Tri-plex or Quad-plex

[Lembro6]

I have a client who owns a farm. She's getting solar shingles put on one of the barns and putting in some car chargers and 2 power walls. The existing 200 amp meter is on a pole between the house and one of the barns and has 2 conduits going up the pole, one to the transformer and one that ties in with 2 different triplex's that feed a 100 amp main panel at a small farmhouse and a 100 amp main panel in a barn. Both about 300' from the main pole in the opposite directions. Tesla is heavying up to 400 amps and moving the main breakers in one of their 200 amp panels. The other 200 amp panel is for all of their new equipment. I told them that they needed to change the triplex to quadplex since the main disconnect is now not at the panels and are essentially sub-panels. They told me that the inspector said it was ok to leave it like that. I don't think he's correct. Who's right?

 

[Sierrasparky]

HuH?
My mind is frazzled trying to understand your question.
Could you please clarify.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Farms are crazy the way the wiring runs everywhere overhead.... some inspectors here will pass this also, But I would get the approval from the AHJ from his mouth, not by “they told me he said”..

hey, if he says it’s ok, go with it..

 

[Lembro6]

Ok, let me put it like this. Take all of the Tesla (solar) stuff out. There's a power pole in the middle of the farm with a 200 amp meter on it that's feeding the farm house that has a 100 amp main breaker panel and one of the barns that has a 100 amp main breaker panel. They're upgrading the service to 400 amps and moving the main disconnects to a shed with all of the solar equipment in it and feeding the existing triplex cable to each 100 amp service. To me, that makes each existing 100 amp main breaker panel a sub panel since they are now being fed out of a new panel with 2 100 amp breakers and the triplex feeding the panels needs to be changed to a quadplex wire. Does that make sense now? Thanks for everyone's input

 

[chrismarcellino]

See exception No. 1 in 250.32(B)(1), assuming that the existing non-EGC containing feeders were approved prior to 2008. If you replaced the conductors or subpanel, you will then need to unbond the grounded conductor at the panel and run an ECG, but for now its fine.

Note requirement "(2) There are no continuous metallic paths bonded to the grounding system in each building or structure involved," which is probably the case since these connectors are overhead (or direct burial) and there is probably no metal plumbing to the shed?

 

[ramsy]

See how it's done with triplex.

 

[Lembro6]

See exception No. 1 in 250.32(B)(1), assuming that the existing non-EGC containing feeders were approved prior to 2008. If you replaced the conductors or subpanel, you will then need to unbond the grounded conductor at the panel and run an ECG, but for now its fine.

Note requirement "(2) There are no continuous metallic paths bonded to the grounding system in each building or structure involved," which is probably the case since these connectors are overhead (or direct burial) and there is probably no metal plumbing to the shed?

Yes, that's my problem. The HO wants to replace the panel at the house when Tesla is done. I was hoping that they would have to change triplex. Thanks