# Article 310.15 (B)(3)(7)



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

You're an inspector. You should know the answer to that question. I say yes, you can derate it. 

2014 Code Language:

310.15(B)(7) 120/240-Volt, Single-Phase Dwelling Services and Feeders. For one-family dwellings and the individual dwelling units of two-family and multifamily dwellings, service and feeder conductors supplied by a single-phase, 120/240-volt system shall be permitted be sized in accordance with 310.15(B)(7)(1) through (4).

(1) For a service rated 100 through 400 A, the service conductors supplying the entire load associated with a one-family dwelling, or the service conductors supplying the entire load associated with an individual dwelling unit in a two-family or multifamily dwelling, shall be permitted to have an ampacity not less than 83 percent of the service rating.

(2) For a feeder rated 100 through 400 A, the feeder conductors supplying the entire load associated with a one-family dwelling, or the feeder conductors supplying the entire load associated with an individual dwelling, unit in a two-family or multifamily dwelling, shall be permitted to have an ampacity not less than 83 percent of the feeder rating.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Is 100 amp large enough for load calc? For entire house


----------



## DashDingo (Feb 11, 2018)

Would you consider those wires Feeders? By definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DashDingo (Feb 11, 2018)

Seau1355 said:


> So I have a scenario for you and I was hoping to get some input outside the City I work in. We are in the 2017 code cycle.
> 
> 
> Here is the scenario,
> ...




Read the definition of a feeder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

Is there any load shedding while on the generator?


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

DashDingo said:


> Would you consider those wires Feeders? By definition.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk









Yes, by definition I would consider those wires feeders. In 310.15(B)(7) (2) it only applies to feeders rated 100 to 400 amps. So these wires do fall under this article, only when there is a 100 amp breaker in the generator. If there was a 100 amp main service disconnect in the scenario I could see letting the de-rating slide. But in this case there is a 200 amp main with the generator capable of 100 amp output (per manufacturers specs) on 85 amp wires if #4 is used. 


The contractor will tell me that the generator will never put out more than 60 to 80 amps, so I ask them to install an 80 amp breaker. It's an easy fix.


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

cabletie said:


> Is there any load shedding while on the generator?




No load shedding that I am aware of. I did not see anything in the manufactures info, and the contractor did not mention it.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Seau1355 said:


> No load shedding that I am aware of. I did not see anything in the manufactures info, and the contractor did not mention it.



In that case, how can this generator feed the whole house?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

If the transfer switch is automatic then you have an issue as load shedding is required. If the calculated load on the house is less than 100 amps then you may be okay without the load shedding. 

If this is a manual transfer switch then IMO, the #4 technically would not be allowed as the diversity of the loads is not there if the loads must be chosen manually.


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the transfer switch is automatic then you have an issue as load shedding is required. If the calculated load on the house is less than 100 amps then you may be okay without the load shedding.
> 
> If this is a manual transfer switch then IMO, the #4 technically would not be allowed as the diversity of the loads is not there if the loads must be chosen manually.






The automatic transfer switch has the capability to manage HVAC loads, with the option to add more management modules. See the text below from the auto transfer switch specs,




<li class="featuresTitle">_Manage Up To (4) Individual HVAC Loads - No Hardware Req._<li class="featuresBullet inactiveLinkColor7">_Great for homes with multiple Air conditioners (24 VAC controlled)_<li class="featuresTitle">_Up To (8) Smart Management Modules (SMM) (Sold Separately)_<li class="featuresBullet inactiveLinkColor7">_Frequency (Hz) monitoring design, no control wire required_<li class="featuresBullet inactiveLinkColor7">_Versatile design, easily prioritize loads & lock-out non-essential loads__
_
_
_
Again, this is just a scenario. I understand many things need to be considered with each scenario. In this one, the house was designed with a 200 amp service, and a 20KW generator (I believe the specs say it will put out 94 amps on LP) with a 100 amp breaker. If the demand from the house is 91 amps, and the generator has the capability of 94 amps, there will be no load shedding. It is not uncommon to have generators run more than 3 hours here (Michigan).


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

So my copy/paste did not work so well. 


The auto transfer switch will basically load shed up to 4 HVAC circuits if needed and has the option to add addition management modules if additional circuits need the be managed.


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the transfer switch is automatic then you have an issue as load shedding is required. If the calculated load on the house is less than 100 amps then you may be okay without the load shedding.
> 
> If this is a manual transfer switch then IMO, the #4 technically would not be allowed as the diversity of the loads is not there if the loads must be chosen manually.



That’s what I was thinking.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the transfer switch is automatic then you have an issue as load shedding is required. If the calculated load on the house is less than 100 amps then you may be okay without the load shedding.
> 
> If this is a manual transfer switch then IMO, the #4 technically would not be allowed as the diversity of the loads is not there if the loads must be chosen manually.


I don't think it would make sense to allow 83% if you don't have capacity for entire house, with load shedding you would not have the diversity of the entire house. Going by that logic would you be able to have a generator just for your fridge and electric heat and be allowed to use 83% with say 50 amp calc load? I don't see that being allowed.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I don't think it would make sense to allow 83% if you don't have capacity for entire house,


Isn't that what I said? I totally agree


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> It is not uncommon to have generators run more than 3 hours here (Michigan). [/COLOR]
> 
> If the calculated load is 91 amps then the fact that the generator runs for 3 hours doesn't matter as the load would not be at 91 amps for 3 hours. Remember that is a calculated load. Rarely would it be anywhere near that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Isn't that what I said? I totally agree


Ah, sorry, I first took it you meant if it auto load shedded you may be alright, I see that was not what you were saying

Thanks


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

Dammit, all of my 20kW, 240V gensets only put out 83 amps :vs_mad:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I don’t believe the code says anything about diversity. That is just someone’s substantiation, it’s not part of the actual code. Installing load of shedding down stream does not remove that load from the panel or service. A load shedding module is no different then a switch or a disconnect. We have timers and other types of devices that shut loads off in a house, that does not mean that they are no longer connected to the service.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I don't agree Hax... If you have a feeder to a sub panel it will not control the entire load of the dwelling just as a small genset will not control all the loads of a dwelling. IMO, the wire from the generator, unless sized for the calculated load cannot use the 83% rule . We can agree to disagree..

Also diversity may not be written in the code but it is the reason why we are allowed the 83% rule. Commercial loads are not diverse as they are pretty much constant where in a home the load changes and seldom reaches calculated loads.

Would the 83% rule work with the genset-- probably but it depends on if the owner uses the loads carefully. One cannot depend on that. 

It is an interesting question that I will ask of the cmp members who meet in Raleigh every year around april. We'll see what they think


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I don't agree Hax... If you have a feeder to a sub panel it will not control the entire load of the dwelling just as a small genset will not control all the loads of a dwelling. IMO, the wire from the generator, unless sized for the calculated load cannot use the 83% rule . We can agree to disagree..
> 
> Also diversity may not be written in the code but it is the reason why we are allowed the 83% rule. Commercial loads are not diverse as they are pretty much constant where in a home the load changes and seldom reaches calculated loads.
> 
> ...


Having a load shedding module connected somewhere in the house does not stop you from using that code article. The same way as using a disconnect, light switch, timer, or any other device that shuts loads off does not stop you from using that article.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> It is an interesting question that I will ask of the cmp members who meet in Raleigh every year around april. We'll see what they think


Nobody cares what they think. :no: Most of us have zero respect for the NEC and those that are part of the process.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Having a load shedding module connected somewhere in the house does not stop you from using that code article. The same way as using a disconnect, light switch, timer, or any other device that shuts loads off does not stop you from using that article.


I completely agree.

I also completely agree that you are reading the code section correctly and i believe someone reading the code shouldn't have to know the substantiation for the code section to figure out whats allowed and whats not.

i believe this code section has been butchered through the years, i'm not finding it so i may be wrong but i remember running across an old code section, i'm thinking 50's where the table (it became a note later on for a long time) actually had some form of the word diversification in the title. I'm not looking to argue but i need to add for others what you already know my position is on this code section, i don't believe this code section is an exception for the rest of the code book that says conductors must be protected per their respected ampacities/capabilities(although i believe the code making panel may believe it does), i do not believe this section changes ampacities but gives minimum conductor sizes for a service which i disagree with many others on here that it is not the breaker trip setting(see service, service equipment and premises wiring definitions, article 100), and it does not make sense to me to say the wires will rarely see that current level so we don't need to protect it as tight as we do with other wires, especially when you consider modern breaker trip curves. 

i believe the other substantiation besides diversification is that there is a large safety factor in the normal ampacity tables and the 83% rule gets you in the real limit territory. in my opinion that's irrelevant especially with conductors that have no upstream overcurrent protection, where say if the conductors are overloaded several times and the ocpd doesn't open, which the larger the ocpd setting the larger window you create for this, the insulation will deteriorate without opening the ocpd and will breakdown and more likely fail and will likely fail in an unsafe way which goes against what i believe a large part of the intent of the code is, for things to fail safely.

http://download.schneider-electric.c...ame=736-06.pdf
QOM FAMILY MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS CHARACTERISTIC TRIP CURVE NO. 736-6

175 amp breaker at 180 amps will take 16 minutes* to 2.7 hours* to trip at 40*c ambient temp cold start

*175 amp breaker at 218 amps(175 x 1.25*) is 5.8 minutes _to 2.7 hours_

then i ask you to consider the feeder from an outdoor circuit breaker that is ran in thermal insulation in a heated house, and ask you to consider the scenario where the outdoor circuit breaker is in northern Minnesota in the dead of winter at -20F, i'm sure i will wind up looking this up and posting the range but that breaker could probably run at 200% trip setting forever in that ambient temperature.


W. P. HOGAN said it best in my opinion back in 78'


> Note 3 to Tables 310-16 through 310-19: Accept
> Secretary's Note: It was the action of the Correlating Committee that
> the Correlating Committee agrees with the views expressed in the
> negative comments.
> ...


i believe it was originally put in because overcurrent protection of SEC wasn't always done(and is still not required everywhere, see exception below), so now you have a wire size to go off. the big problem i have with the common interpretation is that i don't believe it changes ampacity and you still need to size the wire for the calculated load, your wire needs enough ampacity for the load (based on the normal ampacity tables), this is just giving you a minimum wire size for a service size.


> Part VII. Service Equipment — Overcurrent Protection
> 230.90 Where Required. Each ungrounded service conductor shall have overload protection. (A) Ungrounded Conductor
> 
> *.Exception No. 3: Two to six circuit breakers or sets of fuses shall be permitted as the overcurrent device to provide the overload protection. The sum of the ratings of the circuit breakers or fuses shall be permitted to exceed the ampacity of the service conductors, provided the calculated load does not exceed the ampacity of the service conductors.*


ding ding ding, there's the bell.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Even considering diversification, it doesn't apply in this instance. 

Turning off a central AC unit, electrical stove, or dryer is not going to make any difference, whether it is done by the homeowner clicking the OFF button or by a load shedding module.

When someone unplugs their stove, do they have to install larger service entrance conductors? :vs_laugh:


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

deleted


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> deleted


:surprise:

Remember, we have to follow the code as it is written, not the intent- or what believe the intent is. 

We all know that there is a lot of code that requires us to do stupid things that are outside of the intent of that particular article, but we still have to follow it because that is the way it's written. We can't pick and choose when to follow the written word and when to follow the intent.

There is nothing in the code to prohibit the use of 310.15(B)(7) when load shedding modules are used. Load shedding modules are relays controlled by a computer, just like all the wifi devices that consumers are filling their houses with. 

If you maintain that load shedding removes the "diversity of the load", then you would also have to agree that every light switch, disconnect, breaker, and appliance with an OFF button or cord that can be unplugged does as well.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> :surprise:
> 
> Remember, we have to follow the code as it is written, not the intent- or what believe the intent is.
> 
> ...


i agree you are allowed to use that section and have load shedding.

