUILDING.
 
If the conductors coming from each of the (8) Service Disconnects located at each of the (8) seperate buidings landed on the Transformer pads in the Utility Transformer itself, then, the transformer pads in the transfomer is the service point.

There would be no transition from a "Service Conductor" (Overhead or Lateral) to a "Service Entrance Conductor" because we dont hava a lateral or an overhead, only a Service feeding a building.

The Rules indicates that "Service conductors" should only supply (1) "Service", "Service Drop" or "Service Lateral"

Since we wouldnt have a service drop or service lateral in the (8) Seperate building scenario, each building would be fed by a single "Service".

I see nothing that limits the number of buildings that could be fed by a single service.

JAP?
 
Last edited:
electrofelon said:
But it has to be ONE BUILDING.
Click to expand...
Why can't a separate building have a separate supply to it - whether it is utility supply or something else?

POCO or local rules may vary with requirements but I don't see NEC really caring about this.

Size of building, size of plot it sits on, etc. shouldn't matter. Things can get sub divided or combined as far as ownership goes over time anyway.

NEC simply sees multiple occupancy in same building as being allowed to have service run separately to each occupant.

You still have a similar choice if you put 8 buildings on same parcel of land but otherwise utilize them in similar fashion, you can have service to each or you can have just one service and feeders to each building.
 
kwired said:
Why can't a separate building have a separate supply to it - whether it is utility supply or something else?

POCO or local rules may vary with requirements but I don't see NEC really caring about this.

Size of building, size of plot it sits on, etc. shouldn't matter. Things can get sub divided or combined as far as ownership goes over time anyway.

NEC simply sees multiple occupancy in same building as being allowed to have service run separately to each occupant.

You still have a similar choice if you put 8 buildings on same parcel of land but otherwise utilize them in similar fashion, you can have service to each or you can have just one service and feeders to each building.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth I completely agree.

JAP>
 
kwired said:
Why can't a separate building have a separate supply to it - whether it is utility supply or something else?
Click to expand...
Utility supply, or course. If there is one service, you have to comply with this

230.72 Grouping of Disconnects.
(A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in 230.71 shall be grouped.

Unless you call each "run" its own service, but if the xform pads are the service point, I don't see how you can call it multiple services
 
kwired said:
Why can't a separate building have a separate supply to it - whether it is utility supply or something else?

....
Click to expand...

It can. Say, by applying to the utility for multiple services. But it seems that in jap's scenario he is saying there is one service. And the NEC doesn't have any allowance for one service to have (8) disconnects on separate non-residential buildings. The allowance for mutliple occupancies is only on one building, where the disconnects can be grouped.
 
The more I think about it, the more it comes down to how you file the "paperwork". And, although the NEC doesn't care, how it will be metered (because the utility cares).

If you ask the utility for (8) seperate services to (8) different buildings at a facility, and the utility decides to install (1) utility owned transformer, to which they will gladly hook up (8) sets of customer owned underground service conductors, I don't see that contradicting the NEC. Afaik the NEC does not exactly say that multiple services can't share a service point. The utility could supply (8) services from one transformer or (4) services each from (2) transformers, or whatever, but you asked for and got (8) services.

Then when the AHJ shows up and asks you why you have (8) ungrouped disconnects you say "these are separate services, see here's all the separate sets of paperwork from the utility. They connected my (8) services to their supply, it's not my business how their supply is set up."

But if you asked the utility for (1) service to feed (8) buildings, then when the AHJ asks the question you don't have the right paperwork. Simple as that.

In reality if you ask for (1) meter for all (8) buidlings then the utility is probably going to insist you have only one service. So if you don't want to provide a central disconnect per the NEC then the way around it might be to ask the utility for (8) services, with a meter on each building, all one one account.
 
jaggedben said:
The more I think about it, the more it comes down to how you file the "paperwork". And, although the NEC doesn't care, how it will be metered (because the utility cares).

If you ask the utility for (8) seperate services to (8) different buildings at a facility, and the utility decides to install (1) utility owned transformer, to which they will gladly hook up (8) sets of customer owned underground service conductors, I don't see that contradicting the NEC. Afaik the NEC does not exactly say that multiple services can't share a service point. The utility could supply (8) services from one transformer or (4) services each from (2) transformers, or whatever, but you asked for and got (8) services.

Then when the AHJ shows up and asks you why you have (8) ungrouped disconnects you say "these are separate services, see here's all the separate sets of paperwork from the utility. They connected my (8) services to their supply, it's not my business how their supply is set up."

But if you asked the utility for (1) service to feed (8) buildings, then when the AHJ asks the question you don't have the right paperwork. Simple as that.

In reality if you ask for (1) meter for all (8) buidlings then the utility is probably going to insist you have only one service. So if you don't want to provide a central disconnect per the NEC then the way around it might be to ask the utility for (8) services, with a meter on each building, all one one account.
Click to expand...

Dang it,,,, it all made sense until the very last sentence.

Since this would be considered "one" service, why would the metering change the requirements on the number of disconnects and their location?

JAP>
 
A service is a connection to a utility, one circuit. A meter can only meter one circuit. (Well, in practice anyway, I don't think a utility will agree to have mutliple circuits on one meter, CT or otherwise.) So if you ask for one meter, the utility can pretty much only give you one service. Once the whole thing is defined as a single service, the six disconnect limit comes into play.

Mind you I think this is all kindof unintended loopholes, but that is how the code is written.
 
jaggedben said:
A service is a connection to a utility, one circuit. A meter can only meter one circuit. (Well, in practice anyway, I don't think a utility will agree to have mutliple circuits on one meter, CT or otherwise.) So if you ask for one meter, the utility can pretty much only give you one service. Once the whole thing is defined as a single service, the six disconnect limit comes into play.

Mind you I think this is all kindof unintended loopholes, but that is how the code is written.
Click to expand...
Six disconnects for each set of service entrance conductors where there have been multiple sets of service entrance conductors installed per Exceptions 1, 3, 4, or, 5 of 230.40.
There is no limit on the number of sets of service entrance conductors that can be supplied by a single service.
 
jaggedben said:
The more I think about it, the more it comes down to how you file the "paperwork". And, although the NEC doesn't care, how it will be metered (because the utility cares).
Click to expand...
Looking at the definition of "service", with 8 different buildings, why can't we simply say, NEC-wise, that we have 8 separate premises, and 8 separate services, regardless of meters or how the utility paperwork is filed?

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top