9 service disconnects?

[JasonCo]

Yep 100%. 1 service with 3 service disconnects. All adjacently grouped. The way this Mike Holt book explains the 230.2, I like the terminology that was used. Instead of the NEC book saying:

230.2 A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through 230.2(B).

They word it by saying

230.2 A building can only be served by one service drop or service lateral except as permitted by (A) through (D).

Because your service starts back at the service point. Which in my case is at the weather head traveling up the Utility pole, where the wires are splices with POCO's transformer wires. So 1 service "Service drop/Service lateral" per building unless permitted by A - D.

 

[JasonCo]

The meter/house panel is allowed its own set of service entrance conductors under 230.40 Ex 4. And the service can also supply 2-6 service disconnecting means under 230.40 Ex 2. That gets you up to 7 disconnects (in which case the house meter/panel disconnect could not be grouped with the other six), but not to 9.

So you'll need to eliminate at least 2 service disconnects, e.g. by putting 3 meters on one disconnect, or making two pairs of meters, each with one disconnect, or something like that. And if you want them all grouped together, you'll have to eliminate 3 disconnects.

Cheers, Wayne

I don't understand how this gets you up to 7 disconnects per this one service. It only states that it allows you to bring in an extra set of service-entrance conductors. Nothing in the exception talks about allowing this house panel to act as a 7th forgiven disconnect for this service.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Maybe the language in Exception #1 to 230.40 needs to be changed, but I have always read it as CMP 4 says it is intended to be read per the panel statement below.

4-119 Log #2287 NEC-P04 Final Action: Reject
(230.40 Exception No. 1)
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Ron Chilton, Raleigh, NC
Recommendation: Add after the last line of exception No. 1:
For the purpose of this Exception, Section 230.71 and Section 230.72 does
not apply.
Substantiation: Exception No. 1 seems to allow multiple sets of service
conductors to terminate in any number of disconnects that are not grouped in
one location. There is no reference in the Exception to Section 230.71 and
Section 230.72, requiring a maximum number of disconnects or the grouping
of disconnects. This change would clarify that the grouping and the maximum
number of six disconnects does not apply to those sets of conductors permitted
by this Exception, that are supplied by one service or in this issue multiple sets
of conductors supplied from the same utility transformer to different locations
within the same building.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: Section 230.71(A) already refers to the allowances described
in 230.40 and exceptions. These sections and the exceptions for multioccupancy
buildings are intended to allow a separate set of service entrance
conductors to each occupancy for each classification of service, provided they
are supplied by only one service drop or service lateral.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
________________________________________________________________

 

[JasonCo]

Well this is odd. In my POCO's Service Installation Manual, they don't allow for metered disconnects to act as service disconnects. They also don't allow for more than 1 meter to come off the load side of a metered disconnect, I think? Correct me if I'm wrong, this is what they state:

For the Company to supply electrical service, two or more separately metered services shall not be electrically connected to a common device on the load side of the service disconnects.

The meter disconnect switch shall not be used as a service disconnect and shall be locked and sealed under the exclusive control of the Company.

Am I reading something incorrectly? How am I suppose to ever have more than 6 meters for a shopping center filled with 15 different lease spaces and tenants. I'm definitely reading this incorrectly, huh...?

 

[electrofelon]

you still need permission to have multiple services under 230.2 to be able to use 230.40 Ex 1.

I don't know what else to say Wayne, but I am just not seeing that at all in the wording of exception #1.

 

[wwhitney]

I don't know what else to say Wayne, but I am just not seeing that at all in the wording of exception #1.

(2020) 230.40 Ex 1 says "one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as permitted in 230.2"

Cheers, Wayne

 

[electrofelon]

(2020) 230.40 Ex 1 says "one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as permitted in 230.2"

Cheers, Wayne

Yes, but there doesn't have to be more then one service, there can be.

besides, just logically, I don't see how your interpretation makes any sense. So if I have one service, I can't run a set of service entrance conductors to each occupancy. But if I have two services, now I can run a set for each service to each occupancy?

 

[electrofelon]

FWIW, the NEC handbook shows examples of exception number one with both one and two services.

 

[wwhitney]

OK, I think I see the difference in interpretations now. The full first sentence of 230.40 Ex 1 is: " A building with more than one occupancy shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as permitted in 230.2, run to each occupancy or group of occupancies."