And i think Dennis does to, i don't see anything that would think he doesn't, the part Dennis and I are looking at is the feeder has to be for the entire load associated with the residence(to be able to use the 83% allowance), not that if you unplug something then your not compliant, but that the feeder has to be large enough for everything in the house (or at least for the calculated load) whether its hooked up or not, to use the 83% allowance, otherwise you can't use 310.15(B)(7). I don't know that this is code, i am using what i believe is the intent of this section to come to this interpretation, i believe if it i'm right it should be clearer and i can see how you read the section the way you do, I believe that code section has been raped and needs some work.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

Not my code so I may be off base, but it seems to me that reducing the ampacity of a cable running to/from a 100A generator that is backing up a 200A service is a bad idea. If the generator were 50kW and protected with a 200A breaker I could see it. But in this case with a 100A breaker I wouldn't run anything smaller than #3 Cu. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

B-Nabs said:


> Not my code so I may be off base, but it seems to me that reducing the ampacity of a cable running to/from a 100A generator that is backing up a 200A service is a bad idea. If the generator were 50kW and protected with a 200A breaker I could see it. But in this case with a 100A breaker I wouldn't run anything smaller than #3 Cu.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


It's not a 100A generator.

It's an 83A max output generator with a 100A breaker in it which is only there to serve as a disconnect. Just like a 100A breaker in a subpanel fed with 60A, it's OCPD function is of no use.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Hackwork,


what do you think about what i said here



Wiresmith said:


> I don't think it would make sense to allow 83% if you don't have capacity for entire house, with load shedding you would not have the diversity of the entire house. *Going by that logic would you be able to have a generator just for your fridge and electric heat and be allowed to use 83% with say 50 amp calc load? I don't see that being allowed.*


say you have load shedding and just want to run your refrigerator and electric heat which by normal calculations would require 50 amp circuit, do you believe i could use 83% allowance with this scenario?

i do not see a valid argument to allow that.

i am trying to look at it from what i believe is your perceived substantiation of 83% getting us closer to the actual limits of the conductors. And i see how you would come to believe you would be allowed to do that if that is the true substantiation. But then why are we not allowed to use 83% everywhere?


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wouldn't 445.13 have some say in this?

Edit: I would say no, since the genset in question has a built-in OCPD.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

HackWork said:


> It's not a 100A generator.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an 83A max output generator with a 100A breaker in it which is only there to serve as a disconnect. Just like a 100A breaker in a subpanel fed with 60A, it's OCPD function is of no use.


That's beside the point I was trying to make. The service is 200A. The generator is smaller than that. There is no mechanism in place to prevent more than the generator's rated current, nor the full current of the 100A breaker, from being drawn. Therefore, in my opinion, reducing the ampacity of the cable feeding it seems like a bad idea. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> It's not a 100A generator.
> 
> It's an 83A max output generator with a 100A breaker in it which is only there to serve as a disconnect. Just like a 100A breaker in a subpanel fed with 60A, it's OCPD function is of no use.


thats a good point about the generator output, but you could have a larger generator and a smaller ocpd.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I don't think it would make sense to allow 83% if you don't have capacity for entire house, with load shedding you would not have the diversity of the entire house.


 The same applies to every light switch, disconnect, breaker, etc. etc. etc. I have posted that 3-4 times now and you have not spoken to it once.

Tell me what the difference in code is between a load shedding relay and a wifi relay controlled by Alexa or an iPhone? Tell me why you think a load shedding relay prohibits the use of 310.15(B)(7), but the disconnect on an electric water heater doesn't?



> Going by that logic would you be able to have a generator just for your fridge and electric heat and be allowed to use 83% with say 50 amp calc load? I don't see that being allowed.





> say you have load shedding and just want to run your refrigerator and electric heat which by normal calculations would require 50 amp circuit, do you believe i could use 83% allowance with this scenario?


 Of course, why wouldn't you be able to? Right now I am only using my heat, fridge, and computer. Everything else is shut off. I don't have to upgrade my service conductors to the full size, do I?



> i do not see a valid argument to allow that.


 There doesn't need to be one, the code clearly allows it. The onus is on you to show where the code prohibits the use of 310.15(B)(7) when load shedding is used. And again, everything you are saying is based on your interpretations of the intent of the code, NOT the code itself. 



> i am trying to look at it from what i believe is your perceived substantiation of 83%


 And that is where you are dead wrong. Why don't you understand that? We don't go by perceptions of the intent. We go by the written word. 



> But then why are we not allowed to use 83% everywhere?


The reason is meaningless. It truly is, and it does not enter into the discussion, so please stop bringing it up. 

The only time that the substantiation of a code article matters is when determining whether those words should be entered into the code. Right now we are talking about the application of the code into real world installations.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

B-Nabs said:


> That's beside the point I was trying to make. The service is 200A. The generator is smaller than that. There is no mechanism in place to prevent more than the generator's rated current, nor the full current of the 100A breaker, from being drawn. Therefore, in my opinion, reducing the ampacity of the cable feeding it seems like a bad idea.


How is that any different than any other application of 310.15(B)(7)?

Compare your example to a house with a 100A service. We would use the reduced sized conductors there without a second thought, even though the homeowner can install a car charger and max out that 100A.

So what is the difference?

FWIW, that "reduced" conductor is bringing it's ampacity back to where it should be. It can handle that load.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> thats a good point about the generator output, but you could have a larger generator and a smaller ocpd.


It doesn't matter, the conductors are sized for the OCPD and even using 310.15(B)(7) they can still handle the load.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> The same applies to every light switch, disconnect, breaker, etc. etc. etc. I have posted that 3-4 times now and you have not spoken to it once.
> 
> Tell me what the difference in code is between a load shedding relay and a wifi relay controlled by Alexa or an iPhone? Tell me why you think a load shedding relay prohibits the use of 310.15(B)(7), but the disconnect on an electric water heater doesn't?


did you read my post #27, i think some others posted right after me.
i believe you are allowed to use the 83% allowance even with load shedding so long as your feeder is sized for the entire calculated load of the house. i believe you may have over read some of what i have posted, i completely see how you come to your interpretation, i believe it is very reasonable to read it that way, i believe the section is poorly written. i have said all this in previous posts, i believe you have a very valid argument that your interpretation is code as it is written when using the common interpretation of 310.15(B)(7), which even the current code making panel uses. you might be surprised what i wrote if you did over read.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

If this generator were the sole power source for the house, then the 83% allowance would apply. Since the generator is the sole power source for the house when the ATS is engaged, then logically, the 83% allowance applies. This generator is no different than the utility source, as far as the loads in the house are concerned.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> i agree you are allowed to use that section and have load shedding.


 Ok



> And i think Dennis does to, i don't see anything that would think he doesn't, the part Dennis and I are looking at is the feeder has to be for the entire load associated with the residence(to be able to use the 83% allowance)


 And it is, even if load shedding is used.



> not that if you unplug something then your not compliant,


 You focused on unplugged, but ignored all the other things I mentioned. Switches, disconnects, other types of relays that work exactly like a load shedding relay.



> i am using what i believe is the intent of this section to come to this interpretation


 So you admit that you are doing something that we both know you cant do.

I don't really understand... 



> i believe if it i'm right it should be clearer and i can see how you read the section the way you do, I believe that code section has been raped and needs some work.


 That is fine, but until then, the code is very, very clear on this. Load shedding does not cause you to not be able to use 310.15(B)(7).


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> It doesn't matter, the conductors are sized for the OCPD and even using 310.15(B)(7) they can still handle the load.


so say you have a 700KW generator, to be able to see the extreme scenario, say you have a refrigerator and electric heat is all you care to run when the power goes out and those loads are calculated to require 100 amp circuit.

do you believe i could use a 100 amp breaker and use #4 Cu xhhw ?

#4 Cu xhhw 85 amps at 75 c by table 310.15(B)(16)

240.6 ocpd sizes 80, 90, 100


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> did you read my post #27, i think some others posted right after me.
> i believe you are allowed to use the 83% allowance even with load shedding so long as your feeder is sized for the entire calculated load of the house.


The feeder doesn't have to be sized to the calculated load of the house.

Show me the code that you think requires that.

This discussion reminds me of the one we had last year in which you pulled stuff out of thin air to support your argument. You are clearly a smart person and understand the written code, but you are being willfully ignorant by continually asserting that your understanding of the intent of the code has any meaning whatsoever.



> i completely see how you come to your interpretation


 That's the thing, I am not coming to an interpretation, I am simply reading the code. This is not an instance that requires any interpretation, it is very clear. Load shedding does NOT stop you from using 310.15(B)(7).


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> so say you have a 700KW generator, to be able to see the extreme scenario, say you have a refrigerator and electric heat is all you care to run when the power goes out and those loads are calculated to require 100 amp circuit.
> 
> do you believe i could use a 100 amp breaker and use #4 Cu xhhw ?
> 
> ...


Can you show me the code article that would prohibit it? We've been over this too many times now.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> If this generator were the sole power source for the house, then the 83% allowance would apply. Since the generator is the sole power source for the house when the ATS is engaged, then logically, the 83% allowance applies. This generator is no different than the utility source, as far as the loads in the house are concerned.


now consider load calculations for the house for the required ampacity.

again, i agree with your interpretation when the typical interpretation of 310.15(B)(7) is used. if you go by how most people on this forum interpret 310.15(B)(7) irrespective of this load shedding issue and transformers, then i agree you are allowed.

now, why shouldn't we then be able to use 83% rule everywhere else?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Can you show me the code article that would prohibit it? We've been over this too many times now.


i agree we have been over this too many times, i just wanted to confirm i was understanding the way you were thinking, i was not for sure.

thanks


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> now, why shouldn't we then be able to use 83% rule everywhere else?


We should.

Just like we should be able to use #12 for 25A.

Conductors are limited multiple times. In some instances were are allowed to use them at their full ampacity, or at least an ampacity closer to their full ampacity. 

4/0Al CAN handle 200A just fine. Just like #4Cu can handle 100A without issue. That is the only reason why 310.15(B)(7) allows us to use them, because they can handle it. They just took out the extra safety factor that the normal ampacity adds.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> That's the thing, I am not coming to an interpretation, I am simply reading the code. This is not an instance that requires any interpretation, it is very clear. Load shedding does NOT stop you from using 310.15(B)(7).


i'm just using the word "interpretation". Another way to put it is that if i read that code section and do not consider anything else, i believe it says the same exact thing you are saying. i honestly do, i admit that. like i said, i think this code section is screwed up. i believe it is completely reasonable for a contractor to read that code section and install the way you are describing. i believe there is a solid argument that code interpretation is the way the code is written, i agree.

i will post to your other questions in a minute with my code references.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> i'm just using the word "interpretation". Another way to put it is that if i read that code section and do not consider anything else, i believe it says the same exact thing you are saying. i honestly do, i admit that.


 Ok, gotcha.

I think Dennis disagrees with you and thinks code won't allow it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Ok, gotcha.
> 
> I think Dennis disagrees with you and thinks code won't allow it.


i agree that Dennis disagrees with that. 

Something else that might throw some confusion into this if you haven't read everything i have wrote is that although i believe what i just wrote, i made sure to choose my words carefully because i believe code as a whole in a way many would see as convoluted does not allow this. i also have to add i believe many people would disagree with me on this without me giving a big long explanation(and most would probably still disagree), that i may work on someday and also submit a code proposal with it. but i understand i am not providing a good clean argument.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

something to chew on that i ran across while working on putting together my references.

i may have posted this last time.

NFPA70
a98ROC



> 6- 55 - (Article 310, Notes to Ampacity Tables of 0-2000Volts, .
> Note 3). Reject
> 
> SUBMrITER: Dan Leaf, Palmdale, CA
> ...






sidebar; i like digging into stuff like this with you guys, it also helps me become more familiar with the code and learn new things, but damn this takes up a lot of time and often seems like a waste, especially when things get disrespectful.

and thank you for the compliment, although we argue a lot i appreciate your input on ET, even what i disagree with.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> The feeder doesn't have to be sized to the calculated load of the house.
> 
> Show me the code that you think requires that.


this is the big one to me



> 215.2 Minimum Rating and Size.
> (A) Feeders Not More Than 600 Volts.
> (1) General. *Feeder conductors shall have an ampacity not less than required to supply the load as calculated* in Parts III, IV, and V of Article 220. Conductors shall be sized to carry not less than the larger of 215.2(A)(1)(a) or (b). (a) Where a feeder supplies continuous loads or any combination of continuous and noncontinuous loads, the minimum feeder conductor size shall have an allowable ampacity not less than the noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.
> 
> ...


i think i remember your argument from last time that 310.15(B)(7) changes the ampacity of the conductors, and i believe it is reasonable to come to that conclusion the way the code section is written and where it is. And that it appears to me to be the way many people teach that section.(i refer you to my previous post #49 cmp comment about the study where they came up with the wire sizes)

but, i give you something to think about if you want it.
one way i could see this section being putting in this area of the code originally.
so looking at it from the angle of not using overcurrent protection for service conductors (i posted code reference earlier where we don't have to protect these at all with ocpd), i believe it makes sense for the cmp to come up with a wire size for a service size (i refer you to my previous post #49 cmp comment about the study where they came up with the wire sizes).



we are obviously looking at two different angles as well, i'm looking at what i know of as the code as a whole and you are looking at that section, which i believe you should be able to do but i believe the code is not perfect and in some areas poorly written or maintained. this is why i try to find the intent, not that it changes the text, it doesn't, but just for my understanding.


i have to get off here for now, if you respond don't take my silence as me not coming back to this, if you want to continue. and if i missed some of your other comments i will try to respond to them later. i am curious of your thoughts on what i am posting if you want to give them.

thanks

and Dennis if you are still reading, like last time i would appreciate your thoughts as well if you want to give them.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

....


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> this is the big one to me


 I can't get into hardcore code right now, but I feel confident that the feeder coming from a generator does not have to be sized to the calculated load of the house. You can run a feeder from the generator sized to the generator's output or OCPD. In the situation of the generator being an automatic standby system, the generator itself has to be sized to the load that _it is connected to_, not the calculated load of the entire house.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

HackWork said:


> I can't get into hardcore code right now, but I feel confident that the feeder coming from a generator does not have to be sized to the calculated load of the house. You can run a feeder from the generator sized to the generator's output or OCPD. In the situation of the generator being an automatic standby system, the generator itself has to be sized to the load that _it is connected to_, not the calculated load of the entire house.


That makes sense. It may be a house panel, subpanel or generator /emergency panel. Load calc will be different for each depending on the connected loads.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I can't get into hardcore code right now, but I feel confident that the feeder coming from a generator does not have to be sized to the calculated load of the house; You can run a feeder from the generator sized to the generator's output or OCPD. In the situation of the generator being an automatic standby system, the generator itself has to be sized to the load that _it is connected to_, not the calculated load of the entire house.


i agree, it does not have to be sized for the house.

it has to be sized for its load, if you down size to 83% in the scenarios i listed where the load was the ocpd rating, i say you're not complying with 215.2.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> i agree, it does not have to be sized for the house.
> 
> it has to be sized for its load,


 I disagree. That would mean that a manual transfer switch for a typical interlocked portable generator connection (30A) connected to a typical house with a 200A service would require a *huge* feeder sized to the calculated load of the entire house to connect the 30A inlet to the 30A backfed breaker. 

Nope, a #10 is fine and code compliantly installed millions of times.




> if you down size to 83% in the scenarios i listed where the load was the ocpd rating, i say your not complying with that. unless the round up clause 240.4 gets you there(without the 83% rule actually being used).


I don't know what you are saying here.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I disagree. That would mean that a manual transfer switch for a typical interlocked portable generator connection (30A) connected to a typical house with a 200A service would require a *huge* feeder sized to the calculated load of the entire house to connect the 30A inlet to the 30A backfed breaker.
> 
> Nope, a #10 is fine and code compliantly installed millions of times.


i completely agree with you on this, there is some miscommunication between us, i will read back through to see how you think i think that.



> I don't know what you are saying here.


i'll try to state it better


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> i completely agree with you on this, there is some miscommunication between us, i will read back through to see how you think i think that.


What is the miscommunication?

You say that it has to be sized to the load, I say that it doesn't. And I gave an example that you agreed with :biggrin:

I'm done, goodbye!


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Wiresmith said:
> 
> 
> > i agree, it does not have to be sized for the house.
> ...


by load i mean the load the generator is actually going to run, i don't mean the entire house load



HackWork said:


> Wiresmith said:
> 
> 
> > it has to be sized for its load, if you down size to 83% in the scenarios i listed where the load was the ocpd rating, i say you're not complying with 215.2.
> ...



just fyi, i edited my post and you got the older version, i'm horrible about doing that, i apologize but you are much quicker than others i talk to, the edited version may make more sense. in the original i posted 240.4 and was wrong.

earlier i asked this




Wiresmith said:


> so say you have a 700KW generator, to be able to see the extreme scenario, say you have a refrigerator and electric heat is all you care to run when the power goes out and those loads are calculated to require 100 amp circuit.
> 
> do you believe i could use a 100 amp breaker and use #4 Cu xhhw ?
> 
> ...


the calculated load is 100 amp
ocpd 100 amp

if i use 83% rule i can use #4


i believe that violates 215.2
and i refer you back to my posts #49 and #50 where the cmp stated B(7) doesn't change ampacity



i'm not sure what your response will be to this but if it is "of course, in that situation you can't use #4"

the problem i have with that rebuttal is that it undermines the idea that 310.15(B)(7) changes the ampacity,

i don't believe that would be your response, but i see at least someone saying that, so i thought i should add that


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Wiresmith said:


> by load i mean the load the generator is actually going to run, i don't mean the entire house load
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe you're confusing "entire load" with "calculated load".


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> by load i mean the load the generator is actually going to run, i don't mean the entire house load


 There is nothing restricting the load on a manual transfer switch connected generator. I routinely connect small portable generators to entire houses with an interlock. The full load of the house is on the generator. 

So the load that the generator is actually going to run is whatever the homeowners choose. And that is perfectly code compliant. 

As for the rest of your post, I really don’t know where you’re going with that. I don’t understand what you are saying. 

Code is really stupid. Very rarely is the code written to properly cover the intent. There is no continuity. I believe a typical 11th grade high school class could write the code clearer.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

HackWork said:


> There is nothing restricting the load on a manual transfer switch connected generator. I routinely connect small portable generators to entire houses with an interlock. The full load of the house is on the generator.
> 
> So the load that the generator is actually going to run is whatever the homeowners choose. And that is perfectly code compliant.
> 
> ...


Reminds me of Art 90.1 (A). :vs_laugh:


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> There is nothing restricting the load on a manual transfer switch connected generator. I routinely connect small portable generators to entire houses with an interlock. The full load of the house is on the generator.
> 
> So the load that the generator is actually going to run is whatever the homeowners choose. And that is perfectly code compliant.


looking at it from that angle, i would agree if the ocpd or generator is sized for the conductor(or another way to say it, the conductor is sized properly in respect with ocpd size or generator output), but if you downsize with 83% you could get below what i believe is compliant ampacity.


both of us have some years left in the trade, do you think we will ever come to agreement on any of the things we disagree on? what do you think, kenny clamp again in 2025?

wanna help me write some proposals to clean this crap up?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

@;


Wiresmith said:


> looking at it from that angle, i would agree if the ocpd or generator is sized for the conductor(or another way to say it, the conductor is sized properly in respect with ocpd size or generator output), but if you downsize with 83% you could get below what i believe is compliant ampacity.


 But then we go back to the beginning where I told you that your interpretation of intent is meaningless, respectfully of course :biggrin:


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> @;
> But then we go back to the beginning where I told you that your interpretation of intent is meaningless, respectfully of course :biggrin:


at this point i think we actually see the same thing but are looking at it differently, looking at different things and in turn saying things differently/applying things differently, because of a reason we actually both agree on, "the NEC needs some work." 

with that said, me continuing this conversation is not to try to get you to say it's not allowed, i'm actually just interested in knowing of what you think about how i'm thinking about this, am i absolutely without base or a leg to stand on with my argument/conclusion/thinking? i understand and agree there is a solid/sound/consensus bearing argument the code section can/should be plainly read and applied the way you read and apply it, but i also believe there is a good, although not as simple as it should be, argument that it should not.


by intent are you referring to how i am using my post 49 and 50 cmp reference? i would say i am using more than intent although i believe intent is quite weighty, i believe i am also using the origin, history and evolution of the section, which is what the current section is based on.

i think intent has significance because no one or for this matter no committee is perfect or perfect writers nor is the english language perfect and everyone reads things differently, therefore i believe you should try to read it as the writer meant. i know its impossible to know exactly, but i believe you should try and i think that can get you pretty far, something that further adds more work to this is the fact that this code section goes back decades of different committees, members, public input. that's why i look at all of it. the committee that wrote what we used today based this section on the previous. i know it's convoluted and should be unnecessary(but remember, imperfect people/committees) as i agree with you, the code is what is written. but then again, 


just kidding, 
this is that circling you were talking about, i would actually say we agree on this issue, although i don't know how to put it in a way that i think you would agree with. i think i'm looking from what you may say is an angle of" the code will never be perfect and always need work" and "how should it actually read", while your looking at it rightfully so of "what in plain black and white does it say."

i might post some more some other time and would like to hear anymore you would like to add but for now i have some other things i need to do. if i get a proposal polished up i will ask you to review it before i send it, i think you looking over it for me would be good for everybody if wouldn't mind.


also, Dennis, like last time i honestly would appreciate any more of your thoughts if you would care to give them.


thanks,


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

Not everyone agrees with taking a double deduction. When the calculated load already takes into account demand factors and such, why be allowed to take another 83%?

But it is what it is. When a feeder supplies the whole load to a house, they know there is a diversity that not everything will be on at the same time. 

If you selectively take the loads you know you’ll need on when the normal power is out, you loose that diversity. Whether those loads are in a separate panel, manually chosen or shed through relays, the chances of all those loads being on is greater. 

That is the reason for the wording that the feeder has to cary the whole load of the house to be able to take advantage of the 83% rule. 

Pretty simple, straightforward and proven over time. I wouldn’t change a thing.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

cabletie said:


> Not everyone agrees with taking a double deduction. When the calculated load already takes into account demand factors and such, why be allowed to take another 83%?


 Because the calculated load is an overinflation. And the 83% allowance is closer to a realistic ampacity of the conductors.

It's not that the 83% thing is allowing you to put too much current on the conductors. It's simply removing the extra safety padding that is put in. 



> But it is what it is. When a feeder supplies the whole load to a house, they know there is a diversity that not everything will be on at the same time.
> 
> *If you selectively take the loads you know you’ll need on when the normal power is out, you loose that diversity.* Whether those loads are in a separate panel, manually chosen or shed through relays, the chances of all those loads being on is greater.


 The homeowner can selectively take out the loads at any time with many devices. Switches, discos, relays, timers, off switches etc. As of yet, no one has posted anything to differentiate load shedding from those things. And even if they can, that point of view is still only based on perception of the intent of the code, not what the code actually requires and allows.



> Pretty simple, straightforward and proven over time. I wouldn’t change a thing.


 But it doesn't exclude load shedding.

On a little bit of a different note, in actual practice we use load shedding on the larger loads. AC and electrical stoves are the first things that we go for. Car chargers, electric dryers, water heaters, etc. Removing these loads all but guarantees that there won't be enough load left to cause an issue even if there was one to begin with, which I don't see.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

cabletie said:


> Not everyone agrees with taking a double deduction. When the calculated load already takes into account demand factors and such, why be allowed to take another 83%?
> 
> But it is what it is. When a feeder supplies the whole load to a house, they know there is a diversity that not everything will be on at the same time.
> 
> ...


I look at it the same way you do, what do you think about adding the wording; instead of just "load" make it something to the effect of"entire normal condition service load". I think there's a better wording out there, but you get where I'm going. I see how hackwork is reading it, I think the section should be as clear as we can get it for everybody.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Also, cabletie

What do you think about moving this to the service section? right now where it's at I also see how people believe it changes wire ampacity.

