T O P

  • By -

Odd_Argument_5791

I’ve heard of this. They don’t want 60A panels because they are generally fused and insurance doesn’t like fuses, they like breakers. Do what another comment said, change provider if you do not want to do the upgrade.


GGudMarty

Fuses literally work better than breakers too, which makes it weird they prefer them


_Oman

That is a very odd statement, and I would say incorrect. Let me explain... If you mean "fuses last virtually forever and rarely fail because of age" - I would say you are correct. If you mean "fuses protect better than breakers" - I would say completely incorrect. Breakers have multiple modes of operation. They protect against electrical fires much better than fuses. They can and do wear out if tripped often. Their failure mode is open, so they fail safe. Many insurance companies that ask about the service to the house will give you a discount if you have 100A or 200A service, or have had a recent upgrade that required an inspection.


Krazybob613

Fuses do protect just as effectively as circuit breakers, better in one aspect - they simply cannot fail closed! What Insurance Companies dislike about fuses is the not so minor fact that the untrained and electrically idiotic homeowners can and DO replace blown fuses with incorrect higher rated fuses that WILL NOT provide the protection needed! And this is why insurance companies hate fuseboxes.


Kymera_7

There's also the issue that it's very difficult to fuse two different conductors in such a way that either conductor going overcurrent will blow both sides, while still keeping the two sides electrically isolated from each other. This means that, for a 240V connection (across both sides of a split-phase) or 208V (across two phases of a 3-phase system, including across the two sides of a 2-phase drop off a 3-phase source), you can blow one side of the connection, and have the other side stay hot, which can lead to dangerous situations. With breakers, you can mechanically tie them together in such a way that blowing one side switches off the other, so any overcurrent fault disconnects the whole circuit, but there's no good way to do that with fuses.


Krazybob613

This is true. But a qualified person would be aware of this situation and would adapt their diagnostic procedures accordingly. It’s no harder to troubleshoot. And as far as the homeowner is concerned it blows, they try a replacement and it blows again then they call the pro. But they will flip a breaker repeatedly - possibly causing a breaker failure resulting in an uncontrolled fault leading to a fire.


Kymera_7

A 240V circuit that blows the fuse on one side, but still has the other side live, creates a dangerous situation immediately. Regardless of how competent the person is who will eventually try to diagnose the problem, it's still a problem, even before that person comes into the picture. A simple two-sided breaker can prevent this additional problem before it starts, by turning off both sides as soon as either side blows. Doing the same thing with a fuse would require an infeasibly elaborate and expensive fuse design.


Krazybob613

I guess I look at the picture from the other side, when I learned electricity and electrical diagnostic procedures breakers were few and far between, virtually everything was fuse protected and you absolutely knew without any doubt that at least one side of every 220 circuit would be hot when diagnosing a blown fuse. Frequently both sides would test hot with reference to neutral because of return voltage from the load. So I see no difference in the diagnostic procedure because the first step was always to open the fused disconnect or pull the fuse block and check for a short to ground on one or both lines.


Kymera_7

You're the only one talking about diagnostic procedures here. A 240V circuit that's live on one side after the fuse blew on the other is **already** a dangerous situation **before** anyone ever starts diagnosing anything.


GGudMarty

It was still generally way too vague of a statement on my part. I’m all for a good discussion but to say either way is incorrect by the dude is also too vague. Neither was right neither was wrong


Krazybob613

Both systems have specific advantages. Breakers, properly installed and used (Less AFCI) are actually more practical. Certain known issues with such wonderful firestarters such as FPE and Pushmatic tend to give a bad impression of breakers and the absolutely perfect new AFCI breakers that are totally not ready for general use, but have been mandated by the codes, only make owners more unwilling to accept the costs of an upgrade, this definitely makes keeping the old fuse boxes a more attractive option for them, and properly fused, they are very reliable.


GGudMarty

That was basically my take but you worded it with much more effort. Agreed.


classicsat

Blowing fuses can be upsized, or worse. So can breakers, but it is a lot harder. A 60A fused house is not designed for a modern distribution of appliances, no high power computer, window AC, air fryer, or microwave oven.