This could be read as:

"one set of SECs for each service (as permitted in 230.2) as long as each service is run to a different occupancy or group of occupancies." [Total number of SECs under this exception is capped by the number of services allowed under 230.2.]

or

" one set of SECs for each service (as permitted in 230.2) for each occupancy or group of occupancies." [You can have one set of SECs per occupancy, or if an occupancy is allowed more than one service under 230.2, possibly more.]

The argument for the former interpretation is that 230.2 discusses services per building, not service per occupancy. So the latter interpretation doesn't really make any sense.

And the point of 230.40 Ex 1 under the first interpretation is that when 230.2 allows more than one service, you don't have to run more than one
"service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral;" you can instead run just one, and connect multiple SECs to it, one per service.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

(What is an occupancy anyway? Is a dwelling an 'occupancy'? Or is 'residential' one occupancy and 'commercial' is another?)

If people think that Exception 1 means 'a 100 unit apartment building can have 101 service disconnects' then indeed, I would think that firefighters everywhere would want that language clarified to say no, that's not what it means. I have a hard time believing the CMP intended that.

The invocation of 230.2 seems pretty clear to me. If 230.2 allows one service then you get six disconnects. If 230.2 allows two services then you get twelve (and so on). Exception 1 says that, instead of installing mutliple actual services, you may run the same number of permitted service entrance conductors from a single service. If this is not what it means then why is 'as permitted in 230.2' included in the language?

 

[electrofelon]

OK, I think I see the difference in interpretations now. The full first sentence of 230.40 Ex 1 is: " A building with more than one occupancy shall be permitted to have one set of service-entrance conductors for each service, as permitted in 230.2, run to each occupancy or group of occupancies."

This could be read as:

"one set of SECs for each service (as permitted in 230.2) as long as each service is run to a different occupancy or group of occupancies." [Total number of SECs under this exception is capped by the number of services allowed under 230.2.]

or

" one set of SECs for each service (as permitted in 230.2) for each occupancy or group of occupancies." [You can have one set of SECs per occupancy, or if an occupancy is allowed more than one service under 230.2, possibly more.]

The argument for the former interpretation is that 230.2 discusses services per building, not service per occupancy. So the latter interpretation doesn't really make any sense.

And the point of 230.40 Ex 1 under the first interpretation is that when 230.2 allows more than one service, you don't have to run more than one
"service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground service conductors, or service lateral;" you can instead run just one, and connect multiple SECs to it, one per service.

Cheers, Wayne

(What is an occupancy anyway? Is a dwelling an 'occupancy'? Or is 'residential' one occupancy and 'commercial' is another?)

If people think that Exception 1 means 'a 100 unit apartment building can have 101 service disconnects' then indeed, I would think that firefighters everywhere would want that language clarified to say no, that's not what it means. I have a hard time believing the CMP intended that.

The invocation of 230.2 seems pretty clear to me. If 230.2 allows one service then you get six disconnects. If 230.2 allows two services then you get twelve (and so on). Exception 1 says that, instead of installing mutliple actual services, you may run the same number of permitted service entrance conductors from a single service. If this is not what it means then why is 'as permitted in 230.2' included in the language?

I am still not completely clear on your interpretation. Are you saying that the reference to multiple services, is not talking about the number of services that you actually have it's what you could have?

Regarding the term occupancy, I agree this has always been a little sticky because the NEC doesn't define it. You technically have to look at what your building department defines as an occupancy. Here in upstate New York where things are pretty lax, I can basically consider a "unit" to be synonymous with an occupancy. For example if I have a three story building with one apartment on each floor I can have one service feed a three gang meter socket with no disconnects, feeding a service panel in each unit. Of course I am still restricted to staying outside with the service conductors, excetera. Now on the other side of the coin, I investigated this in Seattle once, and was told that an occupancy is a very specific term, and gets into fire separations, tax rates, and even zoning. It's a very specific thing you actually have to apply for. It's not just a "the".

My take on the reason for (my interpretation) of exception 1, is just that the different occupancies could probably be considered separate buildings and you could run a service to each building then, so they just figure well we might as well just let you run one service with multiple sets of service entrance conductors then because you could do essentially the same thing with multiple services.

 

[kwired]

Well this is odd. In my POCO's Service Installation Manual, they don't allow for metered disconnects to act as service disconnects. They also don't allow for more than 1 meter to come off the load side of a metered disconnect, I think? Correct me if I'm wrong, this is what they state:





Am I reading something incorrectly? How am I suppose to ever have more than 6 meters for a shopping center filled with 15 different lease spaces and tenants. I'm definitely reading this incorrectly, huh...?