I brought this up last go around but I don't remember if you got in on that


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I look at it the same way you do, what do you think about adding the wording; instead of just "load" make it something to the effect of"entire normal condition service load". I think there's a better wording out there, but you get where I'm going. I see how hackwork is reading it, I think the section should be as clear as we can get it for everybody.


How is that going to differentiate between load shedding turning something off and a breaker that the customer could use to turn it off? Or disconnect, switch, etc?

Also remember that load shedding in this purpose doesn't just cut off the loads when the genny turns on. It only shuts down the loads when the genny bogs down. Most of the time those loads are still connected.

How is *removing loads* when it the total load approaches the ampacity of the conductors going to lead to the overheating of the feeders? Isn't the opposite true?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> also, Dennis, like last time i honestly would appreciate any more of your thoughts if you would care to give them.
> 
> 
> thanks,


Well I pretty much said what I thought however, this is not written down clearly in the code so either option would be subject to inspector approval. Certainly, if you didn't use the 83% rule then there wouldn't be an issue.

I will state again how I came about with my answer.

I know diversity is not used in the code but the fact remains that the reason we are allowed to use the 83% rule is because of the diversity of the dwelling. Generally speaking the calculated load would never be reached and that is because a residence does not have lights on all day long, mixers, dishwasher, washers, dryers, ranges are rarely on together and they are not on for long periods. Even a range has a table because of the diversity of that load. You never see a range on with burners at full blast and the oven going at full load. The oven has a T-stat which makes that load occasional rather than constant. Even the burners have stats on them.

So now throw in a generator that is manual. Say we have a 60 amp generator and we have heat or heat pumps that draw 60 amps. An owner can potentially have the heat strips running and other loads that could bring the load under the 60 amps but more than the 50 amp wire (83% of 60).

Now the wire will heat up. This is not going to happen on the entire load. This is why we cannot use the 83% on a feeder that does not supply he total load of the dwelling.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Well I pretty much said what I thought however, this is not written down clearly in the code so either option would be subject to inspector approval. Certainly, if you didn't use the 83% rule then there wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> I will state again how I came about with my answer.
> 
> I know diversity is not used in the code but the fact remains that the reason we are allowed to use the 83% rule is because of the diversity of the dwelling.


 As we all know, the reasoning does not matter. Not in the slightest.

You know that we can't hardwire a single LED under cabinet light to the SABC outlet. Do you really think that is the intent of the code article that prohibits it? Of course not. One small LED light would not hurt anything. The intent of the code is to stop people from wiring in many 65W lights to the SABC. But we can't go by the intent, we have to go by the code, and the code says even that one little LED light can't be powered off of the SABC, right? Intent is meaningless.



> Generally speaking the calculated load would never be reached and that is because a residence does not have lights on all day long, mixers, dishwasher, washers, dryers, ranges are rarely on together and they are not on for long periods. Even a range has a table because of the diversity of that load. You never see a range on with burners at full blast and the oven going at full load. The oven has a T-stat which makes that load occasional rather than constant. Even the burners have stats on them.
> 
> So now throw in a generator that is manual. Say we have a 60 amp generator and we have heat or heat pumps that draw 60 amps. An owner can potentially have the heat strips running and other loads that could bring the load under the 60 amps but more than the 50 amp wire (83% of 60).
> 
> Now the wire will heat up. This is not going to happen on the entire load. This is why we cannot use the 83% on a feeder that does not supply he total load of the dwelling.


 That is a reasonable explanation of why the code is written wrong. You should submit clarification. Until then, what you describe is still eligible for the 83% reduction.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> How is that going to differentiate between load shedding turning something off and a breaker that the customer could use to turn it off? Or disconnect, switch, etc?
> 
> Also remember that load shedding in this purpose doesn't just cut off the loads when the genny turns on. It only shuts down the loads when the genny bogs down. Most of the time those loads are still connected.
> 
> How is *removing loads* when it the total load approaches the ampacity of the conductors going to lead to the overheating of the feeders? Isn't the opposite true?


Its not surprising but we read that sentence differently.
So, then what do you think about it reading " feeder conductors sized for the entire normal condition utility service load and serving the entire load associated with the dwelling". I used sized instead of supplying.

Thanks


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> Its not surprising but we read that sentence differently.
> So, then what do you think about it reading " feeder conductors sized for the entire normal condition utility service load and serving the entire load associated with the dwelling". I used sized instead of supplying.
> 
> Thanks


I just don't understand something. Why won't you speak to the fact that a load shedding module is no different than a wifi light switch, or toggle switch, or breaker, or cord and plug connected range?

I have said this countless times and you ignore it each time.

The NEC does NOT differentiate between a relay controlled by a smartphone, computer, timer, or ATS. You know that.

OR, if you think that the NEC does in fact differentiate between a lead shedding device and any other type of disconnecting means, then please post the text. But _please_ stop ignoring it altogether.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Well I pretty much said what I thought however, this is not written down clearly in the code so either option would be subject to inspector approval. Certainly, if you didn't use the 83% rule then there wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> I will state again how I came about with my answer.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I completely agree

If you're interested in a conversation I have some questions if you would like to answer them.
What do you think about how 215.2 and 230.42 plays in this, does 310.15(B)(7) trump them sections? They say size conductors for the load, essentially I'm asking can you use a wire on a calculated load above the normal table ampacities and I mean even if you use 310.15(B)(7). I don't think you are allowed.

And a question related to this, even not dealing with a dwelling service, but I think related to the core issue of all of this. If I have a calculated load of say 68 amps on a feeder, I use 70 amp 100% rated ocpd, can I use #6 xhhw 75c?

310.15(B)(16) #6 75c is 65amps
240.6 ocpd sizes are 60, 70, 80
240.4(B) says I can round up a breaker size

I say no. Many say yes.

As always thanks


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I just don't understand something. Why won't you speak to the fact that a load shedding module is no different than a wifi light switch, or toggle switch, or breaker, or cord and plug connected range?
> 
> I have said this countless times and you ignore it each time.
> 
> ...


I apologize, thank you for calling me on that. I took those as rhetorical questions. just as you, I see no difference.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I apologize, thank you for calling me on that. I took those as rhetorical questions. just as you, I see no difference.


So then the wording that you want to change in the NEC has to address load shedding directly.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> So then the wording that you want to change in the NEC has to address load shedding directly.


I think post 72 would cover that, do you not?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I think post 72 would cover that, do you not?


NO, absolutely not.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

" feeder conductors sized for the entire calculated service load as calculated in article 220 for the entire dwelling and serving the entire load associated with the dwelling."


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

I think utility should be removed


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Oops I edited my last post when I was actually trying to just quote it
Here's my latest

" feeder conductors sized for the entire calculated service load as calculated in article 220 for the entire dwelling and serving the entire load associated with the dwelling."


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

I'll check back in later, I have to sign off


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Bird dog said:


> I believe you're confusing "entire load" with "calculated load".


I think the difference of how we are looking at it is hackwork and possibly you as well are reading "entire associated load" as meaning the load that's running, while us others take it to mean every electrical load associated with the dwelling whether its running or not, whether it's switched off or not or unplugged or not and yeah also adding anything the load calcs add.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I think the difference of how we are looking at it is hackwork and possibly you as well are reading "entire associated load" as meaning the load that's running, while us others take it to mean every electrical load associated with the dwelling whether its running or not, whether it's switched off or not or unplugged or not and yeah also adding anything the load calcs add.


I thought you said you agreed with me? I can't keep up.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I thought you said you agreed with me? I can't keep up.


I agree the way you're reading it is a reasonable way to read how the section is wrote in black and white right there just on that page, which I believe you should be able to just do that, just read what is on that page and know which one of the two ways it's being read here in this thread is correct. But when I make what could be called some assumptions about the intent, my view is that you're not allowed to use it unless the feeder is big enough for the calculated service load. 
Its confusing, I know. Another way to put it is I think this section is screwed up and there are valid arguments for both interpretations because its screwed up.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Something worth mentioning,

This section is being changed in 2020, I will post what it's going to be so far and I will work on a proposal to adjust that for what we are talking about and I will post it for comment.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Nevermind. We are back to the beginning yet again.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

If the generator puts out fewer amps than the service size, the feeder should be sized to the OCPD on the generator by 310.15(B)(16).


I'm not saying it's required by the code, as it is clearly not. But my way leaves no ambiguity and is not open to any quibbling by the AHJ.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

HackWork said:


> Until then, what you describe is still eligible for the 83% reduction.


Since when is your word gospel. Can you show beyond a reasonable doubt that 83% is allowed in this situation. No, you can't so I don't think you ought to be telling everyone that it is allowed. In your opinion, it is allowed and in my opinion it is not. So there we go.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Since when is your word gospel. Can you show beyond a reasonable doubt that 83% is allowed in this situation. No, you can't so I don't think you ought to be telling everyone that it is allowed. In your opinion, it is allowed and in my opinion it is not. So there we go.


 Yes, I can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt by simply pointing out to you that it is not prohibited. Do I really have to explain to you how code works?

Now the onus is on you to post the code article which prohibits this specific instance. We both know that it’s not there and you’re only making assumptions based on what you believe the intent was. 

Don’t get mad at me just because you don’t like the fact that we are clearly allowed to do something that you don’t think we should be able to do.

You flip-flop back-and-forth too much. You can’t have it both ways. Either we go by the letter of the code or we go by what we assume the intention is. You know which way we are forced to go by, so stop going back-and-forth.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Yes, Hack please teach me how the code works. I have no idea. I also don't agree with your assessment that if it is not prohibited it is allowed. For the most part that is true but not for everything.

You can't stand to have someone disagree with you so you go on the attack. Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree. And as I said earlier this is my opinion also as it is yours.

Sometimes the code is not clear and it is the job of the inspectors to infer what the intent is. The code does not say that Hack has the final word. :vs_laugh:


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> The code does not say that Hack has the final word. :vs_laugh:


But it doesn't say he doesn't. So...

Just kidding, sorry for trying to drag you into this. Thanks for your input. You have earned a lot more respect and reverence than what was just shown to you.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

This thread was buggered up from the start. Six or so people discussing three different issues. What a goat rope.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Yes, Hack please teach me how the code works. I have no idea.


 Apparently not.

Instead of the attitude, why not post the article prohibiting the 83% reduction in the situations you mentioned?



> I also don't agree with your assessment that if it is not prohibited it is allowed. For the most part that is true but not for everything.


 It's absolutely true in this situation. It's a feeder, the allowance is for feeders.



> You can't stand to have someone disagree with you so you go on the attack.


 Who did I attack? We were having a normal discussion until you came here attacking me.



> Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.


 No, that's not the way it works. Until you post that article, you are flat out incorrect. That's not an attack, it's just the way it is.



> And as I said earlier this is my opinion also as it is yours.


 I am not talking about opinions. The allowance is for feeders, so it is up to you to show us where that specific feeder from a generator is prohibited. Until then, it is allowed to use the reduction.



> Sometimes the code is not clear and it is the job of the inspectors to infer what the intent is.


 The code is clear on this issue, crystal clear.



> The code does not say that Hack has the final word. :vs_laugh:


 You are right, I do not have the final word. The code is clear, it allows you to use that reduction.

Dennis, stop already. Post the code article that prohibits that reduction. Post it.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> But it doesn't say he doesn't. So...
> 
> Just kidding, sorry for trying to drag you into this. Thanks for your input. You have earned a lot more respect and reverence than what was just shown to you.


Dennis doesn't walk on water and he hasn't earned the right to pull code out of thin air.

Either he posts the article that prohibits generator feeders from using the 83% reduction or he is wrong. It's one or the other.

This BS about what the two of you _think_ the intent of the article is has gone too far.

Frankly, I am sick of the same guy who for the past decade has always said "The code isn't written that way so you can't do it" flip-flopping around when it suits him. Either we follow the written code or we guess the intent, not both.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Dennis doesn't walk on water and he hasn't earned the right to pull code out of thin air.
> 
> Either he posts the article that prohibits generator feeders from using the 83% reduction or he is wrong. It's one or the other.
> 
> ...


The argument I see about forbidding it is 310.15(B)(7) uses the words "entire load associated with a .... Dwelling."
They are referring to what I believe is better called the calculated service load, not the load that's connected, but associated. 

I believe I am done on this thread. like you also appear to think, this seams to have been a futile effort. Although I appreciate the effort on your part especially given our history.
Thanks


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> The argument I see about forbidding it is 310.15(B)(7) uses the words "entire load associated with a .... Dwelling."
> They are referring to what I believe is better called the calculated service load, not the load that's connected, but associated.


 It has the entire load associated with the dwelling on it. Load shedding doesn’t change that anymore than a light switch or a timer does. You said you agreed with that.



> I believe I am done on this thread. like you also appear to think, this seams to have been a futile effort. Although I appreciate the effort on your part especially given our history.
> Thanks


 It’s been a pleasure:smile: Much better than the Kenny clamp debacle :biggrin:


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> It has the entire load associated with the dwelling on it. Load shedding doesn’t change that anymore than a light switch or a timer does. You said you agreed with that.


I believe it's at the word associated where our views point in different directions.

I no longer believe I completely understand the way you are talking about load shedding.

I now think you are suggesting that everything considered in the normal load calc of the house is connected no less than a light switch disconnects it. Is that right?

I agree, although I wasn't looking at it from that angle, not that it changes my perception but it would change my response.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

The service to the dwelling was sized the way it was sized due to the calculated load. Switching to a generator as the source doesn't change that load. The panel has no idea what the power source is. The lights and receptacles work exactly the same under generator power or utility power. The way the code is worded allows for the generator feeder to take the reduction down to 83% ampacity. It does not distinguish between the types of sources.


I personally think it should be a full size feeder based on 310.15(B)(16), but that doesn't matter. The way it is written is clear.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

To that view I would say the argument I see is
It says supplying the entire load, so it is implied that the feeder rating they are referring to is what could actually supply the entire calculated load.

Now I do give it to you, this angle I think you may be looking from may have even more merit than the last I thought you were using.

Yep, I think this section seriously needs work.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> To that view I would say the argument I see is
> It says supplying the entire load, so it is implied that the feeder rating they are referring to is what could actually supply the entire calculated load.
> 
> Now I do give it to you, this angle I think you may be looking from may have even more merit than the last I thought you were using.
> ...



"Supplying the entire load" doesn't mean powering everything simultaneously. It doesn't mean that when on utility power and it doesn't mean that when on generator power. It means "powering whatever load may happen to be turned on at any given moment."


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

I will also add something I was alluding to earlier which is something I have argued with both of you on here I believe multiple times.

I do not see how this section trumps 215.12 or 230.90.

I was playing along with the more common view of how it kind of does, because I am the only one I know that reads it that way. But I still believe those sections are not trumped and 310.15(B)(7) is actually another minimum requirement not an exception, yeah I said minimum requirement believe it or not.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> "Supplying the entire load" doesn't mean powering everything simultaneously. It doesn't mean that when on utility power and it doesn't mean that when on generator power. It means "powering whatever load may happen to be turned on at any given moment."


I did not say powering everything simultaneously, nor did I mean that, nor do I think that


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I will also add something I was alluding to earlier which is something I have argued with both of you on here I believe multiple times.
> 
> I do not see how this section trumps 215.12 or 230.90.



Those sections hold up whether or not you use 310.15(B)(7). Why do you think those have anything to do with this?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Those sections hold up whether or not you use 310.15(B)(7). Why do you think those have anything to do with this?


Because what has been being suggested would violate those


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> Because what has been being suggested would violate those



*215.12: Identification for Feeders*
How is this section violated by reducing the generator feeder to 83%?


*230.90: Service Equipment - Overcurrent Protection*
This section is modified by 310.15(B)(7) if the installation falls within the parameters it sets: 120/240 V, single phase dwelling service.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> *215.12: Identification for Feeders*
> How is this section violated by reducing the generator feeder to 83%?
> 
> 
> ...


Oops 215.2,
Where do you read where it talks about this modification you speak of and then why isn't it an exception in the 230.90 section, like the way the rest of the code book is arranged?


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> Oops 215.2,
> Where do you read where it talks about this modification you speak of and then why isn't it an exception in the 230.90 section, like the way the rest of the code is arranged?



310.15(B)(7) specifically calls out single phase 120/240 V residential service feeders and lists allowable ampacities for conductors. That means that whatever else the code might say about ampacities for feeders, this specific type of feeder can follow different rules. Otherwise, why would it be exist?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Because I feel civicly obligated I have to offer you a warning these other guys already know, that you are standing at the edge of a deep rabbit hole talking to me about this, I will likely stubbornly go down it, but it will likely be a waste of time for you, don't be afraid to take breaks and come back to it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> 310.15(B)(7) specifically calls out single phase 120/240 V residential service feeders and lists allowable ampacities for conductors. That means that whatever else the code might say about ampacities for feeders, this specific type of feeder can follow different rules. Otherwise, why would it be exist?


B7 does not change ampacities of conductors, it stipulates a minimum
"Not less than 83%"

I have to get off here but I will check back in,. I do ask that if you havent, although I believe you have, read what I have already posted in the entire thread.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

My original post stated if the load on the building was less than or equal to the 100 amps of the generator then I believe 83% is allowed however if you have a 200 amp service then it is my opinion that this section will not allow it.



> For a feeder rated 100 through 400 amperes, the feeder
> conductors supplying the* entire load associated with a
> one-family dwelling, *or the feeder conductors supplying
> the entire load associated with an individual dwelling unit
> ...



Hax, since it cannot feed the entire load I do not see how it is allowed. One can argue this all day but the attacks on my opinion is uncalled for. I have an article which I believe was mentioned indirectly however, you choose to interpret it one way and I the other. I am done with this thread. as it is counter productive.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> My original post stated if the load on the building was less than or equal to the 100 amps of the generator then I believe 83% is allowed however if you have a 200 amp service then it is my opinion that this section will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The generator feeder is supplying the entire load.

There is nothing saying that it needs to be able to power the entire thing at one time.

I often connect a 5,500w generator to a house with a backfed breaker, that 30A cable has the entire load of the house on it.

As I so succinctly put it with my other username:



> "Supplying the entire load" doesn't mean powering everything simultaneously. It doesn't mean that when on utility power and it doesn't mean that when on generator power. It means "powering whatever load may happen to be turned on at any given moment."


On a different note, think about this for a second, the utility can't always supply the entire ampacity of a house. There are many areas where there are many houses on a single transformer and they can't supply all of the house to their full ampacity or calculated load.

That fact doesn't negate the 83% reduction either.

Dennis, you quoted "entire load associated with a one-family dwelling". That doesn't say full ampacity of the feeder nor does it say calculated load. It is merely speaking about powering everything, meaning nothing is powered by another feeder/service. You know that, I have seen you say it.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Hax, since it cannot feed the entire...



It is feeding the entire load. It can't energize them all at once, but the entire load is connected.




> I am done with this thread. as it is counter productive.




So it is only "productive" if someone has the same interpretation of the code as you do? Damn. I'm going to start using that. "No officer. I'll not take that ticket. It's counter-productive." "Why are you mad that I slept with your sister, honey? That's counter-productive."


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

" conductors supplying entire load associated."
I read that and think it goes without saying that the conductors need sized for the entire load associated, the way you would normally size for the entire load.(to be able to use the reduction)


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> " conductors supplying entire load associated."
> I read that and think it goes without saying that the conductors need sized for the entire load associated, the way you would normally size for the entire load.(to be able to use the reduction)


Those conductors are supplying the entire load.

Just like the #10 wire in a portable generator connection is sized for the associated load. Nowhere does it say the full calculated load of the dwelling or the full ampacity of the overcurrent protection device.

Again, it is clearly talking about having everything in the dwelling powered by that source alone. To use your own logic, that is how you get the proper diversity. That’s the point of it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Those conductors are sized for the entire load.
> 
> Just like the #10 wire in a portable generator connection is sized for the associated load. Nowhere does it say the full calculated load of the dwelling or the full ampacity of the overcurrent protection device.
> 
> Again, it is clearly talking about having everything in the dwelling powered by that source alone. To use your own logic, that is how you get the proper diversity. That’s the point of it.


I agree that they are sized for the load but not the "entire load associated with the dwelling." by using associated I don't believe they mean what is just running, because you size conductors based on a load of not what is running but based on load calcs.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I agree that they are sized for the load but not the "entire load associated with the dwelling."


I made a mistake in my post and went back to correct it. When I said "sized for" I meant "are supplying".



> by using associated I don't believe they mean what is just running, because you size conductors based on a load of not what is running but based on load calcs.


 Not always, and certainly not when it comes to generators.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

CoolWill said:


> It is feeding the entire load. It can't energize them all at once, but the entire load is connected.
> 
> So it is only "productive" if someone has the same interpretation of the code as you do? Damn. I'm going to start using that. "No officer. I'll not take that ticket. It's counter-productive." "Why are you mad that I slept with your sister, honey?* It was reproductive."*


Let's use proper Engrish. 

:devil3:


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

I took the weekend off work and came back to quite a bit of reading. Thank you to everyone that chimed in. As I mentioned earlier, the municipality I work in does not allow the 83% benefit on the feeders from the 100 amp breaker on the generator to the 200 amp service disconnect. I see some of you really disagree with this so I thought I would give you some of our reasoning.


1) I would argue that 98% of the "whole house" generator transfer switches I see do not have any type of load shedding at all. And if it's provided, it is rarely connected to the appliances. Now it is available in after market modules, but I think I've only seen those installed once. So this means that a majority of the home owners believe they can run everything in there house while on generator power, with no problem. They just aren't aware of how it works, they just want it to work. So this is a good example of Code 90.1 (A).


2) If I cite the problem and the contractor asks why, my response is the following, as CoolWill pointed out earlier, 445.13 says the ampacity of the wires from the generator need to be 115% of the nameplate, which I believe is around 85 amps.

















The original calculated load of the dwelling required a 200 amp service. If a contractor wanted to produce a revised load calculation for the dwelling and it provided compelling evidence that the calculated load would never reach 84 amps, or showed a few load shedding modules they installed and what they control, then I could certainly be a little more flexible. But most times it is easier for them to install an 80 amp breaker. 


By the sounds of some of the responses this doesn't seem like the popular decision, but it just boils down to the safety of the homeowner.


Thanks again for all the input.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> 1) I would argue that 98% of the "whole house" generator transfer switches I see do not have any type of load shedding at all. And if it's provided, it is rarely connected to the appliances. Now it is available in after market modules, but I think I've only seen those installed once. So this means that a majority of the home owners believe they can run everything in there house while on generator power, with no problem. They just aren't aware of how it works, they just want it to work. So this is a good example of Code 90.1 (A).


 Those installations are not code compliant, at least not for the last 10 years.



> The original calculated load of the dwelling required a 200 amp service.


 Maybe, maybe not. Here we use a 200A service as standard practice even though natural gas is in every house which means the only large load is the central AC, which is very easy to shed with the low voltage contacts in most ATS's.



> If a contractor wanted to produce a revised load calculation for the dwelling and it provided compelling evidence that the calculated load would never reach 84 amps, or showed a few load shedding modules they installed and what they control, then I could certainly be a little more flexible. But most times it is easier for them to install an 80 amp breaker.


 If the calculated load of the house requires more than the 83A that the generator can output, then load shedding is required for an ATS. 

If you are allowing them to break that code, I can't see why you would hassle them about another code.




> By the sounds of some of the responses this doesn't seem like the popular decision, but it just boils down to the safety of the homeowner.
> 
> 
> Thanks again for all the input.


 It's not about safety. There is nothing unsafe about running 100A on #4 or 200A on 4/0, etc. There are multiple levels of safety (ie. padding) added onto conductor ampacity. This allowance is taking one of those levels away but it does not bring the ampacity into unsafe territory. If it did, it simply would not be allowed. 

The code would not allow, for example, #4 to be used on a 100A service if it was dangerous because they know that someone might add loads later. People add ranges, AC units, car chargers, hot tubs, etc. without upgrading the entire service. So if it was dangerous to put 100A on that size conductor, they simply would not allow it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Not always, and certainly not when it comes to generators.


