Why is this a violation?

[tortuga]

The least expensive way is to eliminate those disconnects, unless your AHJ interprets that meter post as being a structure, then 230.70 might require a main out at the meter. EDIT: Or the utility requires a main there.

The size of the wire before the meter is probably per NESC by utility and after the meter NEC, per the calculated load.

 

[Phillip Land]

View attachment 2559053
Is it because there are 2 separate service disconnects where the feeders originate?

Confused.

JAP>

I'm also confused. I don't understand why this would be a violation - the feeder conductors don't originate in the same distribution equipment so by the text itself there is no violation. Also, there are only 2 feeders not more than 6. And if you put the 2 feeders into one distribution panel, then that would be a violation of the new 2020 code anyway because of "live parts"

 

[tortuga]

I'm also confused. I don't understand why this would be a violation - the feeder conductors don't originate in the same distribution equipment so by the text itself there is no violation.

The illustration should reference 225.30, its prohibited unless you can meet one of the requirements in A-E

225.30 Number of Supplies. A building or other structure that
is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of a service
disconnecting means shall be supplied by only one feeder or
branch circuit unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (F).

(A)Special conditions has been expanding every code cycle for a while now.
(B) Is new for 2020. EDIT and B says they have to originate in the same distribution equipment.

 

[Another C10]

If I was an inspector and I'm not, Id say

1)There are the legal amount of breakers ( 6 or less) at the meter for quick disconnect.

2) If those are grounds, 1 at meter and 2 at sub panels then the meters rod should be in the 2 main breaker enclosures.
and the 2 on the house, I believe need to have at least 6ft of separation, actually they only need the 1 electrode at the main disconnects.

It certainly is an odd design. I presume each subpanel is for 2 different occupants sharing the utility bill.

 

[jap]

I'm also confused. I don't understand why this would be a violation - the feeder conductors don't originate in the same distribution equipment so by the text itself there is no violation. Also, there are only 2 feeders not more than 6. And if you put the 2 feeders into one distribution panel, then that would be a violation of the new 2020 code anyway because of "live parts"

My exact thoughts also.

Jap>

 

[jap]

Again, this is a continuing education course graphic.

I think it was mis referenced like Tortuga pointed out.

Jap>

 

[Rick 0920]

If you eliminated the disconnects at the meter, you would have a good distance of unfused wire from the load side of the meter. This is confusing to me also.

 

[jap]

If you eliminated the disconnects at the meter, you would have a good distance of unfused wire from the load side of the meter. This is confusing to me also.

The proper name would be Service Conductors which can be run any distance outdoors.

JAP>

 

[augie47]

I'm still in the "study" mode on 2020 but a bit confused by this. In 2020, 225.30(B) seems to indicate you can now have multiple feeders to a structure (other than 'special conditions') IF they originate in one enclosure (is that correct ??).
It seems there is a 2020 problem with the multiple service disconnects in one enclosure --- correct ??

 

[tortuga]

Thats the way I read it Augie
So a complaint use of (B) would be say I have a 800A MDP, with a 800A main, I could put in two separate 200A buckets to feed a outbuilding with say 2 200A panels, grouped in one location.

 

[jap]

To my knowledge a service panel with a main disconnect can have Multiple Feeder breakers in it, but, the old installation practices of installing a Main Lug Panel with 6 movements of the hand (where you couldn't disconnect the Service Conductors) has become a thing of the past.

The new rule does seem to indicate that a group metering setup or meterpack must have the individual tenant mains compartmentalized as to reduce the hazard of working along side of other energized service conductors as to not expose yourself to any more dangers than necessary.

At least that's the way I see it.
Others may see it differently.

In the graphic I posted that is one of the examples in my CEC course, the literature doesn't coincide with the picture.
The feeders do not originate in a single enclosure and there's not more than 6 disconnects grouped at the structure, so, it shouldn't actually be a violation in my mind.

Others may shed more light on this.

JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

In the graphic I posted that is one of the examples in my CEC course, the literature doesn't coincide with the picture.
The feeders do not originate in a single enclosure and there's not more than 6 disconnects grouped at the structure, so, it shouldn't actually be a violation in my mind.

I don't understand your first sentence above, it appears to match fine. It's because the two feeders don't originate in the same equipment that it does not satisfy 225.30(B) and therefore violates 225.30.

Or is your question "why does 225.30(B) require the feeders to originate in the same equipment, I don't see any safety issues with the install pictured?"