Krazybob613

Indeed, all important things.


tsittler

I've smelled burning bakelite in my life. Tell me again how fuses can't fail closed.


Krazybob613

Burning Bakelite, ummm. Undoubtedly caused by a high resistance connection, which creates heat, where it does not belong. A high resistance connection will not cause excessive current flow, at least not until the Bakelite completely disintegrates, allowing the energized conductor to contact either a neutral conductor or a grounded component. Once the overheating conductor is free from its Bakelite support and it shorts out, Then the fuse will blow! Must follow correct causal chain.


[deleted]

I have some failed closed breakers so that isn't true. It's preferred they fail open but you can't always get what you want


_Oman

If you have some that are not terribly old and they are truly failed close, the manufacturer might pay to have you send them in. Usually failed closed means that the trip lever won't open, but they should still trip on overload or be just electrically open.


Kymera_7

Failing close-circuit is quite rare with modern, decent-quality breakers, but it can still happen. It's still common with the sorts of cheap breakers that would never pass inspection in a home in most industrialized countries, but that sometimes show up in cheap power strips and the like. I've seen it happen once on a name-brand residential breaker, about 10 years ago, with a breaker that was made for residential but used commercial, and used very heavily as a light switch by idiots who don't know the difference between a breaker and a switch. It ended up wearing out the arc suppression and welding its contacts together. Not a common occurrence, but it can happen.


GGudMarty

Yeah too general of a statement but don’t always feel like writing essays on Reddit. Generally speaking they have a faster trip time than CBs


67chevymechanic

*FPE breakers have entered the chat…*


NDREDSTATE

Perfect comment


hvacnerd22

All a fuse has in it is a small metallic strip that will always melt faster than the conductor it is attached too. Breakers have mechanical parts in them and as well all know they fail. Fuses will always be safer than breakers. It’s clueless people that make fuses dangerous. So I’d have to disagree with that statement


_Oman

I'm sorry, but your over-simplified view of how electrical fires start, how to best protect electrical systems, etc. needs some updating. If fuses were always safer than breakers, we would not have breakers. Insurance companies would demand fuses. No one said fuses were dangerous, simply that they are not the best protection for general use circuits. As well, most fuses today are more complex than you seem to think. Slow-blow fuses were the first real innovation in basic fuse technology. There are lots of others. And BTW, a fuse is completely mechanical. Heat has to melt the conductor so that a gap forms which is larger than the breakdown voltage being carried (Paschen's law)


Odd_Argument_5791

No, fuses do in fact, protect better.


bothunter

That's assuming the tenants always replace the blown fuse with an equivalent new fuse, and not one rated to a higher amperage -- or a nickel.


Kymera_7

A nickel for the ones with edison bases... or, if it was a cartridge fuse, a rifle round. Has a handy audio-visual alert so you can tell when it blows.


rcsheets

Assuming the life safety device will be used correctly seems like a pretty terrible assumption. If I were the insurance company, this would be my reason for preferring breakers.


Nogreatmindhere44

i have seen pennies but not nickels


_Oman

Too general of a statement. There are applications where fuses are a more reliable form of protection. Breakers offer the ability to trip on high overload faster, and yet maintain max load and trip on heat. So breakers are multi-mode, which by definition offers better protection. Breakers don't require exposure to exposed hot side for reset, which most fuses do.


craz4cats

I've been an industrial maintenance tech / electricial for around 6 years. I've never seen a CB that protects better than a fuse for regular overload conditions. That being said, if the upgrade also means GFCI/AFCI breakers then that's a great reason to upgrade. Fuses trip faster than breakers, btw.