True, I could have worded that better. But with the situation we are dealing with, the situation this code section is referring to I read the "conductors supplying the entire load associated with the dwelling" and I think entire load associated with the dwelling means what I believe we both agree on, please let me know if you think we are on different pages with that part. And it has "supplying" in there, I see that and think it means it must be (through normal load calcs( because it uses "entire load associated and with a house when you size the main feeder you are supposed to be big enough per the calcs.) large enough to supply the entire associated load.

I dunno, that's just how it reads to me.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> 310.15(B)(7) specifically calls out single phase 120/240 V residential service feeders and lists allowable ampacities for conductors. That means that whatever else the code might say about ampacities for feeders, this specific type of feeder can follow different rules. Otherwise, why would it be exist?


I didn't answer your question with my other post I think I over read it.

This section exists because it is an additional minimum requirement, it actually places more restriction in the code book, its not loosening requirements.

Can I have a 400 amp service to a commercial garage from the utility and use 200 amp wire. I believe your answer would be no, I ask what code section prevents that?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> True, I could have worded that better. But with the situation we are dealing with, the situation this code section is referring to I read the "conductors supplying the entire load associated with the dwelling" and I think entire load associated with the dwelling means what I believe we both agree on, please let me know if you think we are on different pages with that part. And it has "supplying" in there, I see that and think it means it must be (through normal load calcs( because it uses "entire load associated and with a house when you size the main feeder you are supposed to be big enough per the calcs.) large enough to supply the entire associated load.
> 
> I dunno, that's just how it reads to me.


It's not how it reads to you, it's how you interpret the intent. You said it yourself: "_I see that and think it means it must be (through normal load calcs_". It's not what you think it means, it's what it says. And it does not say the calculated load. It says the "entire load", which it does supply the entire load.


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Those installations are not code compliant, at least not for the last 10 years.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. Here we use a 200A service as standard practice even though natural gas is in every house which means the only large load is the central AC, which is very easy to shed with the low voltage contacts in most ATS's.
> 
> ...




----


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> I don't see where it is required that the ATS must load shed? Where are you finding that language Hack?


I believe it's 702.4 B that requires the generator to either be sized to the calculated load or use load shedding.



Seau1355 said:


> If it's not about safety, then why have a code?


Well, first of all, there is a huge amount of code that is not about safety. 

But when I said "it's not about safety", I was speaking about something different and I feel that I made myself very clear, so I will consider your question rhetorical.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I didn't answer your question with my other post I think I over read it.
> 
> This section exists because it is an additional minimum requirement, it actually places more restriction in the code book, its not loosening requirements.



I agree with this. It is more restrictive because it is reliant on the actual instantaneous load to be less than the conductor ampacity.




> Can I have a 400 amp service to a commercial garage from the utility and use 200 amp wire. I believe your answer would be no, I ask what code section prevents that?



Service entrance conductors can be sized to the calculated load, so yes. But feeder conductors , no. The 200 amp feeder wire cannot be protected by a 400 amp OCPD, barring some use of 240.21's tap rules.


Having said that, 310.15(B)(7) has nothing to say about any of that. As it is read, your good intentions not withstanding, the feeder from a generator can be reduced to 83%.


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

HackWork said:


> I believe it's 702.4 B that requires the generator to either be sized to the calculated load or use load shedding.
> 
> 
> Well, first of all, there is a huge amount of code that is not about safety.
> ...




Here is 702.4


*702.4 Capacity and Rating








**(A) Available Short-Circuit Current. *Optional standby system






equipment shall be suitable for the maximum available short circuit


current at its terminals.




*(B) System Capacity. *The calculations of load on the standby


source shall be made in accordance with Article 220 or by another






approved method.




*(1) Manual Transfer Equipment. *Where manual transfer






equipment is used, an optional standby system shall have


adequate capacity and rating for the supply of all equipment


intended to be operated at one time. The user of the optional


standby system shall be permitted to select the load connected


to the system.




*(2) Automatic Transfer Equipment. *Where automatic transfer






equipment is used, an optional standby system shall comply


with (2)(a) or (2)(b).




(a) _Full Load. _The standby source shall be capable of






supplying the full load that is transferred by the automatic


transfer equipment.




(b) _Load Management. _Where a system is employed that






will automatically manage the connected load, the standby


source shall have a capacity sufficient to supply the maximum


load that will be connected by the load management system.




I'm guessing you're referring to Load Management. It states "where a system is employed that will automatically manage..." Not " A system SHALL automatically manage..." Load shedding is not required on an optional standby system. 




In my original scenario, let say the calculated load is 97 amps on a 200 amp service. Load shedding is not required and #4 copper is pulled, which is good for 85 amps on a 75 degree lug. Two things here, the nameplate rating on generator is 83 amps so the reason there is a 100 amp breaker in the generator is because the wires are to be sized 115% of the name plate rating. 
And as 702.4 (B)(2)(a) above says, it needs to be able to handle the full load. The full load will not always be there, but it still must be capable of handling it.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

702.4(B)(2) requires that an automatic system be capable of handling the entire load imposed on it. Two ways that can be acheived are outlined in part (a) and part (b). 



In (a), you can just size the generator large enough to handle anything the system can throw at it. But that's ridiculous for residential systems. 



So, the code allows (b), which is automatically control some of the load. This way, we don't have to size the generator to 200 amps or more. The generator will handle anything up to its capacity. Should more load be imposed, it must be able to manage that load to ensure the continued operation of the system, that is, shed some of the load. The wiring will be protected by the feeder breaker, so there is no danger from that. But what good is a system that trips if there's an overload? So the code allows us to use a system that automatically drops loads biggrin to keep the system functional.


I think this came around in the 2008 code. Used to be, we could just wire a generator into the system and walk away. Let the owner manage the load. I guess that was too complicated.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> I'm guessing you're referring to Load Management. It states "where a system is employed that will automatically manage..." Not " A system SHALL automatically manage..." Load shedding is not required on an optional standby system.


 I never said it was required. Please read it again:

"I believe it's 702.4 B that requires the generator to either be sized to the calculated load or use load shedding."



> In my original scenario, let say the calculated load is 97 amps on a 200 amp service. Load shedding is not required and #4 copper is pulled, which is good for 85 amps on a 75 degree lug.


 In this scenario they would, in fact, require load shedding.



> Two things here, the nameplate rating on generator is 83 amps so the reason there is a 100 amp breaker in the generator is because the wires are to be sized 115% of the name plate rating.


 No, many 20Kw generators come with a 90A breaker now. The breaker is a disconnect, nothing more.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

CoolWill said:


> I think this came around in the 2008 code. Used to be, we could just wire a generator into the system and walk away. Let the owner manage the load. I guess that was too complicated.


Yes, it was 2008.

As for it being too complicated for the owner to handle it, it's not that. With a manual system they allow the owner to handle it. The reason why they have these provisions for an auto system is because the generator might turn on when the owner isn't there. So the 3 AC units might be running or something like that.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Yes, it was 2008.
> 
> As for it being too complicated for the owner to handle it, it's not that. With a manual system they allow the owner to handle it. The reason why they have these provisions for an auto system is because the generator might turn on when the owner isn't there. So the 3 AC units might be running or something like that.



Yes, but that doesn't sound snarky enough for a response from me.


----------



## Wardenclyffe (Jan 11, 2019)

This is an interesting read because I am planning on using a standby generator in my new house, ...


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

If there is a 90 amp breaker in the generator then the feeder is not 100 amps and 310.15 rule of 83% cannot be used. That is stated 100-400 amps for feeders or services


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If there is a 90 amp breaker in the generator then the feeder is not 100 amps and 310.15 rule of 83% cannot be used. That is stated 100-400 amps for feeders or services


Very true.

But the whole thing of the 115% is outta wack.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I have never heard of the 115% either


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

115% is only for the conductors between the actual generator winding and the first overcurrent device. For a generator without a built-in OCPD. Since all of these home standby generators have a built-in OCPD, 445.13 doesn't apply.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Service entrance conductors can be sized to the calculated load, so yes. But feeder conductors , no. The 200 amp feeder wire cannot be protected by a 400 amp OCPD, barring some use of 240.21's tap rules.


 although something as dramatic as 200 and 400 won't work because of the available breaker sizes, 240.4(B) allows you to run ocpd above conductor ampacity


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I say you're wrong,
> 310.15(A)(2)exception
> 
> And although something as dramatic as 200 and 400 won't work because of the available breaker sizes, 240.4(B) allows you to run ocpd above conductor ampacity



And? That all hinges on the second requirement. An oddball ampacity. That has nothing to do with the thread in general or the question you asked me specifically. So you just wanted to pull this out to say "Ah ha! You're wrong!"? Don't be stupid.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> And? That all hinges on the second requirement. An oddball ampacity. That has nothing to do with the thread in general or the question you asked me specifically. So you just wanted to pull this out to say "Ah ha! You'rep wrong!"? Don't be stupid.


You asked me what the point of the section is, I'm trying to explain what I think it is.
Don't be stupid


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> You asked me what the point of the section is, I'm trying to explain what I think it is


I think you are just trying to steer this into the direction of that same nonsense as last year.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I think you are just trying to steer this into the direction of that same nonsense as last year.


I am going that direction with my conversation with coolwill because I think he asked me, 
See post 104


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I am going that direction with my conversation with coolwill because I think he asked me,
> See post 104



Those sections are superseded by the specific instance of 310.15(B)(7). Nothing in the wording suggests otherwise.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Those sections are superseded by the specific instance of 310.15(B)(7). Nothing in the wording suggests otherwise.


Where does it say it supersedes them? 
where does it say one section can supersede another?
Where does another section supersede another?


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> Where does it say it supersedes them?
> where does it say one section can supersede another?
> Where does another section supersede another?



Because it exists. It wouldn't exist just to be nullified by other sections. It addresses topics specifically addressed by other sections. When a topic is addressed with a set of rules for a specific situation, the section in question has authority over the items that fall within the parameters of the situation.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Because it exists. It wouldn't exist just to be nullified by other sections. It addresses topics specifically addressed by other sections. When a topic is addressed with a set of rules for a specific situation, the section in question has authority over the items that fall within the parameters of the situation.


Where does it say that's the case?
Where else is a situation in the code book like that?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

For what reason is this not an exception in those code sections like their other exceptions?


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> Where does it say that's the case?
> Where else is a situation in the code book like that?



The part where it says "Conductor types and Sizes for 120/240 V, 3-Wire, Single-Phase Dwelling Services and Feeders".


Off the top of my head, other instances of something similar occurring:


Conductors for motors and HVAC

Feeder and transformer taps
Fixture wires


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Because it exists. It wouldn't exist just to be nullified by other sections. It addresses topics specifically addressed by other sections. When a topic is addressed with a set of rules for a specific situation, the section in question has authority over the items that fall within the parameters of the situation.


I need to clear something up, I do not believe this section is nullified.
Like I said before, I believe this is an additional minimum requirement. I don't believe it is used correctly by many people like you. You veered off course of me trying to explain what I believe the point of this section is.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> For what reason is this not an exception in those code sections like their other exceptions?



Don't know. Doesn't matter. It says what it says.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I need to clear something up, I do not believe this section is nullified.
> Like I said before, I believe this is an additional minimum requirement. I don't believe it is used correctly by many people like you.




People like me? You mean black people? Don't beat around the bush, just go ahead and start dropping N-bombs, racist.





> You veered off course of me trying to explain what I believe the point of this section is.



You brought up unrelated sections to distract from you being wrong. You did that.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> The part where it says "Conductor types and Sizes for 120/240 V, 3-Wire, Single-Phase Dwelling Services and Feeders".
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, other instances of something similar occurring:
> ...


See 240.4 and its table, and 240.5 all of those are refered to there. 310.15(B)(7) is MIA


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> See 240.4 and its table, and 240.5 all of those are refered to there. 310.15(B)(7) is MIA



Yes. It is MIA. You're looking in the wrong place. Turn to 310.15(B)(7) to find it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Yes. It is MIA. You're looking in the wrong place. Turn to 310.15(B)(7) to find it.


