Surge Protectors on House panels

[Josabrock77]

Well Mike holt replied to my email and this was his response …,.
I also spoke my the state electrical inspector and he is in complete agreement that it’s not required,,

I then showed the ahj , the response from the state ahj and MHolt… his response was
“Agree to disagree, it’s required”
Lmaooooo these guys are unbelievable

 

[infinity]

Well Mike holt replied to my email and this was his response …,.
I also spoke my the state electrical inspector and he is in complete agreement that it’s not required,,

I then showed the ahj , the response from the state ahj and MHolt… his response was
“Agree to disagree, it’s required”
Lmaooooo these guys are unbelievable

People get stuff wrong all of the time but this one is pretty straightforward. Sounds like this person won't listen to simple reasoning or cannot understand what the words in the NEC actually say.

 

[electrofelon]

The SPD manufacturers must be doing well. I can't even begin to imagine what drove the SPD requirements other than greed.

SquareD/Schneider tried to get this in for many many code cycles and it finally paid off.

 

[electrofelon]

I tend to think that the code language would not require an SPD for the house metered panel.
Related to this discussion, I would add that in the 2023 edition a multi family building now requires a SPD in the panel of each unit-not just, say, a single SPD at the main of the meter center. This is a pretty significant change. So if the EC thought he could use one SPD at the service in a hundred unit building he will now need 100 of them.

Might be a stupid question but the house panel has its own meter right? I feel like that’s where the division is. It effectively has its own service, and that service is separate from the dwelling unit services, so it shouldn’t be treated as such.

You would almost always have ONE SERVICE for a multifamily dwelling so ONLY ONE SPD WOULD BE REQUIRED. Take your pick which panel you put it in. Seems very clear to me, its what the code says plain as day.

 

[Josabrock77]

You would almost always have ONE SERVICE for a multifamily dwelling so ONLY ONE SPD WOULD BE REQUIRED. Take your pick which panel you put it in. Seems very clear to me, it’s what the code says plain as they are making us put a SPD on every panel in a dwelling,

 

[Josabrock77]

They are making us put a SPD on ea panel .. unit1 unit2 unit3 and house

 

[infinity]

SquareD/Schneider tried to get this in for many many code cycles and it finally paid off.

Is that where is came from? I can't imagine what their substantiation was, maybe people buy fancy TVs so they dont even know it but they need this.

 

[Choice_Gorilla]

You would almost always have ONE SERVICE for a multifamily dwelling so ONLY ONE SPD WOULD BE REQUIRED. Take your pick which panel you put it in. Seems very clear to me, its what the code says plain as day.

I understand there’s only one service, I chose poor terminology. The point that I was trying make was that if the house panel has its own meter, then the area it serves could be treated as its own occupancy whose premises wiring doesn’t fit the NEC’s definition of a dwelling unit. Therefore it wouldn’t require a SPD. I’m not sure but it sounds like RI has adopted the 2023 NEC which now requires dwelling units fed by a feeder to have their own SPD. You can no longer just install one per service.

 

[electrofelon]

I understand there’s only one service, I chose poor terminology. The point that I was trying make was that if the house panel has its own meter, then the area it serves could be treated as its own occupancy whose premises wiring doesn’t fit the NEC’s definition of a dwelling unit. Therefore it wouldn’t require a SPD. I’m not sure but it sounds like RI has adopted the 2023 NEC which now requires dwelling units fed by a feeder to have their own SPD. You can no longer just install one per service.

Yeah I agree with your point too , which should still hold on the 2023 NEC. For 2020 it's only one spd per service, that's the clearest thing I've encountered in my life.

 

[hillbilly1]

Is that where is came from? I can't imagine what their substantiation was, maybe people buy fancy TVs so they dont even know it but they need this.

Arc fault breaker failures, supposedly to reduce that is what I’m figuring. Since they are electronic.

 

[retirede]

Arc fault breaker failures, supposedly to reduce that is what I’m figuring. Since they are electronic.

So they make the consumer pay them money for the SPD and, it reduces the warranty claims they have to pay out. How ingeniously greedy!

 

[texie]

You would almost always have ONE SERVICE for a multifamily dwelling so ONLY ONE SPD WOULD BE REQUIRED. Take your pick which panel you put it in. Seems very clear to me, its what the code says plain as day.

That would not be true under the 2023 NEC. Each unit would need an SPD in the panel within the unit.

 

[electrofelon]

That would not be true under the 2023 NEC. Each unit would need an SPD in the panel within the unit.

Yes, I acknowledged in post #29

 

[gadfly56]

Well Mike holt replied to my email and this was his response …,.
I also spoke my the state electrical inspector and he is in complete agreement that it’s not required,,

I then showed the ahj , the response from the state ahj and MHolt… his response was
“Agree to disagree, it’s required”
Lmaooooo these guys are unbelievable

If you have, in writing, a ruling from the state AHJ, you should file a formal complaint against this joker and let the state deal with him. In NJ you can, IIRC, have the state step in as the AHJ for your project and sign off on the permit.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The SPD manufacturers must be doing well. I can't even begin to imagine what drove the SPD requirements other than greed.

The PI was submitted by an IBEW member and the substantiation was:

Electronic life saving equipment such as fire alarm systems, IDCI’s, GFCI’s, AFCI’s and smoke alarms, may be
damaged when a surge occurs due to lighting, internal local switching as well as external utility switching. Other
equipment is also damaged when subjected to surge. In many cases, electronic devices and equipment can be
damaged and rendered inoperable by a surge and yet this damage is undetected by the owner. It is practical to require
a SPD to provide a general level of protection. In almost all new service installations, as well as service upgrades, no
consideration is given to providing a general level of protection to the “whole structure” which would include those
devices that cannot be afforded a cord connected Type 3 SPD protection. First level subdivision (D) is included to
require that when a service is upgraded, an SPD is to be installed.
For example, in 2002, the product standard for GFCI’s was revised due to documented failures of devices that were
occurred when the devices were subjected to transients. The fact that the electrical industry redesigned GFCI
technology to address well documented damage to these life saving devices is reason enough to require whole
house/structure SPD protection. The changes that were made do not prevent the GFCI from being damaged but rather
provide a requirement for these devices to self-test and determine if they were damaged and are no longer functioning
properly.
Studies by recognized authorities including NEMA, IEEE, and UL, all substantiate the fact that surges can and do
cause significant damage. Nationwide Insurance organizations recognize the need for effective surge protection as
well and have published recommendations that include point-of-use surge protectors and installation of surge
protection at service equipment.
The NEC must mandate a minimum requirement for surge protection in all services. It is “practical” to provide this
minimum and feasible level of protection for all electronic life saving devices already mandated within the NEC. See
Section 90.1 of the NEC,

 

[don_resqcapt19]

SquareD/Schneider tried to get this in for many many code cycles and it finally paid off.

I don't recall that. Can you supply PI numbers and code cycles? I did find previous PIs from the IBEW member and a guy who works for the Retrofit Division at Smith & Loveless Inc, but did not find any PIs from a manufacturer.

 

[texie]

Yes, I acknowledged in post #29

Sorry, I misunderstood you. We are on the same page now.

 

[petersonra]

Does any one seriously believe that a type 1 or 2 SPD installed at the service will provide any protection at all downstream to these kind of devices?

Look at the clamping voltage for a typical 240/120 type 1 or 2 SPD.

 

[LarryFine]

A cascaded system is supposed to be best.

 

[petersonra]

If this is actually a problem, the proper response would have been to get it addressed by the product standards