Articles 225 and 230- Detached Gargae

[GoldDigger]

You mean that a building cannot be supplied by a service alone? Your strong interpretation of that quote would seem to require that it be served by exactly one feeder or branch circuit instead, and I do not think you can justify that!

 

[david]

You mean that a building cannot be supplied by a service alone? Your strong interpretation of that quote would seem to require that it be served by exactly one feeder or branch circuit instead, and I do not think you can justify that!

Read the sentence as if article 230 did not exist, or there was no such thing as a service.
What does the sentence mean?
Now article 230 does exist but the scope of article in relationship to this sentence is feeders between buildings.

The full sentence says additional buildings in relationship to the origin of the feeder witch implies that there is an original building. It is clear that the service in this sentence is located in what I am calling the original building (origin of the feeder) where the sentence references the load side of the service.
The location of the service is clear and it is clear that the feeder originates in the original building and is feeding to the additional building (s)
The subject to 225.30 broadly is how the additional buildings are supplied. It specifically says the supply shall only be

 

[david]

What I am saying is article 225.30 addresses buildings that are supplied with a feeder that originates from a service in another building or structure.

Article 230 addresses buildings that are supplied by a service, you can only have a feeder supplying abuilding with a service if article 230 allows it

 

[jtinge]

I believe 225 also addresses feeders that originate from a customer owned substation or an outside SDS. The service can be the input to the substation and not necessarily a building.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iwire]

A building or other structure
shall be supplied by

only

one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in 225.30(A)
through (E).

225 Does Not Apply To Services

 

[david]

225 Does Not Apply To Services

Article 225 may not apply to services. Article 225 states that the service is on the same premise and the premise is under single management and 225.30 states that the service location is at a different structure then the structure being supplied by the feeder. After establishing those very narrow parameters states from the load side of the service there can only be one feeder or branch circuit to the additional building (not the same building)

Kind of like you telling you relative to take his Ford to the Chevy dealership to get it work on. Your relative looks at you and says but I drive a Chevy and you say I know, but the Ford garage did not specifically state that it will not work on a Chevy

When you build a feeder the rules come from article 225 and when you build a service go to article 230 and figure out how to build it. You are supplying a building and buildings are supplied by a feeder or a service.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

David-- I don't think anything you said there changes the fact that there is one service and one feeder that feeds the building. I don't see how you can get around it.

 

[david]

David-- I don't think anything you said there changes the fact that there is one service and one feeder that feeds the building. I don't see how you can get around it.

Where is the allowance for both to feed the building? edit supply the building.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Where is the allowance for both to feed the building? edit supply the building.

The NEC is a permissive document. If there is no rule that says you can't do it then it is allowable. You must show a code article that will not allow it.

 

[jtinge]

While this is not code, the Hdbk commentary for 230.2 gives me the impression that a significant number of electrical professionals agree that a facility can be served by a combination of service, feeder, and branch circuits under the right conditions....

"The general requirement is for a building or structure to be supplied
by only one service. However, under some conditions, a
single service may not be adequate. Therefore, the installation
of additional services is permitted as specified in conditions covered
by 230.2(A) through (D). Where more than one service (or
combination of service, feeder, and branch circuit) is installed,
230.2(E) requires that a permanent plaque or directory with the
pertinent information on the multiple sources of supply be
located at each supply source disconnecting means. This information
is very important to first responders or other persons
who need to disconnect the building or structure from all of its
supplies."

 

[david]

What being discussed here is that there is no need for special or for that matter it is unconditional , The discussion is that a individual building can be supplied by a service and a feeder without use of an exception or condition of use for that allowance.
I have a 1999 dodge ram (van) my brother asked to borrow it, I said yes of course, when I handed him the keys I said remember this van will only go in drive.
I did not say this van will go in drive.
Saying this van will only go in drive excluded reverse even though in that sentence I did not reference reverse.
Reverse was excluded by the preference and use of the word only

the counter to my position was presented that the word only means only of the type under the scope of article 225 outside branch circuits and feeders. I do not agree that the scope changes the meaning of the word only.

for the opposing view the sentence could have said be supplied by one feeder or branch circuit. If that is the case their was no need to use the word only. the singular feeder or branch circuit was established in the use of the singular "one"

by editing a messed up what I posted trying to put it back

 

[Smart $]

What being discussed here is that there is no need for special or for that matter it is unconditional , The discussion is that a individual building can be supplied by a service and a feeder without use of an exception or condition of use for that allowance.
I have a 1999 dodge ram (van) my brother asked to borrow it, I said yes of course, when I handed him the keys I said remember this van will only go in drive.
I did not say this van will go in drive.
Saying this van will only go in drive excluded reverse even though in that sentence I did not reference reverse.
Reverse was excluded by the preference and use of the word only

the counter to my position was presented that the word only means only of the type under the scope of article 225 outside branch circuits and feeders. I do not agree that the scope changes the meaning of the word only.

for the opposing view the sentence could have said be supplied by one feeder or branch circuit. If that is the case their was no need to use the word only. the singular feeder or branch circuit was established in the use of the singular "one"

by editing a messed up what I posted trying to put it back

I understand the point you are trying to get across, but it is not exactly the way you think...