Now, look at 240.4 & .5. And 230.90 & 215.2. the 240s in no way violate 230 or 215.
240 is ocpd
215.2 is ampacity

310.15(B)(7) the way you read it, does violate it (unless it supersedes it, which is a ridiculous and unfounded view)

The way I read it does not violate 215 or 230


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> Now, look at 240.4 & .5. And 230.90 & 215.2. the 240s in no way violate 230 or 215.
> 240 is ocpd
> 215.2 is ampacity
> 
> 310.15(B)(7) the way you read it, does violate it (unless it supersedes it, which is a ridiculous and unfounded view)


It's not unfounded. It is right there in black and white. Find the section 310.15(B)(7). That's all you need to know about it. Everything else you list is a waste of time as far as this topic goes. You're off in the weeds when you should just look at 310.15(B)(7).


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> It's not unfounded. It is right there in black and white. Find the section 310.15(B)(7). That's all you need to know about it. Everything else you list is a waste of time as far as this topic goes. You're off in the weeds when you should just look at 310.15(B)(7).


I'm looking at it, it says "not less than 83%" it doesn't say you never have to have ampacity more than that. It is another minimum, not an exception, not a reduction in requirements, not a lessening of any other code in the entire book. It doesn't change ampacity, it doesn't allow anything New. Its a further restriction, another restriction, another requirement.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I'm looking at it, it says "not less than 83%" it doesn't say you never have to have ampacity more than that. It is another minimum, not an exception, not a reduction in requirements, not a lessening of any other code in the entire book. It doesn't change ampacity, it doesn't allow anything New.


It allows a wire to be protected by an overcurrent protection device larger than elsewhere in the code. The intent, what other sections say, your opinion, Dennis' opinion, none of that matters. It says what it says.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Can I use 175 amp service or feeder wire on a 190 amp calculated load on a 200 amp resi service?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> It allows a wire to be protected by an overcurrent protection device larger than elsewhere in the code. The intent, what other sections say, your opinion, Dennis' opinion, none of that matters. It says what it says.


It does not say that, you are the one using intent
My argument stands on it's own without intent, yours does not.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> It does not say that, you are the one using intent
> My argument stands on it's own without intent, yours does not.


310.15(B)(7), like the table that it replaced and is now in the annex, allows a #4 wire on a 10p amps breaker, does it not?


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

The answer to post 157 is no.

Now the next question,
Can I use 100amp wire for a 200 amp commercial garage service?

The answer is yes.

Next question,
Can I use 100 amp wire for a 200 amp single resi service?

The answer is no.

Why is that?
310.15(B)(7)


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> 310.15(B)(7), like the table that it replaced and is now in the annex, allows a #4 wire on a 10p amps breaker, does it not?


#4 is allowed on 100 amp breaker without that section. See 75c column, or table 310.15(b)(17)

Its not allowed on 100 in every scenario though.

I'm not trying to be a prick or make you look bad, you won't. I'm going over this because I think you are at least halfway trying to see how I am saying what seams to be out of left field.

I need to sign off, I will check in later


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

Wiresmith said:


> Can I use 175 amp service or feeder wire on a 190 amp calculated load on a 200 amp resi service?


Yes. Because it goes by the service rating. Not the calculated load. 

200x.83 = 166
2/0 copper is good for 175 amps. You have room to spare. 

310.15 (B)(7)(3)In no case shall a feeder for an individual dwelling unit be required to have an ampacity greater than that specified in 310.15(B)(7)(1) or (2).

Just take it in.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> #4 is allowed on 100 amp breaker without that section. See 75c column, or table 310.15(b)(17)



Irrelevant.




> Its not allowed on 100 in every scenario though.



Correct. The only scenario we're talking about here is 120/240 V, single phase dwelling feeders.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

cabletie said:


> Yes. Because it goes by the service rating. Not the calculated load.
> 
> 200x.83 = 166
> 2/0 copper is good for 175 amps. You have room to spare.
> ...


I will take it in like you said, please don't take my response as an angry one, it is not, I appreciate you looking at this with me/for me.

Now, I will think about it more but my initial response is do you believe b7 trumps 230.90?

230.90 says requires overload protection
240.4(B) (via 230.90 exception) allows going up ocpd size if conductor ampacity does not correspond with standard rating which 2/0 would mean 175amp breaker.

Also, do you mind reviewing my #49 and #23 posts, in that order would be better, due to #23 having some unrelated content.

Thanks.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you meet table 310.15(b)(17) I believe you can use #4 for 100a resi like I believe you are asking. Or if you meet 75c column.

My response was as irrelevant as when your wife walks in on you and her sister and she asks what's going on.

You asked I answered, correctly, your dumbass question. If you meant something different than you asked, that's on you. Troll


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Cabletie,

And also 215.2 because my question was service and feeder

Thanks


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> If you meet table 310.15(b)(17) I believe you can use #4 for 100a resi like I believe you are asking. Or if you meet 75c column.


Do you install a lot of residential feeders as single conductors in the open air?



> My response was as irrelevant as when your wife walks in on you and her sister and she asks what's going on.


So you heard about that too?



> You asked I answered, correctly, your dumbass question. If you meant something different than you asked, that's on you. Troll


You've trolled yourself by going through great lengths to invalidate a section of the code that is clear. It's not my fault you don't understand it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> Do you install a lot of residential feeders as single conductors in the open air?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I live in the country, they're all over.

I'm not trying to invalidate a code section, I like that code requirement, my argument would only invalidate an interpretation, not the section.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Let's cool the testosterone guys... Keep it friendly please.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I live in the country, they're all over.


So you see a lot of free-air feeders from residential standby generators? Because that is what we're discussing here. Not commercial garages, not overhead feeders on farms, etc.



> I'm not trying to invalidate a code section, I like that code requirement, my argument would only invalidate an interpretation, not the section.


So far, your "argument" has done nothing but jump around and shift the subject. The topic is residential standby generator feeders and whether they can be reduced to 83%. The code says they can.

As I stated, I don't think they should be, and I wouldn't do it on a job I bid. But that's not up what the topic is. The code says it is allowed. The section that allows it doesn't call on any other code. It simply allows it.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

....


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> Just when I thought this thread was about to burn out... Bam! it goes in a completely different direction and carries on. I like it. Naomi Wu... :wink:


When you're all done and cleaned up, let me know how your scenario of a 20Kw generator putting out 83A powering a house with a 200A service and calculated load of 97A doesn't need load shedding.





> In my original scenario, let say the calculated load is 97 amps on a 200 amp service. *Load shedding is not required* and #4 copper is pulled, which is good for 85 amps on a 75 degree lug. Two things here, the nameplate rating on generator is 83 amps


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

HackWork said:


> When you're all done and cleaned up, let me know how your scenario of a 20Kw generator putting out 83A powering a house with a 200A service and calculated load of 97A doesn't need load shedding.


 

Not to beat a dead horse, but here we go.


I will start with the 115%. Someone on this thread mentioned the 100 amp breaker was not overcurrent, it was just a disconnect. If that is the case, then the first over current device is the 200 amp breaker at the ATS. I don't believe that is the case. I believe the 100 amp breaker is an overcurrent device. In which case, I misspoke earlier about needing it for the feeders to the ATS. SO In mr scenario that is a mute point.


As I mentioned on an earlier post, if a contractor provides me a load calc that shows the generator can handle the full load. Then I would not have a problem with #4 copper.


I also mentioned on the same post that if there was load shedding I would also not have a problem with #4 copper.


When this becomes an issue is when the contractor cannot (or won't) provide an updated load calc or there is no load shedding, I will ask that they install a 2 pole 80 amp breaker, or install #3 copper. My decision may not be to the letter of the code, but it is a safe install. And if the generator is only capable of 83 amps, then an 80 amp breaker should be no issue. 


I wasn't kidding when I said most of the whole house generators I look at do not have load shedding. The ATS has the capabilities, but it's almost never used. The transfer switch below is the most common type of ATS I see, Kohler has one similar.


Generac-200-Amp-Service-Rate-Whole-House-Transfer-Switch-RXSW200A3/302570051






That's all I've got. I certainly didn't think it would turn into as big an issue as it did. Although it made for some good reading.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but here we go.


 It's not a dead horse, we barely spoke about load shedding being *required* in the scenarios that you proposed. 



> I will start with the 115%.


 Which as everyone else agreed, has nothing to do with requiring load shedding.

Notice Dennis' post https://www.electriciantalk.com/f5/article-310-15-b-3-7-a-269010/index7/#post5144928

The 115% thing doesn't apply, you are the only person I ever heard bring it into this topic.



> Someone on this thread mentioned the 100 amp breaker was not overcurrent, it was just a disconnect. If that is the case, then the first over current device is the 200 amp breaker at the ATS. I don't believe that is the case. I believe the 100 amp breaker is an overcurrent device. In which case, I misspoke earlier about needing it for the feeders to the ATS. SO In mr scenario that is a mute point.
> 
> 
> As I mentioned on an earlier post, if a contractor provides me a load calc that shows the generator can handle the full load. Then I would not have a problem with #4 copper.
> ...


Nothing you said here proves this statement that you made true. Here is the statement again:

"_In my original scenario, let say the calculated load is 97 amps on a 200 amp service. *Load shedding is not required* and #4 copper is pulled, which is good for 85 amps on a 75 degree lug. Two things here, the nameplate rating on generator is 83 amps_"

This statement is false because 702.4 B requires the generator to either be sized to the calculated load or use load shedding. 

This thread went off on a couple of tangents, but the original premise was based on a non code compliant installation. As an inspector you should know that if the calculated load is 97A and the generator puts out 83A, that load shedding is *required*. Yet you said multiple times that it is not.


----------



## Wardenclyffe (Jan 11, 2019)

Seau1355 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but here we go.
> 
> 
> I will start with the 115%. Someone on this thread mentioned the 100 amp breaker was not overcurrent, it was just a disconnect. If that is the case, then the first over current device is the 200 amp breaker at the ATS. I don't believe that is the case. I believe the 100 amp breaker is an overcurrent device. In which case, I misspoke earlier about needing it for the feeders to the ATS. SO In mr scenario that is a mute point.
> ...


So if load shedding isn't used or shed enough of the load to bring it in line , it still counts?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> I wasn't kidding when I said most of the whole house generators I look at do not have load shedding. The ATS has the capabilities, but it's almost never used. The transfer switch below is the most common type of ATS I see, Kohler has one similar.


If the calculated load is higher than 83A, or 80A when you force them to install a smaller breaker, then the installation is not code compliant and you shouldn't be passing it. The fact that you are hassling them about the breaker size while allowing a much bigger problem to exist boggles my mind. Well, not really. I have grown to expect that from inspectors.


----------



## Seau1355 (Jul 24, 2017)

HackWork said:


> If the calculated load is higher than 83A, or 80A when you force them to install a smaller breaker, then the installation is not code compliant and you shouldn't be passing it. The fact that you are hassling them about the breaker size while allowing a much bigger problem to exist boggles my mind. Well, not really. I have grown to expect that from inspectors.




Boy, you are an angry elf. 


I guess I would ask you if what I'm asking the contractor to do is an unsafe result. So I can conclude that every install you do is exactly code compliant? Or just on this issue? Do you expect every inspector to hold all your work to the letter of the code? I'm not a designer of electrical installations, I inspect them. I make sure it is a safe installation. I don't believe I am hassling them. If I wasn't asking for an 80 amp breaker, I would be asking for load calcs or load shedding. Wouldn't that be considered hassling them also? If so, it would appear I am in a no win situation.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Seau1355 said:


> Boy, you are an angry elf.


 Not angry, just honest. 

When inspectors don't know the code and make EC's do things that cost them and the homeowner money, I see it as being very, very wrong. 



> I guess I would ask you if what I'm asking the contractor to do is an unsafe result.


 It doesn't matter. You are not there to make things up on the spot just because you think it is "safer". If you admitted to doing that openly in public, you would lose your job and your municipality would be open to litigation.



> So I can conclude that every install you do is exactly code compliant?


 You bet your ass that if I worked for the government I would never cite something as being against code when it was. That is corruption.