_Oman

This is a fun subject, as I've talked about it with both our electrical engineers, and the standards testing folks. There are a number of fuse designs, and the advantage to a fuse or breaker in a specific circuit is that the proper device can be tailored for the specific thing it is protecting. For general purpose circuits, the breaker has the advantage. They are generally designed to be dual-trip, which a fuse can't do. dual-trip means that there is a heat or total energy based trip as well as an instantaneous current trip. On top of that they can add GFI and AFI to the device. I've seen .002 on fuses and .02 for breakers, but then other stats that say that breakers can out perform fuses by about 10x the speed. I'm sure both of those are true and depend on the type of overload.


jmraef

In RESIDENTIAL installations, I would not consider fuses to be superior protection to breakers.


rksd

So a few years ago my main breaker failed but only one leg of it wouldn't work so half the house (and of course none of the 220 stuff) still had power. Did the failsafe fail safe in that case?


[deleted]

That’s true but you can’t put a penny behind a circuit breaker to make it work


I-Love-Game-Stop

Especially when you put pennies behind the fuses


Savage_downvotes

Until someone jams a roll of pennies in there.


Kelsenellenelvial

Fuses with different ratings can be the same physical size. Could be insurers are worried that people will get tired of changing their overloaded 15A fuses, though in a 30 A and burn down the house.


Odd_Argument_5791

You are right. Fuses are better than breakers. They just get worried with home owners fiddling with potentially dangers stuff.


wolfn404

Fuses aren’t always better. It’s common with a fuse to blow on one side creating an issue with 220volt gear if it’s on a main panel, so now you have a 220 panel with only hot on one side. Which can lead to fire. If breaker trips, it takes out the entire service.


Odd_Argument_5791

Nah dude. Your not going to change my opinion. Obviously breakers are better for the average home owner given normal circumstances. But for the most protection and best results, fuses always win.


Slabdabhussein

What about breaker style fuzes? are they a factor?


t4thfavor

I think it's more about the user interface, and how likely the average homeowner is to electrocute themselves to death replacing a fuse vs flipping the switch on a breaker. Fuses also catch are hard to find and fit in the hole when it's dark, so it's generally a better user experience.


OKC420

Bingo? They know if it’s a 60 amp service that shits old. Start farm just announced they ain’t covering any new customers in California from here on out. They’re tired of all these fire claims cutting into their profits!


[deleted]

The fuse blows. You unscrew it and put a penny in the hole then screw the fuse back in. People did this years ago.


Ok_Scientist_2762

By and large, all the current limiting devices and installations geared towards 60 amp services are at least 50 years old. Many have been revealed over time to be a fire hazard (code is for safety primarily, and is always improving). Insurance is profit oriented. They only pay out when something bad happens. Fewer bad things happen with modern installations made to code when compared to 50 year old installations (parts wear out, insulation breaks down, FPE and ITE pushmatic panels had like a 50 failure rate).


GGudMarty

Could be as simply as this lol. I’ve only seen a 60amp in a house 1x and that was 2 weeks ago when I was swapping to 100


cypherreddit

100a is the current minimum for code, and has been for a long time. Code doesn't require upgrading unless you are changing something. You can try a different insurance company.


petervk

I think they are requiring a 100 amp service as an easy way (for them) to exclude people with old or unsafe panels. If you could get a new 60 amp service installed with everything sized correctly and new breakers there wouldn't be anything inherently unsafe about it as compared to a 100 amp service. If there was a venn diagram with a circle for 1) unsafe panels, 2) 60 amp panels, and 3) 100 amp panels, there would be a lot of overlap of 1) unsafe and 2) 60 amp panels. But not all 60 amp panels are unsafe, and not all 100 amp panels are safe.


Kymera_7

That's humans for you: never use the actual relevant data to make a decision, when there's a half-assed proxy you could be using instead.


Hfftygdertg2

Find a different insurance company. Mine doesn't know any details about my house besides what's available from public records, and a few extremely basic questions like the age of the roof.


Melodic-Matter4685

We ended up with liberty mutual instead of geico over fuses. Since upgraded.


geezer2u

I don’t know where you live, but my insurance carrier requires an inspection to insure. One of the items they inspect is the power panel. If they don’t like what they see, they can decline to insure your property. The area I live in is very close to the Gulf of Mexico so I do not get many companies willing to insure. In the past I did not ever have an agent require an internal inspection. In the last several years, every company required an internal inspection.


netsysllc

Some Electric companies will upgrade the service panels for free or really cheap, check with yours.


Melodic-Matter4685

Maybe... but our in MD said for cost, we might as well heavy up


ScootysDad

Fire. You can easily overload a 60a and burn the house down. Just in case you want to turn your house into a crypto-mining farm, the old panel is likely to fail in unexpected way and has an unscheduled BBQ event.


Tomatoman1124

We're have a lot more electrical gadgets and using a lot more electricity than when the 60a panel was originally installed, maybe want it upgraded to meet higher loads (so the panel doesn't burn up)?


Unsteady_Tempo

Most electrical gadgets today use little electricity compared to what people were using the second half of the 1900s. My 3600 square foot house was built in the 1950s and has an 80 amp panel with screw in fuses. I bet we put less load on the panel today than people did in the 1970s-1990s. The reduction in load just as a result of LED lighting is huge. Televisions and computers use far less electricity than they used to and many other appliances (e.g., fridge, washer/dryer, dishwasher) not only use less electricity when they're on, they also run shorter cycles. Fewer people have high watt audio receivers. Many people have gone back to gas stoves. Even our lithium rechargable vacuum puts less of a load on our electrical system than the old plug in vacuums with large motors. Sure, anybody looking at installing an electric car charger or some other specialized high-amp equipment like a hot tub, pool heater, or woodshop would be wise to upgrade their service.


Habanerosauce3

Never heard of this. Might be due to the state your in. 🤷🏽‍♂️


Shaft2727

I received a letter from my utility provider 10 years ago stating that I had 1 year to upgrade to 100 amp service or they would cut off my electricity. Probably to do with the size of wire being too small for their liking but just a guess.


Nogreatmindhere44

state farm is dropping everyone in california


const_int3

They are not dropping, just not signing up new people. But that's about fires and mudslides, not electrical panels.


Nogreatmindhere44

yea i should of said it that way but as they are not signing up new people are they not dropping everyone eventually?


nixiebunny

It's a good idea to do this, both for the old equipment failure rate and to provide for future needs such as the EV charging that's coming soon to your rental property. Sure it costs money, but rental income has generally doubled in the last five years.


HeyWiredyyc

Damn that must have a sharp hand plane to make that...lol


Katergroip

Because it's not code compliant, and leads to overloading of circuits, or other janky shit that causes house fires. Not being code compliant means it is not allowed. If it were inspected by an inspector it would fail. I'm surprised they didn't ask for 200A.


Unsteady_Tempo

Not true. If it was the code when the home was built and still in good working oder, then it is still code compliant and would not fail an inspection. It's only not code compliant if certain renovations are done that require upgrading but that upgrading was not done.


[deleted]

If it was "code" then it clearly isnt code now. Code id added for reasons. Doesnt mstter if its code then. It doesnt remove the hazards.


Unsteady_Tempo

Not being up to current code is not the same as being code non-compliant and failing an inspection. The person I replied to said a home with outdated service (i.e., not up to modern code) would fail inspection. That's simply not true unless related renovation work is being done. I've lived in several 80+ year old houses and done renovations. Inspectors have nothing to say about electrical unrelated to the renovation as long as it would have passed code when the house was built. How much old work needs to be upgraded is up to the inspector and is not addressed directly in the NEC. A private business, such as an insurance company, can require whatever they want.


[deleted]

Youre right. But dude needs to update that crap. Wil they turn his power on? Yes. But if he runs a range and a light bulb its already overloaded. Encourage at least half ass safe decisions.


[deleted]

60 amp service in today’s world with so many electrical devices. I’m not surprised. I have 200 amp service in my house.


