The picture shows the main 200 amp panel with disconnect. The yellow arrow points to a feed to a subpanel. When the inside cover is on, the feeder cable is not visible. I didn't have a specific problem with this setup since the disconnect for the subpanel was located in the subpanel. However, when the inside cover is on at the main panel, there is no indication that there is a subpanel anywhere. Client likes to go to the main panel for all his electrical needs and is not used to having two panels. He would be more comfortable with one disconnect that shuts off the electricity to both panels. Although I assured him this did (with appropriate disclaimers since I'm not a CA licensed electrician), I told him I would post this question on the NACHI board where he could visit and read the comments. So comment away.
Frankly, I am used to seeing subpanel disconnects located in the main panel, which I told him.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
IMHO it’s not a issue to have the sub-panel feeder breaker/disconnect in the sub-panel. The wires are still protected, and thats the whole point. Ya still have to go there for individual breaker trips.
BTW ... wiring looks a little sloppy, and there is a little excess romex sheathing in the panel too, but again IMHO not a big deal.
Just my 2-nickles
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: rray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob Badger wrote:
the sub panel itself must be rated the same or greater than the main panel.
Can you expand on that? Are you talking just the rating of the subpanel rating or are we talking the subpanel circuit breaker rating? Just wanting clarification to ensure that I'm understanding. Both the main circuit breaker and the sub circuit breaker were 200 amps.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That was quick.
It was not obvious in your post if the sub panel had it's own main, it does not have to.
The 200 amp service disconnect breaker protects the conductors feeding the sub panel so in most applications these conductors would have to be rated 200 amps, (as always there are some exceptions to that, tap rules for short distances)
Once this 200 amp feeder reaches the sub panel you would have some choices again.
1)A sub panel with no main breaker rated 200 amps or more.
2)A sub panel with a main breaker with any amp rating.
Feel free to ask more questions if I was not clear.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Also, I’d be curious to know that the breaker tabs on the bus bar are fully rated for the main disconnect size.
Many have lower rated breaker tabs, i.e., 200 amp main with 150 amp max off breaker tabs versus the full 200 amp off the breaker tab.
This set up needs to have the same rating on the breaker tabs.
This is, I think, what Bob was referring to: 408.16 (A) Exception No. 1)
408.16 Overcurrent Protection.
(A) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard Individually Protected. Each lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard shall be individually protected on the supply side by not more than two main circuit breakers or two sets of fuses having a combined rating not greater than that of the panelboard.
Exception No. 1: Individual protection for a lighting and appliance panelboard shall not be required if the panelboard feeder has overcurrent protection not greater than the rating of the panelboard.
Exception No. 2: For existing installations, individual protection for lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards shall not be required where such panelboards are used as service equipment in supplying an individual residential occupancy.
Which brings up a pet peeve of mine and why I did not include that in my post above.
The code states '42 in one enclosure', not 'in a protected sequence'.
Thus, you could have 10 42 circuit panels daisy chained off each other, as long as that requirement (panel rating and feeder rating was at least as large as the main protecting them) was met. That means you could have 10 panels, 420 (or as many as you wanted) circuits protected by one overcurrent device.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike Parks wrote:
I would like to see green phasing tape on the equipment grounding conductor.
Good point ... 
Bob Badger wrote:
1)A sub panel with no main breaker rated 200 amps or more.
Now I would comment on that because you would have to shut down the entire service to shut off the sub-panel.
Bob Badger wrote:
... the sub panel itself must be rated the same or greater than the main panel.
I read that as the sub-panel should be protected on the supply side if it?s rated less than the main breaker. Lets say it's a 60A sub-panel feeder with no breaker at the main service panel. Then maybe there is a possibility of some type of problem in the sub-panel feeder wires that could draw more than 60A, but less than 200A ... which could fry the wires. Not likely, but possible? Is that where you were also going Bob?
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jsavino This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Robert, I agree with you. I run two sub-panels off my main panel. One for the gen/set and the other for the garage. It makes more sense to close a sub at the main, than at the sub-panel itself. Why shut the whole house when you don’t have to.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I personally would rather have the ability to shut off the power to the sub panel at both the sub panel and the main panel.
The cost difference between the two would be minimal, since the cost of the additional double pole breaker would be well below $20.
The only way to work on the sub panel feeder cable is to shut off the power to the entire house, the previous way it would be safely worked on without turning off the power to the entire house.
That basically means that I don't necessarily have to lose my receptacles or lights if I need to work on the sub panel.
I agree that it does comply with the code but for the few bucks you would save, why would you want to do it that way.
Originally Posted By: jsavino This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hey Russel,
I’m not familiar with that term. Please clarify. I installed and work on oil fired boilers and heating systems (hydronic, forced warm air, high and low pressure steam) for 30 years. When we installed new equipment or retro-fit, two valves were installed on the circulation loops, for example. If there was a problem with one circulation loop, it could be isolated.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Russel,
No the six breaker, switch rule does not apply to sub panels because they can be shut off at the service panel which has to follow the six breaker, switch rule.
Originally Posted By: jdigiacomo This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Just installed a sub panel at my residence for my shop. I installed a 100 A sub panel feeding off a 200 A main panel. I wasn’t sure about the disconnect issue so I called electrical inspector who was going to end up inspecting this and asked him. He said, “100 A breaker must be installed in main panel, and no disconnect nor main breaker required at sub panel, only branch breakers of course.” That is for where I live in Chester Co. PA anyway. Hope this helps.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Kevin,
I am not sure I am totally following you on this one, but I am going to give it a shot. If you have a main lug panel, following the six breaker, switch rule you can have a maximum of six that would include the sub panel if a breaker was installed in the main panel. That means you would count the sub panel breaker. Remember double poles are counted as one, not two.
Joe,
I would have to assume that you have a main breaker panel which needs to turn off one breaker to totally de-energize the entire house. I am not sure if you misunderstood him, or whether he was wrong.
The disconnect for the sub panel is not required by the codes to be located at the main service panel, at least to my knowledge. I believe it is safer and with the low cost of double pole breakers, rather inexpensive.
For instance, if you have a main lug panel which already follows the six breaker, switch rule and has six breakers, switches already in use to disconnect the power, it would be illegal to install another breaker or switch since you have already reached the limit.
Out of curiousity, I would ask that inspector to clarify whether it is what he wanted or was he following the code. If he stated he was following the code, I would ask him for a reference.
