I've got the POWER!

[pattenp]

If the AHJ agrees will the #2 Al being on a 100A breaker then you are good. I disagree with this statement "The inspector(s) we deal with read the code differently and hold that it is misinterpreted and shouldnt be applied in this case. Between the UL listing and the #2 Ser being a concentric neutral it is compliant.", this is a very straight forward part of the NEC and does not lend itself to misinterpretation. The feeder from the main to a subpanel is a branch feeder and falls under table 310.15(b)(16). I also question the electricians knowledge because SER does not have a concentric neutral. Also if it had a concentric neutral and what ever the UL listing it has has nothing in itself to do with being compliant with the NEC. I will now get off my soapbox.

Edit: Oh back on the soapbox... Ask electrician under what NEC section is it compliant to protect a #2 Al branch feeder at 100A. I'm now off the box.

 

[nexgen91]

I do agree that it is very hard to misinterpret that section of the NEC, and it probablt should be on a 90 amp breaker, I am ok with it like it is (I wont be constantly pushing 100 amps anyway). I just want to make sure its good to go (inspection wise) should I ever decide to sell. The electrician did call me and said that inspectors in my area usually allow the #2 AL branch feeders for sub panels, we are setting up an inspection so that I have the paperwork if I ever need it. I will post the results of the inspection once it is complete, for future reference.

 

[nexgen91]

You've already said it doesn't bother you, and your experienced electrician and experienced AHJ apparently have thought about this issue before and consider this setup OK. 90A is a super typical subpanel arrangement and if it ever becomes an issue at sale you can a) point to the approved inspection, and b) throw a 90A breaker in there.

I think the electrician acted in good faith. He quoted the job based on how it's done locally. Provided you pass inspection, I'd just call it done and start using that new capacity!

I agree with you 100% if the time ever comes I can throw a 90 amp in there and walk away no harm no foul, I might even do it anyway, because I don't think I could get enough equipment in my two car shop let alone run it all at once (although I could surprise myself) to pull even 80 amps (I have separate circuits for lighting and heat/ac so those wont be pulled off the sub panel). Although I really think the NEC suffers from a severe case of CYA, and just like reloading data has a lot of padding to keep people (and businesses) safe from harm (and legal troubles).

 

[wyliesdiesels]

If the AHJ agrees will the #2 Al being on a 100A breaker then you are good. I disagree with this statement "The inspector(s) we deal with read the code differently and hold that it is misinterpreted and shouldnt be applied in this case. Between the UL listing and the #2 Ser being a concentric neutral it is compliant.", this is a very straight forward part of the NEC and does not lend itself to misinterpretation. The feeder from the main to a subpanel is a branch feeder and falls under table 310.15(b)(16). I also question the electricians knowledge because SER does not have a concentric neutral. Also if it had a concentric neutral and what ever the UL listing it has has nothing in itself to do with being compliant with the NEC. I will now get off my soapbox.

Edit: Oh back on the soapbox... Ask electrician under what NEC section is it compliant to protect a #2 Al branch feeder at 100A. I'm now off the box.

My thoughts exactly.

The electrician said a bunch of fluff that doesnt even pertain to the OPs situation.

When i read the response about concentric neutral i did a double take and went back and quickly reread the pertinent comments to see if this situation was something different than i thought it was(service entrance off of meter which would be done with SEU, that DOES have concentric neutral)...

Also, i really want to know how an inspector can say the code is misinterpreted and shouldnt apply. 100a on #2 al is 90* c so based on his logic, i could use the 90* c ampacity of any conductor to size my OCPD, which of course is wrong. So does this inspector allow any size conductor to be OCP based on 90* c?? I doubt it...

Amazing how inspectors misinterpret the simplest of codes...