What voids a UL listing?

[wwhitney]

Wondering how this violates 230.7 though. Its only the service conductors in the conduit to the ESS

The conductors connected to the line side (grid side) terminals of the former main breaker are service conductors, but the conductors connected to the load side terminals are feeder conductors. Since you said the ESS panel has the new "main breaker" aka service disconnect.

Now if the two enclosures are touching with just a conduit nipple (a fitting) connecting them, then 230.7 is not violated. But if you have a short nipple, that's a 230.7 violation.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Bill Snyder]

My discussion with my inspector went like this when we looked at it and in reagrds to voiding any factory design and UL requirements.

The busses from the meter and to the distribution that connected to the main breaker busses were connected with the 1/4-20 bolt and a bellevelle washer. We are simply making a "same" type of connection using the same method. Insted of the main breaker buss I am connecting a crimped lug with the same tecnique. He agreed with my thinking. At that time he didnt have to sign the form that SCE is now requesting. We shall see.

Every time we had to do that it was under the supervision of an engineer and it was better than even the factory could build out in the gas and oil field. I could see this being a code violation under the language of the 2020 NEC.

 

[SolarBerger]

The conductors connected to the line side (grid side) terminals of the former main breaker are service conductors, but the conductors connected to the load side terminals are feeder conductors. Since you said the ESS panel has the new "main breaker" aka service disconnect.

Now if the two enclosures are touching with just a conduit nipple (a fitting) connecting them, then 230.7 is not violated. But if you have a short nipple, that's a 230.7 violation.

Cheers, Wayne

yes that does make sense. Thanks for clarifying