Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: Two Services for one building

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,148
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    The scope of article 225 indicates outside wiring on the same premise from the premise service point forward. I am simply saying the service point is already established in article 225 to be on the premise and the article is addressing branch circuits and feeders from that established service point forward.
    Building A is one premises. Building B is a separate premises. In my "Way #2," building B gets power downstream from the service point of building A, but it is not (in your words) "outside wiring on the same premise." It is outside wiring on a different premises. The code does not require the two buildings to be on the same plat of land and under the same management control. But it is hard to imaging two different owners agreeing to supply power to the two buildings using "Way #2."

    Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
    Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,477
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    Building A is one premises. Building B is a separate premises. In my "Way #2," building B gets power downstream from the service point of building A, but it is not (in your words) "outside wiring on the same premise." It is outside wiring on a different premises. The code does not require the two buildings to be on the same plat of land and under the same management control. But it is hard to imaging two different owners agreeing to supply power to the two buildings using "Way #2."

    i understand where you are going with this and i understand there are other positions on this.

    We should all agree in article 225 the service point is established to be on the premise and the additional branch circuits or feeders are supplying additional structures on the same property under single management

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,148
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    We should all agree in article 225 the service point is established to be on the premise and the additional branch circuits or feeders are supplying additional structures on the same property under single management
    I would like to split a hair here. Well, two hairs actually.
    1. The service point is on one premise, and the additional feeder serves a separate premise. The NEC defines "premises wiring system," but it does not define "premises." My interpretation is that "different structure" (i.e., different building) means "different premises."
    2. Article 225.30(E) gives the owner the option to install more than one feeder from one building to another, for "installations under single management. . . ." But it does not require two buildings to be on the same property (meaning property having only one legal description, as opposed to separate properties with different legal descriptions), nor does it require two buildings to be under single management, in order to allow a feeder from one building to supply the other.


    Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
    Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,477
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    I would like to split a hair here. Well, two hairs actually.
    1. The service point is on one premise, and the additional feeder serves a separate premise. The NEC defines "premises wiring system," but it does not define "premises." My interpretation is that "different structure" (i.e., different building) means "different premises."
    2. Article 225.30(E) gives the owner the option to install more than one feeder from one building to another, for "installations under single management. . . ." But it does not require two buildings to be on the same property (meaning property having only one legal description, as opposed to separate properties with different legal descriptions), nor does it require two buildings to be under single management, in order to allow a feeder from one building to supply the other.


    225.30 Number of Supplies.
    Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management, each additional building or other structure


    I’m going to use the term charging statement and in full disclosure the term is not original to me I think it was Ryan in Mike Holts training DVDs that uses that term

    The charging statement in 225,30 already established the branch circuit or feeder supplied structure or buildings in article 225 to be on the same property that is under single management

    Edit if we are going to pull away from the same property under single management we have to pull away from article 225

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,477
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    I would like to split a hair here. Well, two hairs actually.
    1. The service point is on one premise, and the additional feeder serves a separate premise. The NEC defines "premises wiring system," but it does not define "premises." My interpretation is that "different structure" (i.e., different building) means "different premises."
    2. Article 225.30(E) gives the owner the option to install more than one feeder from one building to another, for "installations under single management. . . ." But it does not require two buildings to be on the same property (meaning property having only one legal description, as opposed to separate properties with different legal descriptions), nor does it require two buildings to be under single management, in order to allow a feeder from one building to supply the other.


    the scope of article 225 uses the term premises article 225.30 says same property under single management

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Boyertown, PA, USA
    Posts
    489
    Just want to mention: it was NOT stated that the buildings were under separate ownership/management. Only that there are two buildings with separate services.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
    Posts
    15,668
    David, not disagreeing, but what does “charging statement” mean or how do you define it?

    New terminology to me.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,477
    Quote Originally Posted by jumper View Post
    David, not disagreeing, but what does “charging statement” mean or how do you define it?

    New terminology to me.
    As used in the training DVDs it’s the general statement in this case found in 225.30 the statement that establishes the rule

    Then there are the statements that address the rule and in discussion 225.30 (E.) the statement of safe switching procedures should not be thought to change the statement of buildings and structures under single management on the same property

    225.30 (E) did not change the charging statement in 225.30 it only further stipulated documented safe switching procedures

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    460
    I agree with Charlie. IMO, 225.30 only deals with feeders and could not be used to limit a building from being supplied by one service and one feeder.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
    Posts
    15,668
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    As used in the training DVDs it’s the general statement in this case found in 225.30 the statement that establishes the rule

    Then there are the statements that address the rule and in discussion 225.30 (E.) the statement of safe switching procedures should not be thought to change the statement of buildings and structures under single management on the same property

    225.30 (E) did not change the charging statement in 225.30 it only further stipulated documented safe switching procedures
    Okay, I accept the definition as you are using it. Charging statement, gotta remember that, I like it. Thanks.

    I gave my answer in #2.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •