100 amp Service Equipment (Main) in 11 year old house. Separate bus bars for Neutrals and copper grounding. Never see this except for secondary panel Anyone know why this was this done? Problem? Double checked at Meter, no Main breaker. Thanks

__________________
Dave

No reason not to do it, as far as I know, as long as the neutrals and equipment grounds are bonded to each other and the enclosure.

The ground terminal bar is already bonded to the enclosure (with its mounting screws), bonding the neutral terminal bar to the enclosure automatically bonds it to ground as well, thus, the neutral does not need to bonds, only one to the enclosure.

Just clarifying what John was saying.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Thanks John and Jerry for quick reply. Much appreciated.

__________________
Dave

I've often thought electricians do this sometimes so you could easily turn it into a sub panel someday. For instance, on a rural property where you might want to split your service and run a line out to an out-building from the meter rather than from the panel.

Or, maybe they just like the way it looks

The only way you can make that into a sub panel is to put it in a sub, and that ain't going to be very easy, at least not unless you ordered your sub "without wiring - I can do it myself".

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Jerry,

I'm not I'm clear on what your response means... what I am referring to I overheard an electrician telling a buyer once. He was proposing to isolate the grounds and neutrals from one another inside the main panel, therefore making it a sub panel and feeding it from a new service in the outbuilding. This eliminated the need to install an entirely new panel in the house.

Maybe there was more to the story that I missed but it sounds pretty logical to me.

I was referring to your use of the word 'sub' to describe an 'electrical panel', ALL of which are wired the same.

There is a fallacy out there which thinks that different types of panels are wired differently, but they are not.

The different wiring (i.e., neutral bonded to ground versus neutral isolated from ground) is based on whether or not you are referring to "service equipment" or "not service equipment".

A "panel" is a "panel" is a "panel".

There is no difference in how you wire a panel - they are all wired the same. Trying to refer to them as "main" and "sub" simply confuses the matter and means nothing as there is no such thing as "main" or "sub" panels, they are all just "panels".

They electrician was talking about making a "panel" into "service equipment", and, without knowing what else he was planning to do, simply isolating the neutral from ground *IN THE SERVICE EQUIPMENT* will not make it "not service equipment", it will only make it "service equipment wired wrong".

*Some* service equipment is rated as "suitable for use as service equipment only" and other service equipment is rated as "suitable for use as service equipment".

Again, though, to take existing "service equipment" and turn it into "a panel which is not service equipment" would require more than just isolating the neutral from ground. Where was the ground grounded to? many other things to consider.

Sounds to me like you probably did not miss much of that story, but the electrician was missing a lot of thinking in what would need to be done for that conversion.

Yes, it could be done, and, depending on various conditions present, may be 'easy' or may be 'quite a lot of work'.

Just not enough information to know here.

The main point, though, is that if you think in "service equipment" and "not service equipment, panels", things will be much easier to understand. *ALL* "panels" are wired the same the neutral is isolated from ground.

The neutral is only bonded to ground "at the service equipment".

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

Thanks for the detail.... now, back to my original thought - and the original question;

Wouldn't isolating grounds and neutrals on separate bars during the original install make it easier to somday convert the panel from a type that could share neutrals and grounds to a type that couldn't? Basically, the only change needed would be to remove the bonding strap between the two bars as opposed to re-organizing the grounds and neutrals on separate bars, had they originally been mixed.

Matt,

It's perfectly fine to use the terms "main panel" and "sub panel" to describe boxes with the service equipment and boxes fed from the service equipment. An enormous number of construction references use those terms, even though the NEC does not. Everybody knows what you mean, even Jerry.

And you are exactly right; separating the neutrals and grounds in any interior main panel is the sensible thing to do. It is extremely likely that when the service is updated, the service equipment will be required at the meter. Then, when the 4-wire feeder is run from the new main panel to the "old" main panel, the work is almost done. Removal of the bonding strap is all that is left to do.

Nope.

There is more to changing from "service equipment" (your continued use of the term "panel" for "service equipment" is complicating it for you) to a "panel".

Nope.

You are not just isolating the neutrals from ground "in a panel", you are taking "service equipment" and trying to make it into "not service equipment", for which that "service equipment" might not even be rated for use as.

If you start thinking "service equipment" (where the main disconnect is) and "panels" (or 'not service equipment'), then you will begin to understand what is required for "service equipment" and what would need to be changed for "not service equipment" panels. Just isolating the neutrals from the grounds will not suffice.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

I know from his post, and know yours, that neither of you understand the question, or the answer.

Why?

???? Why?

Huh?

You mean from the new "service equipment" to the old "service equipment?

Nope, not likely.

Rob, your problem, and that of many others, is that HI schools teach "main panel" and "sub panel", heck even many electricians use the term "sub panel", BUT THEY ALSO KNOW that "service equipment" and "main panel" are different things.

THEY use 'sub panel' to refer to a panel fed off another panel', their 'main panel'.

YOU are using 'main panel' for "service equipment", and anything fed off the "service equipment" you are calling a 'sub panel'.

No wonder you are confused.

The term 'sub panel' derived from the fact that some panels are 'sub-fed' from another panel, making them a 'sub-fed panel', which, for practical use was shortened to 'sub-panel', then to 'subpanel'. Yet, THEY KNOW that a 'sub-fed panel' and the panel it is fed from are both wired the same.

It is obvious from your post that you would wire them differently. That you would wire what you call 'a main panel' as you would "service equipment". You would be wrong, and could be "dead wrong" even.

You should wire "service equipment" differently (neutral bonded to ground), but the panels should be wired the same (neutral isolated from ground).

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

I'll not waste a moment of time chasing your foolish circular logic, or engaging your pedantic observations.

The most certain way for people here to gauge my intelligence is to read what I write and verify it for themselves. The most certain way for them to gauge my ignorance is to see me waste time sparring with you.

Matt can consider my response and be assured that in every realm outside of your head the the information is solid. Or he can consider your responses, and he'll be fine, too. But I will never have enough time to waste to have another conversation with you. I do not suffer fools gladly.

RT

Since it seems traditional to ask for code back-up on this forum - can anyone provide NEC or IRC verbiage that includes "sub-panel"?
I haven't read every post carefully, so, if this has already been covered, excuuuuuse me!

The term subpanel is used throughout the 'Codecheck' books.

Not in the Glossary of definitions section. They mention sub-feeder no sub-panel. Personally I only care what the NEC says. When it comes to Electricity they are the one.

__________________
Dave

This is just a pointless splitting of hairs... but here it is twice on one page of the 'Codecheck' books... If the NEC doesn't use the term that's great for them. It just seems completely ridiculous to say this term is incorrect, as if no one knows what is being talked about.

Attached Images

IMG_3861.JPG (73.9 KB, 36 views)

There is no officially recognized term of "sub-panel" or "main panel". They are simply all "panelboards".

From the NEC.
- Panelboard. A single panel or group of panel units designed for assembly in the form of a single panel, including buses and automatic overcurrent devices, and equipped with or without switches for the control of light, heat, or power circuits; designed to be placed in a cabinet or cutout box placed in or against a wall, partition, or other support; and accessible only from the front.

The "panelboard" is the "interior section" of the panel where the overcurrent devices and conductors mount to within an enclosure (where "panel" is used to signify both the enclosure and the panelboard).

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )