Supplying multiple meter banks with tap conductors off a feeder

[PCBelarge]

At the end of an IAEI meeting, one of the contractors was in discussion with a few of the members in regard to feeder taps supplying meter banks. They had already formulated an answer, then asked me. what I thought would or would not be permitted.
Scenario:
feeders off of distribution to supply a number of meter banks - I believe 164 meters.
The contractor wanted to supply the meter banks with feeder taps taken from a feeder. 25ft taps. They had agreed it is permissible. I mentioned the tap needed to be terminated to an overcurrent device. One of the group is an individual I believe to be very knowledgeable, said it is done all the time, although I have never seen it done. Because of his comment, it made me wonder, is there something I am missing that does permit that type of installation?

 

[infinity]

Since you mentioned feeder taps there is an OCPD ahead of these taps?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

While it is probably a common practice, it does not seem to comply with the requirements in 240.21(B)(2)(2) as the conductors do not terminate on an OCPD.
It would comply with the 10' tap rule as long as the tap conductors have the same ampacity as rating of the meter assembly.

 

[LarryFine]

Under the theory that the NEC sees meters as "lumps in the service cable", could the breakers in the stacks immediately following the meters qualify as the required OCPD?

 

[jaggedben]

Under the theory that the NEC sees meters as "lumps in the service cable", could the breakers in the stacks immediately following the meters qualify as the required OCPD?

Yes but there is more than one in a meter bank, and typically no main overcurrent device. With regard to relevant requirements here, 'meter bank' can be replaced with 'MLO panelboard'. Tapping to an MLO panelboard is not legal with a 25ft tap.

The NEC doesn't care diddly squat that there are meters.

 

[jaggedben]

With a 10ft tap it would arguably be legal.

 

[steve66]

If the meter is the service point, does the NEC even apply to these conductors?

Or do they fall under the POCO rules?

Or another possibility - could they count as a single service lateral per 230.2?

 

[jaggedben]

It's essentially impossible for the meters to be service points when there's 164 of them. The implication throughout this thread has been that the service point and service equipment are up stream of the meters.

 

[steve66]

I think these would still be considered service conductors. So they wouldn't be feeder taps, and the tap rules aren't needed. 240.21 D applies instead of the tap rules.

Now that I look back, maybe that is where Infinity was heading?

 

[electrofelon]

I think these would still be considered service conductors. So they wouldn't be feeder taps, and the tap rules aren't needed. 240.21 D applies instead of the tap rules.

Now that I look back, maybe that is where Infinity was heading?

Like JB said, I can't imagine they are feeding 164 meters with service conductors, that would be non compliant in many ways.

 

[jaggedben]

The NEC attaches no significance to the presence of a meter. A meter does not define the service point or the category of conductor whatsoever.

For what it's worth, with the utilities in my area, the service point would only be at a meter if it's an underground service with a single utility meter. If it's a meter bank with no more than six meters that each have a breaker, then the service point could be at the main lugs of the meter bank if it's an underground service. If there are more than six meters, I've always seen a service disconnecting means upstream of the meters.

 

[steve66]

Like JB said, I can't imagine they are feeding 164 meters with service conductors, that would be non compliant in many ways.

Well, I didn't say they were running a separate set of conductors to each meter. (Obviously the 6 disconnect rule will come into play somehow). But I don't see what that has to do with these being service conductors.

Maybe check out the definition of service conductors, and exhibit 230.2 in the handbook.

 

[jaggedben]

Well, I didn't say they were running a separate set of conductors to each meter.

How else would it be done!?
Otherwise what would be the point of the meters?

(Obviously the 6 disconnect rule will come into play somehow). But I don't see what that has to do with these being service conductors.

The bold part does not really belong in parentheses. It's key.

Maybe check out the definition of service conductors, and exhibit 230.2 in the handbook.

Good idea for you.

How are they going to meet the six disconnect rule if they are running 164 circuits with service or service entrance conductors? Think it through.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe there is a main distribution panel ahead of the meters therefore these are feeders and not service conductors, I believe.

 

[steve66]

I believe there is a main distribution panel ahead of the meters therefore these are feeders and not service conductors, I believe.

That would change everything if there is a breaker ahead of these conductors, but the original post just says “ distribution”, which I take to mean utility distribution.

I’m picturing conductors to a bus, and then main breakers that each serve multiple meter banks. each breaker could serve a 20 meter bank, and 2 separate services cover all 164 meters.

 

[wwhitney]

That would change everything if there is a breaker ahead of these conductors, but the original post just says “ distribution

Yet the subject says "taps off a feeder", so that implies there is a single OCPD ahead of the feeder.

Cheers, Wayne