Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Two Services for one building

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    230.2 Number of Services.
    The text supports limiting services to one unless the permissive rules in 230.2 can be applied
    The authority can look at what is in print and state the text supports limiting services to one, the effect is the majority of buildings will only have one service

    II. More Than One Building or Other Structure
    225.30 Number of Supplies.
    225.30 could have used the same style as 230.2 and say 225.30 number of feeders or branch circuits

    The authority has the right to look at the written language and conclude service are being limited in 230.2 and supplies to building are being limited in 225.30

    The authority having jurisdiction has the right to conclude the NEC intent is to limit service or other supplies to a building and buildings to only having one.

    The effect in making that lawful interpretation is the majority of building will have only one supply, if the building supply is a service or if the buildings supply is a feeder or if the building supply is a branch circuit. Look around your neighborhood , your state, look around the country and see if that is not the case.

    You can state here that the text that includes the word only should not put emphases on making the determination as to the intent of 230.2 or 225.30 that is your choice. And if you are the authority having jurisdiction in your area you could administer and enforce this section of the code in your area

    Limiting building supplies to only one is not pulling language out of the air it is language supported by the NEC

    The OP question was answered early in this thread. The broader discussion can only be resolved for you by the Authority having Jurisdiction that is the way the NEC is set up. Most municipalities have an appeal process. If you do not agree with your authority. If you think you can persuade an appeals board, go through the process of having a board agree with your understanding of the NEC
    Last edited by david; 08-14-18 at 01:12 PM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Jamaica and london
    Posts
    939
    well, I have been in buildings that were part of a complex, that had shops supplied from their own panels, yet also had other areas supplied from the main panels for the site...
    The old blacksmiths shop had an MWBC running from main panel to it, via underground conduit. The woodshop had its own service sub panel, and then the Foundry had two underground feeders for lighting and outlets, running to different ends of the building.

    Some of the shops were on second floor areas, others on first floor and three residences on top floors.. spread across a complex of six streetfront buildings and five back section buildings... and fed using one bank of meters and panels in building five...

    So we had as many as 5 feeds to some buildings, three passing through to other buildings.

    Guess none of that would be to code now but Dominion Resources had no problems with it in eighties.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Boyertown, PA, USA
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    230.2 Number of Services.
    The text supports limiting services to one unless the permissive rules in 230.2 can be applied
    The authority can look at what is in print and state the text supports limiting services to one, the effect is the majority of buildings will only have one service

    II. More Than One Building or Other Structure
    225.30 Number of Supplies.
    225.30 could have used the same style as 230.2 and say 225.30 number of feeders or branch circuits
    Limiting services to one is NOT the issue here. How do you not see the difference between permitting one service, or one feeder or one branch circuit, and permitting a service and a branch circuit or feeder? You're conflating two services with combinations of a service and a feeder or a branch circuit. They are not the same, and the Code does not restrict it. What is not forbidden is permitted. PERIOD.

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    The authority has the right to look at the written language and conclude service are being limited in 230.2 and supplies to building are being limited in 225.30
    They can conclude that the Moon is cheese as the Earth is flat. This thread and this forum are not here to try to divine or speculate what any particular AHJ will conclude.


    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    The authority having jurisdiction has the right to conclude the NEC intent is to limit service or other supplies to a building and buildings to only having one.

    The effect in making that lawful interpretation is the majority of building will have only one supply, if the building supply is a service or if the buildings supply is a feeder or if the building supply is a branch circuit. Look around your neighborhood , your state, look around the country and see if that is not the case.

    You can state here that the text that includes the word only should not put emphases on making the determination as to the intent of 230.2 or 225.30 that is your choice. And if you are the authority having jurisdiction in your area you could administer and enforce this section of the code in your area
    Again, you're speculating. I can easily state that an AHJ will agree with me completely. That doesn't change anything or help the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Limiting building supplies to only one is not pulling language out of the air it is language supported by the NEC
    It absolutely is pulling language out of the air, because building supplies are not limited to one. You've repeatedly cited the articles that specifically permit multiple supplies.


    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    The OP question was answered early in this thread. The broader discussion can only be resolved for you by the Authority having Jurisdiction that is the way the NEC is set up. Most municipalities have an appeal process. If you do not agree with your authority. If you think you can persuade an appeals board, go through the process of having a board agree with your understanding of the NEC
    And yet again, not the topic of this thread.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Craigv View Post
    It absolutely is pulling language out of the air, because building supplies are not limited to one. You've repeatedly cited the articles that specifically permit multiple supplies..
    limited supplies by limited conditions
    225.30 Number of supplies you want to conclude the text is straight forward it is not

    And when the text is not straight forward than an authority can only try and determine what is the NEC concern what is the safety concern what is the intent of the NEC

    You obviously do not like that conclusion an you are entitled to dislike it. The reality is we have the NEC we have Electricians , we have Authorities and we have Appeal Boards

    and i do not have anything further to add

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    limited supplies by limited conditions
    225.30 Number of supplies you want to conclude the text is straight forward it is not

    And when the text is not straight forward than an authority can only try and determine what is the NEC concern what is the safety concern what is the intent of the NEC

    You obviously do not like that conclusion an you are entitled to dislike it. The reality is we have the NEC we have Electricians , we have Authorities and we have Appeal Boards

    and i do not have anything further to add
    225.30 is straight forward. It is in Article 225 which covers outside branch circuits and feeders. It does not cover services.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Boyertown, PA, USA
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    limited supplies by limited conditions
    225.30 Number of supplies you want to conclude the text is straight forward it is not

    And when the text is not straight forward than an authority can only try and determine what is the NEC concern what is the safety concern what is the intent of the NEC

    You obviously do not like that conclusion an you are entitled to dislike it. The reality is we have the NEC we have Electricians , we have Authorities and we have Appeal Boards

    and i do not have anything further to add
    You have nothing to add because your argument won't hold water. The language is straightforward:

    -No Code paragraph expressly forbids a service and a feeder to the same building. If there was "intent" or a "safety concern" to prevent this, there is no reason this would be excluded and left for authorities to surmise and guess what NEC is thinking.

    -Article 225.37 specifically states "Where a building or structure has any combination of feeders, branch circuits or services passing through it,..." If a service and feeder, or a service and branch circuit were prohibited, this Article would read, "Where a building or structure has any combination of feeders or branch circuits..." There would be no need to mention services, as they in combination with a feeder or branch circuit would be prohibited.

    -Article 225.30 deals exclusively with branch circuits and feeders. The fact that services are not mentioned here means there is no restriction on having a feeder and a service. Silence is consent, not "well, let's think about what the NEC was intending....hmmmm....." The NEC is a literal text, not a Ouija Board...
    Last edited by Craigv; 08-14-18 at 05:01 PM.

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
  •