Using your van example, you said it will only go in drive, and by inference you are saying it will not go in reverse. However, by saying it will only go in drive also infers that to go in drive, it must be capable of at least one other position (or the statement would/should have been "stays in drive") and there is no other inference that it will not go in any other position, only that it will "go" in drive. The actual only conclusion that can be reached without reservation is that it can go in any other position and "not go". If it does "not go" in any other position, the condition is met... and the shift lever will still go in any other position. It would be obvious, it will only "go" in drive

Now to 225.30. It's a matter of literal interpretation. First, it's in Article 225 which automatically limits the scope to outside feeders and branch circuits.

Then 225.30 says, "A building or other structure that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of a service disconnecting means shall be supplied by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E)."

Note what it says is not the same as: ...shall only be supplied by one feeder or branch circuit....

The position of the word only in the sentence structure is critical to the interpretation.

Now, don't forget the first part of the sentence at this point either. It already limits the condition to a building or structure served by a feeder or branch circuit on the load side of a service disconnecting means... and no other condition, such as served by a feeder AND a service, or another alternate power source (or a feeder or branch circuit thereof).

 

[david]

I understand the point you are trying to get across, but it is not exactly the way you think...

Using your van example, you said it will only go in drive, and by inference you are saying it will not go in reverse. However, by saying it will only go in drive also infers that to go in drive, it must be capable of at least one other position (or the statement would/should have been "stays in drive") and there is no other inference that it will not go in any other position, only that it will "go" in drive. The actual only conclusion that can be reached without reservation is that it can go in any other position and "not go". If it does "not go" in any other position, the condition is met... and the shift lever will still go in any other position. It would be obvious, it will only "go" in drive

Now to 225.30. It's a matter of literal interpretation. First, it's in Article 225 which automatically limits the scope to outside feeders and branch circuits.

Then 225.30 says, "A building or other structure that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of a service disconnecting means shall be supplied by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E)."

Note what it says is not the same as: ...shall only be supplied by one feeder or branch circuit....

The position of the word only in the sentence structure is critical to the interpretation.

Now, don't forget the first part of the sentence at this point either. It already limits the condition to a building or structure served by a feeder or branch circuit on the load side of a service disconnecting means... and no other condition, such as served by a feeder AND a service, or another alternate power source (or a feeder or branch circuit thereof).

Ok so in your reading and understanding of the article would you agree it looks at the premise as the subject of what is being utility supplied. So in relationship to the additional building being supplied by a feeder , where is the service located?

 

[Smart $]

Ok so in your reading and understanding of the article would you agree it looks at the premise as the subject of what is being utility supplied. So in relationship to the additional building being supplied by a feeder , where is the service located?

The location of the service is not specified.

The specific conditions in order of priority:

1. Outside Branch Circuits and Feeders
2. Buildings or Other Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s)
3. Number of Supplies
4. A building or other structure that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of a service disconnecting means

If the conditions are not as stated above, the section does not apply. In technical and literal terms, the whole section would exclude a situation where served by a feeder or branch circuit on the load side of the service disconnecting means AND any other other power source, including a (or another) service... but we interpret the intention to mean only one feeder or branch circuit from the load side of any service disconnecting means, no matter what other supply there may be.

 

[david]

The location of the service is not specified.

The specific conditions in order of priority:

1. Outside Branch Circuits and Feeders
2. Buildings or Other Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s)
3. Number of Supplies
4. A building or other structure that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of a service disconnecting means

If the conditions are not as stated above, the section does not apply. In technical and literal terms, the whole section would exclude a situation where served by a feeder or branch circuit on the load side of the service disconnecting means AND any other other power source, including a (or another) service... but we interpret the intention to mean only one feeder or branch circuit from the load side of any service disconnecting means, no matter what other supply there may be.

I agree the location of the service for the premise is not specified but it is stated to be on the same property that is under single management and a location other than the additional building being supplied by the single feeder or branch circuit.

 

[david]

In my very real world we have a tanning solon that had trouble with their 200 amp main breaker tripping.
So to compensate for that they change to a 400 amp meter the utility owns the service lateral and will not up size the lateral without the owner paying for the up sizing.
The owner refuses to pay for that. He now wants to increase his load and wants to add a utility service drop to the building because it will be cheaper than the lateral.
What he wants to do is leave the 200 (400 Amp Meter) amp lateral, plus add a 200 amp service drop to the building.
We said no, two utility connections one through a service drop one through a service lateral would be adding a second service to this building.
His response I own the garage behind the tanning solon so if you do not approve the two services I will just run a feeder from the garage to the tanning solon..
So in accordance to your view there is a violation with his solution of two utility connections, but no concern with on feed from the garage and one service from the utility

 

[Smart $]

...
So in accordance to your view there is a violation with his solution of two utility connections, but no concern with on feed from the garage and one service from the utility

Actually, two utility connections is only a violation if they do not meet the criteria specified in Article 230... but otherwise, that is correct.

 

[david]

Actually, two utility connections is only a violation if they do not meet the criteria specified in Article 230... but otherwise, that is correct.

If I accept this concept that a building any building can be supplied with a service and a feeder without any consideration other than it is a design choice leads me to a question.
First using my real example of the tanning solon with an alteration to the load capacity of the service, and a choice to add a feeder to meet the load capacity.

Second the same example of the tanning solon and using my design choice of supplying the building with one feeder and one service when it is new construction

What size does the feeder have to be in both examples?

What size does the service conductors have to be in both examples?

 

[david]

In the example of the alteration the original service load is 400 amps the additional load is 200 amps
In the new construction the load is 600 amps

 

[david]

In the example Dennis presented with the garage apartment, what size would the service have to be what size would the feeder have to be?