User Tag List

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: Two Services for one building

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by packersparky View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    So it becomes strictly up the authority to say no, a building is to be supplied only once unless one of the exceptions in article 230 or article 225 indicate a second supply could be done safely
    it is my opinion article 225 only addresses feeder and branch circuit supplied buildings as well just the article 225 branch circuits and feeders are from a premise established service point

    it is up to the authority to limit the supplies to one unless the justification can be determined in article 230 or article 225 for additional supplies either a service supply, feeder supply or branch circuit supply

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,222
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    the scope of article 225 uses the term premises article 225.30 says same property under single management
    I will try this only one more time. What 225.30 says is that IF you have single management (and documented safe switching procedures), THEN you are allowed to have more than one feeder to the building (from another building). Nothing in 225 requires two buildings to be under the same management, in order to allow one to feed the other.

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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,222
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    225.30 (E) did not change the charging statement in 225.30 it only further stipulated documented safe switching procedures
    Nothing in 225.30 mentions single management.

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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    Nothing in 225.30 mentions single management.

    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 that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E). For the purpose of this section, a multiwire branch circuit shall be considered a single circuit.

    well there must be a change in the text that you are reading

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    I will try this only one more time. What 225.30 says is that IF you have single management (and documented safe switching procedures), THEN you are allowed to have more than one feeder to the building (from another building). Nothing in 225 requires two buildings to be under the same management, in order to allow one to feed the other.

    i can see the text you are reading no longer states the additional buildings or structures being supplied
    be on the same property

    i am not sure how you are concluding installations under single management in 225.30 (E.) in the text you are reading means something other than the same management

    (E) Documented Switching Procedures. Additional feeders or branch circuits shall be permitted to supply installations under single management where documented safe switching procedures are established and maintained for disconnection.

    your text reads
    (E) Additional feeder or branch circuits shall be permitted to supply installations under single management where Documented safe Switching Procedures are established and maintained for disconnection.
    Last edited by david; 08-08-18 at 01:16 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,222
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    i can see the text you are reading no longer states the additional buildings or structures being suppliedbe on the same property
    So I can now see that part of our differing opinions comes from our using different editions of the NEC. The section in question was not changed in the 2017 or 2014 editions. My older editions are at home, so I can't check to see when it changed. What edition are you using?

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

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    So I can now see that part of our differing opinions comes from our using different editions of the NEC. The section in question was not changed in the 2017 or 2014 editions. My older editions are at home, so I can't check to see when it changed. What edition are you using?

    Pa as stated here many times is under the 2008 addition so that leaves the change in 2011 and it would be interesting what reason was given for the change in 2011

    Oh and that brings up a point of interest to those members in PA , PA has adopted the 2014 NEC and will become effective in October 2018

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    19,222
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    i am not sure how you are concluding installations under single management in 225.30 (E.) in the text you are reading means something other than the same management.
    I never said it does. All I said was that 225.30 allows a building to get more than one feeder from another building if the two buildings are under the same management.

    As to the question of whether a building owned and managed by one company is allowed to supply a feeder to another building that is owned and managed by a different company, article 225.30 is silent. Since the NEC does not forbid this, we can infer that the NEC allows it. I have actually seen this only one time, and that was just a couple years ago. The two companies had signed a contract that addressed the cost of electricity. I seem to recall that the electric utility company didn't care for the arrangement, and was seeking to limit the use of such contracts. I really don't remember any details.

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

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ashenafidemissie View Post
    I am working on a project that has two existing buildings (lets say building A and B) with their own services. The service for building A has maxed out but there is available capacity in the Main distribution board fed by Service for Building B. I know NEC only allows one service for one building (unless for exceptions stated) but I would like to know if there is a way I would be able to feed a load in building A from the Main distribution board in building B?
    My advise to the OP, you have little chance you will get an authority to allow this based on it being expedient , without tying your reason to one from article 230 or 225 and show a good reason to allow any additional supplies to a single building

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Milpitas, california
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you so much for all your responses. FYI the two buildings are under the same owner and management. It has been decided to upgrade power for one of the buildings not to supply power from the other one as the owners doesn't want this practice to repeat in future. I have learned a lot from your discussion. Special thanks to Charlie b and David!

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
  •