Maybe more to this than you posted? I bet they allow "meter centers" for 15 different lease spaces just not a disconnect - gutter - 15 individual meter sockets. Not as easy to make an unmetered tap in meter center as it might be in the other situation.

 

[wwhitney]

I am still not completely clear on your interpretation. Are you saying that the reference to multiple services, is not talking about the number of services that you actually have it's what you could have?

Do I correctly infer from your question that you take the point of view that "number of services" = "number of
service drops, sets of overhead service conductors, sets of underground service conductors, or service laterals"? Is there some text or definition that says that?

Under my current reading, if 230.2 says 2 services are allowed, and you use 230.40 Ex 1 to implement that via, say, a single service lateral with two sets of SECs, rather than two service laterals, I would say that is still 2 services.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

Just my 2 cents worth.

We put a main disconnect in a group metering's main terminal box because we had more that 6 meters and tenant mains servicing a strip mall.
One of the Local Power Company would not connect to it because of the main disconnect so we had to bypass it before they would connect to it.

When I questioned it they indicated, If I were to "Not" use group metering, and, stick built the service with individual risers instead, they would swing an overhead and daisy chain the risers together at the weather head.

When I said "Yes" he said, "Where in that scenario do you see any type of switch or circuit breaker between our transformer and the line side of the meter bases ?", I said there aren't any,,, he said and there's not going to be one on a group metering setup either regardless of whether there's 6 or 16 meters attached to our service.

Point is, every power company and local authorities see things differently.

As you can see by the number of responses on this thread, it would be best to have the installation approved by the POCO and the AHJ prior.

JAP>

 

[JasonCo]

This is sort of where I'm at as well. Looking back, there are so many different interpretations and answers. I went to work this Monday convinced that you could only have 6 service disconnects per service lateral/service drop/etc... All my higherups disagreed this morning. Then on the way home from work, I went driving around and sure enough, literally half the services in my town have 1 service drop/lateral with many of them having way more than 6 disconnects/meters. Here, check this out. The first picture is the building I worked at today. The second one with 9000 disconnects/meters is the shopping center right next to where I live. I have many many more pictures of different services I can provide after driving around. All of them with 1 service lateral/drop going into some sort of gutter or tap box and branching off to separately housed meters/disconnects. The amount I saw, I'm sure there are thousands of services like this in my town. I live in Houston btw, plenty of services here haha. Either my entire city (one of the biggest on planet Earth) is wrong or you are allowed more than 6 disconnects/meters for a service lateral/drop, no more than 6 service disconnects per meter(occupancy). That's the way I see it after looking at all these properties.

 

[augie47]

Our AHJ would have a heart attack at either site !

 

[electrofelon]

It seems to me you cant have more than 6 disconnects grouped in one location, unless you have multiple services. Here is what 230.71 says.

(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each
service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of serviceentrance
conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1,
3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets
of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six
switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single
enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a
switchboard or in switchgear. There shall be not more than
six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location.

We can get debate the first bunch of sentences and the 230.40 exceptions until the cows come home, but the part I bolded seem very clear (except the "grouped in any one location" part ).


So I dont see how your first picture is compliant. Your second picture, looks like they are chunked up into groups of 6 or less so seems ok to me.

 

[jaggedben]

JasonCo it is funny to me, in light of jap's post, that one of those installations appears to have all of the disconnects ahead of the meters, and the other appears to have all the meters ahead of the disconnects.

 

[jaggedben]

It seems to me you cant have more than 6 disconnects grouped in one location, unless you have multiple services. Here is what 230.71 says.



We can get debate the first bunch of sentences and the 230.40 exceptions until the cows come home, but the part I bolded seem very clear (except the "grouped in any one location" part ).
...

It says six sets of disconnects. Each set can be up to six. So the hard limit here seems to be thirty-six, if you have a valid application of the qualifying exceptions.

 

[JasonCo]

It's a tad bit frustrating how gray the Code book is. Never knew how divided something could be until getting into researching this Service issue. Any thread out there on the internet has the same dividing factor of debates over the 230 section haha. It's crazy, you'd think it wouldn't be too hard to write something in a way that is interpreted one way.

that one of those installations appears to have all of the disconnects ahead of the meters

Also @jaggedben, what the actual heck, you're right lol. huh