> Or just on this issue? Do you expect every inspector to hold all your work to the letter of the code? I'm not a designer of electrical installations, I inspect them. I make sure it is a safe installation. I don't believe I am hassling them. If I wasn't asking for an 80 amp breaker, I would be asking for load calcs or load shedding. Wouldn't that be considered hassling them also? If so, it would appear I am in a no win situation.


You still ignore the part about load shedding being required. Why won't you speak to that? Why not just admit that you are wrong and load shedding IS required in the scenario that you proposed?


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Seau1355 said:


> Boy, you are an angry elf.
> 
> 
> I guess I would ask you if what I'm asking the contractor to do is an unsafe result. So I can conclude that every install you do is exactly code compliant? Or just on this issue? Do you expect every inspector to hold all your work to the letter of the code? I'm not a designer of electrical installations, I inspect them. I make sure it is a safe installation. I don't believe I am hassling them. If I wasn't asking for an 80 amp breaker, I would be asking for load calcs or load shedding. Wouldn't that be considered hassling them also? If so, it would appear I am in a no win situation.


FWIW here are some Mike Holt materials that may help you...




Understanding the NEC Volume 2 may cover generators...
https://www.mikeholt.com/product-category-list.php?id=1


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

So you have a calculated load of 97 amps. You require the EC to use an 80 amp feeder breaker. Everyone goes to dinner and leaves Grandma Gertrude at home watching TV. Suddenly, the power goes out and the generator kicks in and transfers the load.... But then the water heater and both A/Cs start up... With no load shedding, the feeder breaker trips. Now Granny's oxygen concentrator doesn't work, she has no idea about breakers, and she dies. Was it safer?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

CoolWill said:


> So you have a calculated load of 97 amps. You require the EC to use an 80 amp feeder breaker. Everyone goes to dinner and leaves Grandma Gertrude at home watching TV. Suddenly, the power goes out and the generator kicks in and transfers the load.... But then the water heater and both A/Cs start up... With no load shedding, the feeder breaker trips. Now Granny's oxygen concentrator doesn't work, she has no idea about breakers, and she dies. Was it safer?


Nope.

But it would have been safe if he knew the code and had the EC hookup the load shedding like 702.4(B) requires. Then those AC units would be shutdown before the generator bogged down or the breaker tripped.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> So you have a calculated load of 97 amps. You require the EC to use an 80 amp feeder breaker. Everyone goes to dinner and leaves Grandma Gertrude at home watching TV. Suddenly, the power goes out and the generator kicks in and transfers the load.... But then the water heater and both A/Cs start up... With no load shedding, the feeder breaker trips. Now Granny's oxygen concentrator doesn't work, she has no idea about breakers, and she dies. Was it safer?


The situation you are describing is something like a COPS Article 708, not an OPTIONAL standby system article702, the article I thought you were arguing. In optional scenario power off does not make it less safe, it makes it more safe than burning the house down with granny not able to get out. Your right on the requirement. But the rest in nonsense


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> The situation you are describing is something like a COPS Article 708, not an OPTIONAL standby system article702, the article I thought you were arguing. In optional scenario power off does not make it less safe, it makes it more safe than burning the house down with granny not able to get out. Your right on the requirement. But the rest in nonsense


You have no idea what you are talking about. 

He is clearly talking about an optional system, as we all are. 

What he said is 100% correct as well. Load shedding is required in the scenario that the OP proposed. CoolWill illustrated why it adds safety. he was replying to the guy that wrongly thinks load shedding is not required, but makes EC's do work that he pulled out of his butt "for safety".


----------



## tjb (Feb 12, 2014)

HackWork said:


> When inspectors don't know the code and make EC's do things that cost them and the homeowner money, I see it as being very, very wrong.
> 
> It doesn't matter. You are not there to make things up on the spot just because you think it is "safer". If you admitted to doing that openly in public, you would lose your job and your municipality would be open to litigation.



Wish I could “like” these sentiments more than just once.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Wiresmith said:


> The situation you are describing is something like a COPS Article 708, not an OPTIONAL standby system article702, the article I thought you were arguing. In optional scenario power off does not make it less safe, it makes it more safe than burning the house down with granny not able to get out. Your right on the requirement. But the rest in nonsense





HackWork said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> He is clearly talking about an optional system, as we all are.
> 
> What he said is 100% correct as well. Load shedding is required in the scenario that the OP proposed. CoolWill illustrated why it adds safety. he was replying to the guy that wrongly thinks load shedding is not required, but makes EC's do work that he pulled out of his butt "for safety".


 Hax is right...
_NEC_-2008 has a new Article 708, Critical Operations Power Systems (COPS). COPS are defined as “power systems for facilities or parts of facilities that require continuous operation for the reasons of public safety, emergency management, national security, or business continuity.” The article also defines designated critical operations areas (DCOA) as “areas within a facility or site designated as requiring critical operations power. According to the existing article, COPS are classified by municipal, state, federal, or other codes by any governmental agency having jurisdiction or by facility engineering documentation establishing the necessity for such a system.”
https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2...existing-technologies-to-assist-in-complying/


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm talking about him saying if power goes out someone is likely to die. And you know that's what I meant. The code part, I said I agree he was right on the code. There's no way you read that and thought I was saying you were using wrong code section, I wasn't.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> I'm talking about him saying if power goes out someone is likely to die.


He didn't say that. He never said someone is likely to die.

He gave an excellent example illustrating one of the reasons why they changed the code in 2008 to require load shedding on auto standby systems if the generator can't handle the load.

His reason for safety was way more realistic than the OPs, and also following code, which the OP is not doing.


----------



## Wardenclyffe (Jan 11, 2019)

Lack of oxygen ain't whats going to kill Granny,...


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> He didn't say that. He never said someone is likely to die.
> 
> He gave an excellent example illustrating one of the reasons why they changed the code in 2008 to require load shedding on auto standby systems if the generator can't handle the load.
> 
> His reason for safety was way more realistic than the OPs, and also following code, which the OP is not doing.


He said she died.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> He said she died.


Yes, so what? He gave an example, a realistic one.

He never said "someone is likely to die" as you asserted.

You have gone full fu*ktard, you are back in Kenny clamp territory. I should have known that you were just trolling this whole time.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Yes, so what? He gave an example, a realistic one.
> 
> He never said "someone is likely to die" as you asserted.


And your previous statement was a false assertion of what I said, like usual


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> And your previous statement was a false assertion of what I said, like usual


So now you are just talking gibberish. 

I have answered everything that you have said directly. You have done nothing but post nonsense this entire thread.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> I'm talking about him saying if power goes out someone is likely to die. And you know that's what I meant. The code part, I said I agree he was right on the code. There's no way you read that and thought I was saying you were using wrong code section, I wasn't.


I didn't say anyone was likely to die. I gave an example where someone could die. Maybe no one dies and instead a freezer full of food spoils. It doesn't matter what the negative effect is. The customer paid for a standby generator for their own reasons. Some wanted granny to be cozy. Some want their food to stay frozen. It doesn't matter. The breaker shouldn't trip right after the generator starts. Instead some of the load should be shed to keep more essential loads energized.

You're off in the weeds again.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> I didn't say anyone was likely to die. I gave an example where someone could die. Maybe no one dies and instead a freezer full of food spoils. It doesn't matter what the negative effect is. The customer paid for a standby generator for their own reasons. Some wanted granny to be cozy. Some want their food to stay frozen. It doesn't matter. The breaker shouldn't trip right after the generator starts. Instead some of the load should be shed to keep more essential loads energized.
> 
> You're off in the weeds again.


Your intentionally misrepresenting what I said because Your statement was complete nonsense and this New statement of yours is a back pedal


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> Your intentionally misrepresenting what I said because Your statement was complete nonsense and this New statement of yours is a back pedal


Once again you have taken a position against everyone else. 

At least the last time you had one other person in your corner. I guess chicken steve is better than no one, like you have now.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Your attempts to try to hide your poor arguments with disrespectful comments just highlights the infantile logic used in them.

Your looking at this as people on different sides, I'm just looking to have a conversation on the different views and interpretations of this code section. I don't care if my interpretation is proven wrong, if its wrong I win by it being proven wrong because I would then know the correct interpretation.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> Your attempts to try to hide your poor arguments with disrespectful comments just highlights the infantile logic used in them.


I haven't posted any "poor arguments". I educated you on the NEC. Your inability to accept that knowledge is not my fault.

Your edit:


Wiresmith said:


> Your looking at this as people on different sides, I'm just looking to have a conversation on the different views and interpretations of this code section. I don't care if my interpretation is proven wrong, if its wrong I win by it being proven wrong because I would then know the correct interpretation.


Your view was proven wrong on the first page. You then spent the next 9 pages arguing a nonsensical point. You didn't change anyone's mind, you just made yourself look foolish by posting garbage over and over.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Wiresmith said:


> Your intentionally misrepresenting what I said because Your statement was complete nonsense and this New statement of yours is a back pedal


You said likely. I didn't misrepresent what you said. It's there for all to see. I didn't change my statement. Granny might die. Your food might spoil. You shower could be cold. Nothing changed. You just like to take the opposite stance of every other person, even if it makes you seem like you're autistic. I think you're hilarious. I can do this all day.:vs_laugh:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

CoolWill said:


> I can do this all day.:vs_laugh:


I can't. At least chicken steve had some character and brought up new stupid stuff. This guy just keeps posting the same stupid stuff over and over.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

If your argument were logical I would stop posting how it isn't

I'm not working to change anyone's mind, do you not know how a sensible conversation goes? I am trying to come to the right answer, you say my current one is wrong, I ask you how and you give no good answer


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

And you keep trying to block me and divert the conversation every time I try to give an explanation


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

@;


Wiresmith said:


> And you keep trying to block me and divert the conversation every time I try to give an explanation


Every single thing you have posted has been refuted with facts, backed up with code.

Hell, 95% of it you said that you agreed with. But you always try to find this little thread to keep pulling in order to look like some special smart guy or something.

You’re not smart, if you were you would’ve understood this basic code knowledge when we explained it on the first page.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> @;
> Every single thing you have posted has been refuted with facts, backed up with code.
> 
> Hell, 95% of it you said that you agreed with. But you always try to find this little thread to keep pulling in order to look like some special smart guy or something.
> ...


How does me asking for an answer make you think I'm trying to say I'm smart? Its the opposite, I'm asking because I want to know something.
None of my view was refuted with any reasonable argument, nor have you ever given me a chance to try to explain it to you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wiresmith said:


> None of my view was refuted with any reasonable argument, nor have you ever given me a chance to try to explain it to you.


We gave you 10 pages to explain your nonsense, and every time you did we refuted it with clear and concise code. 

I’m done feeding your trolling.


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

HackWork said:


> We gave you 10 pages to explain your nonsense, and every time you did we refuted it with clear and concise code.
> 
> I’m done feeding your trolling.


Thanks, I don't think we will ever get anywhere on this, whether its just my thick head or whatever. I will try to avoid talking to you in the future as I think you would want.
I wish you the best.


----------



## Wardenclyffe (Jan 11, 2019)

Goody,...


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Wardenclyffe said:


> Goody,...


Poor horse.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

At least now, the OP has a great start at putting together an SOP for generator installs. MikeFL use to be an inspector & might give the OP some useful advice.


----------



## Malywr (Jan 23, 2018)

Bird dog said:


> Poor horse.




Question not related 
Why I don’t see most of the pictures. It could be because I am using App on the phone and not computer or there could be other reason? If someone knows please respond.


----------



## tjb (Feb 12, 2014)

YOUR mom!

No, YOUR mom!

No, YOURS!


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

Malywr said:


> Question not related
> Why I don’t see most of the pictures. It could be because I am using App on the phone and not computer or there could be other reason? If someone knows please respond.


Your phone has a bs filter that's not working right and only blocking pics instead of the whole thread


----------



## Wardenclyffe (Jan 11, 2019)

Malywr said:


> Question not related
> Why I don’t see most of the pictures. It could be because I am using App on the phone and not computer or there could be other reason? If someone knows please respond.


Your feeder is sized at 82.9% instead of 83%,...


----------

