Using a 2-pole breaker, and only making use of one of the poles

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carultch

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
I'd like to get some opinions on doing the practice that I described in the title. Essentially, we would put a 2-pole breaker in a panel, and not connect one of the poles, in order to use it for a 120V load like a receptacle.

The reason for doing this is that in our application, the utility is requiring all spaces in the panelboards to be filled. And not filled with spares.
 
Carultch said:
I'd like to get some opinions on doing the practice that I described in the title. Essentially, we would put a 2-pole breaker in a panel, and not connect one of the poles, in order to use it for a 120V load like a receptacle.

The reason for doing this is that in our application, the utility is requiring all spaces in the panelboards to be filled. And not filled with spares.
Click to expand...

I don't see why not. Just be sure to record zero in the panel load schedule for that pole. :)

Are you sure that the utility will not argue that it is a spare pole and so still a violation?

Couldn't you just fit a custom cover with fewer slots and no knockouts?
 
Carultch said:
I'd like to get some opinions on doing the practice that I described in the title. Essentially, we would put a 2-pole breaker in a panel, and not connect one of the poles, in order to use it for a 120V load like a receptacle.

The reason for doing this is that in our application, the utility is requiring all spaces in the panelboards to be filled. And not filled with spares.
Click to expand...
Mmmmm, the utility calling the plays now, interesting. What does the AHJ say about this? Does the local code address this? You would think that the POCO's authority ends at the service entrance. Are they now superceding the NEC?
I wonder if they make a distinction between spaces and spares in a panel?
 
Last edited:
GoldDigger said:
Factory marking only, right? :)
Click to expand...


Here's the code section, interpret accordingly: :)

408.4 Field Identification Required.
(A) Circuit Directory or Circuit Identification. Every circuit and circuit modification shall be legibly identified as
to its clear, evident, and specific purpose or use. The identification shall include an approved degree of detail that
allows each circuit to be distinguished from all others. Spare positions that contain unused overcurrent devices or
switches shall be described accordingly. The identification shall be included in a circuit directory that is located on the face or inside of the panel door in the case of a panelboard and at each switch or circuit breaker in a switchboard or switchgear. No circuit shall be described in a manner that depends on transient conditions of occupancy.
Click to expand...
 
jaggedben said:
By chance is this for an Envoy on an Enphase solar system?
Click to expand...


It is for solar, but it is not for Enphase.

The deal is, that this is a subpanel of a "line-side-tap" connected system. Behind the hot sequence meter, but in front of the main service disconnect. I think the utility's perceived problem is that someone in the future would add loads to the panel, and potentially make it possible for the 200A building loads and any future loads added onto the PV system to exceed the 200A service in total. Even though it will be marked "do not add loads".

Given that I have a 120V load that I need for a rapid shutdown power supply, yet an even number of spaces in the panelboard, the only way I could think to fill all spaces is to connect it to a 2-pole breaker, only use the "black" pole, and abandon the "red" pole.
 
480sparky said:
Start labeling the spare breakers with non-sensical loads, like Unicorn Umbilical and Leprechan Laser.
Click to expand...
If in an industrial site that does somewhat abnormal things, they may just figure it is something they don't know much about when they read that.

Others may not even read what it says just are looking that it is labeled.

You could write up something offensive to the inspector a few words on each line and it only makes sense if starting at top and reading each line as you go down the schedule just to see how careful attention they are paying to the labeling. Then pull out the real schedule and replace it after they say something, or after they are gone if they don't say anything.
 
Carultch said:
It is for solar, but it is not for Enphase.

The deal is, that this is a subpanel of a "line-side-tap" connected system. Behind the hot sequence meter, but in front of the main service disconnect. I think the utility's perceived problem is that someone in the future would add loads to the panel, and potentially make it possible for the 200A building loads and any future loads added onto the PV system to exceed the 200A service in total. Even though it will be marked "do not add loads".

Given that I have a 120V load that I need for a rapid shutdown power supply, yet an even number of spaces in the panelboard, the only way I could think to fill all spaces is to connect it to a 2-pole breaker, only use the "black" pole, and abandon the "red" pole.
Click to expand...

I think your reasoning is perfectly fine.
 
Carultch said:
...
Given that I have a 120V load that I need for a rapid shutdown power supply, yet an even number of spaces in the panelboard, the only way I could think to fill all spaces is to connect it to a 2-pole breaker, only use the "black" pole, and abandon the "red" pole.
Click to expand...
An alternative: check the manufacturer's catalog for a "dummy breaker".
 
kwired said:
The request makes no commen sense in the first place, you think your question will matter to an authority that just doesn't get it?;)
Click to expand...

If you know about the history of proposals to add a 'Do Not Add Loads' labeling option to 705.12, it might start to make some sense to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top