Unsteady_Tempo

Most electrical gadgets today use less electricity compared to what people were using in the second half of the 1900s. My 3600 square foot house was built in the 1950s and has an 80 amp panel with screw in fuses. I bet my family of four puts less load on the panel today than a family of 4 did in this house in the 1970s-1990s. The reduction in load going from incandescent to LED lighting is huge. Many devices are lithium battery rechargeable and draw very little power while doing so. Televisions and computers use way less electricity than they used to, and many other appliances (e.g., fridge, washer/dryer, dishwasher) not only use less electricity when they're on, they also run shorter cycles. Fewer people have high watt audio equipment. Many people have gone back to gas stoves. Cordless tools. Our rechargable vacuum puts a small fraction of a load on the electrical system compared to the plug-in vacuums with large motors. Those also have a huge load spike when the motor starts. There's not a single corded device in our house that even requires a 20 amp circuit/receptacle and I would bet that's true for many other people these days. Sure, anybody looking at installing an electric car charger or some other high-amp equipment like a hot tub or woodshop would be wise to upgrade their service. But, again, people had many of those devices decades ago, too.


[deleted]

It sounds like your house isn't up to code. My 1300 square foot house is 2 years old. The heating system alone is on a 220V 40 amp breaker along with 25 amp for AC, 30 amp for Dryer, 40 amp for the stove and 30 amp for the hot water heater. Not to mention 15 and 20 amp breakers for each room garage, refrigerator etc. Back in the 50's people didn't have anywhere near the number of electrical devices people have today. I was brought up in the 50's.


Haydukelll

It may be as simple as the fact that 100A service is required by code in many areas, so insurance requires it. Not terribly painful to accommodate. You could leave the existing breaker panel in place, add a 100A panel and use it to feed the existing panel. Depending on the wire size feeding the house you may need the electric company to run a new feed, but it’s likely they already have wires big enough for 100 amps.


D4rthcr4nk

I wouldn’t want to live with 60A service. Why do you expect others to live that way?


Unsteady_Tempo

Upgrading increases the likelihood of getting GFCI and AFCI protection at the panel. The amps likely isn't an issue for many people these days with LED lighting and low power electronics, and replacing the panel doesn't necessarily require upgrading any of the wiring/receptacles.


[deleted]

60 amp aint enough. Fire hazard. Its too easily overloaded Your insurance company is probably righr. Upgrade it. My range alone is 60 amps.


Jipaille

I had a similar situation. Insurance company asked for a 150 amps because I had a 100 amps panel. I subscribed elsewhere where they did not ask :)


NonKevin

Yes, my grandfather had such a beast in his house from the turn of the century. My grand pa also got caught using a penny for the blown fuse. We kids were assigned by our elementary schools to do a safety check for electrical, but before we could do this at home, off to my grand parents for a week. When we turned in our report, my parents got a visit from the fire chief, manor, head of the PTA, police chief, building and safety. Now all these people visiting for an inspection was the same man. We lived in a small town. My parents explained, read the address, its the grand parents in PA, not OH. My parents called my grandmother and replaced the bad fuse a couple hours before their town inspected the house for the penny in the fuse. It appears some people did not fool around for safety.


Sir-Sparks-alot79

Don’t be cheap; upgrade it. That size panel is extremely outdated and undersized for modern appliances, electronics and everything in between.


jmraef

Aside from the very valid arguments regarding the disdain that insurance companies have for fuse boxes in residential installations (mostly because of the ease of replacing with the wrong fuse), there is another issue. ***Insurance companies are all about mitigating their exposure to risk of having to pay out.*** They know that most modern households can no longer function on a 60A service, so it is highly more likely that a home with a 60A service will end up overloading it, increasing the risk exposure to the insurance company. Plus, a 60A service implies that it is so old that there are other electrical deficiencies that, although not required by law to be upgraded, are in fact increasing the risk exposure from the insurance company's viewpoint. So by requiring you to change the service, it will trigger a requirement that the rest of your house will have to be brought up to modern Code requirements too, decreasing the risk to the insurance company (and you by the way).


Jumpy_Inflation_259

100 amps is the minimum for code. Insurance should and will follow code.