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

I don't understand your first sentence above, it appears to match fine. It's because the two feeders don't originate in the same equipment that it does not satisfy 225.30(B) and therefore violates 225.30.

Or is your question "why does 225.30(B) require the feeders to originate in the same equipment, I don't see any safety issues with the install pictured?"

Cheers, Wayne

Because the "feeder conductors" do not originate at the house where the literature is pointing to on the graphic, the feeders originate a the service rack and they are not in the same equipment, they are in 2 separate service disconnects mounted on the rack.

Now,

If they are considering the (2) Separate Service disconnects at the rack the same "distribution equipment", in my mind it's still not a violation per the drawing since I don't see anything that has been violated.

The feeders originate at the rack and the (2) disconnects are on the house.

It's almost like it's backwards.

JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

Because the "feeder conductors" do not originate at the house where the literature is pointing to on the graphic

The text box point to the house because the presence of two disconnects there is governed by 225.30. The word "VIOLATION" points to the two different service disconnects, on the basis that they are not the same distribution equipment.

I would say that if a single enclosure had three compartments, one for the meter in the middle, and service disconnects on either side, it would be the same distribution equipment, and there would be no violation. Perhaps a silly distinction; maybe the text of 225.30(B) should just require the originating equipment to be grouped, rather than the same equipment.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

The text box point to the house because the presence of two disconnects there is governed by 225.30. The word "VIOLATION" points to the two different service disconnects, on the basis that they are not the same distribution equipment.

I would say that if a single enclosure had three compartments, one for the meter in the middle, and service disconnects on either side, it would be the same distribution equipment, and there would be no violation. Perhaps a silly distinction; maybe the text of 225.30(B) should just require the originating equipment to be grouped, rather than the same equipment.

Cheers, Wayne

So is the code saying we MUST originate our feeders from a common distribution point?
or is the code clarifying "WHERE" feeders originate from a common distribution point where and how many disconnects must be grouped at a location.

If (2) Separate 200 amp sevice disconnects cant be tapped from a 400 amp meterbase to feed (2) Separate 200 amp panels,, then this would be a violation even if the meter and the 2 disconnects are mounted on the outside of the house.

Is a single 320a meterbase with 200a service disconnect mounted on each side of it to service a structure now a violation also?

There's thousands of setups like that.

JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

So is the code saying we MUST originate our feeders from a common distribution point?

Yes. The first sentence of 225.30 says you can only have one feeder to the house, unless you fit in one of the cases below. The case described in (2020) 225.30(B) involves the feeders originating from the "same panelboard, switchboard, or other distribution equipment." If the feeders don't so originate, they don't meet the allowance in 225.30(B), and so they are prohibited by the first sentence of 225.30.

If (2) Separate 200 amp sevice disconnects cant be tapped from a 400 amp meterbase to feed (2) Separate 200 amp panels,, then this would be a violation even if the meter and the 2 disconnects are mounted on the outside of the house.

That wouldn't be a violation, as the violation is the two separate feeders from another structure to the house. If everything is on the house, there are no outside feeders subject to 225.30.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

Yes. The first sentence of 225.30 says you can only have one feeder to the house, unless you fit in one of the cases below. The case described in (2020) 225.30(B) involves the feeders originating from the "same panelboard, switchboard, or other distribution equipment." If the feeders don't so originate, they don't meet the allowance in 225.30(B), and so they are prohibited by the first sentence of 225.30.


That wouldn't be a violation, as the violation is the two separate feeders from another structure to the house. If everything is on the house, there are no outside feeders subject to 225.30.

Cheers, Wayne

That's what's going to clear all this up for me.

Thanks,

JAP>

 

[jap]

The graphic wording would have made more sense to me if it had shown a Service Panelboard mounted on the rack with 7 feeders going to the house.

The wording steered me towards thinking about a violation of the number of feeders and disconnects,,,, not the 2 separate Service Disconnects at the rack.

JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

The wording steered me towards thinking about a violation of the number of feeders and disconnects,,,, not the 2 separate Service Disconnects at the rack.

Well, the violation is that there are 2 feeders (more than one), and they don't originate in the same piece of equipment. So both details matter.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

Well, the violation is that there are 2 feeders (more than one), and they don't originate in the same piece of equipment. So both details matter.

Cheers, Wayne

Ok, I'm confused again.

The graphic wording indicates 6 feeders would be allowed if they were in the same piece of equipment does it not?


JAP>