Can I do this #2

[Jerseydaze]

OK garage is across private road from house . Customer wants to run over head wires to sub panel from main house.Road way has l over head services .why cant i do this .

 

[mcclary's electrical]

OK garage is across private road from house . Customer wants to run over head wires to sub panel from main house.Road way has l over head services .why cant i do this .

You can when done correctly

 

[TOOL_5150]

I would first consult the POCO and see what they have to say, but I really see no issue as long as you keep your height requirements and stay within the limits of the NEC.

~Matt

 

[e57]

From Can I do this #1:

Can I do this Garage to Home 3way home and garage have there own seperate service 3 way will be over head UF with guide wire or triplex across private road.

With two seperate services on each building you could not do what is here in 'can I do this #2' If the "service conductors" are removed from one building or another then sure feeding an overhead service or even control wiring is fine... - it will be acting as a sub-panel, although both will have an electrode system and grounding according to 250.32. Otherwise it would be a violation of 230.2.... But if you're going forward as one building serving another - see the rest of 225... It lays out everything you need hieghts, means of attachement....


Now this control wiring for the 3-way you wanted in the other thread.... If you look at 225.30 - you're stuck again...

A way around it - as mentioned before in the other thread - is to make this control wiring - "other than a branch circuit or feeder". I've done this before - make an LV circuit to use as switching, and a contactor to operate the lighting. But as mentioned before - there are some cleaner easier ways to go about that with out that with radio controlled etc...

And as mentioned - you need to find out more about this private road - who owns it, and what type of right of way it may be providing and to whom and by whom. If it is say a private right of way to a public entity, or serve as trucking access to neighbors - it may have to be above 18' to lowest point over the road - which may mean poles to acomplish this... IMO if this person owns it or not - the best method is underground at that point. But you need to find out who owns it, and what is allowed or required by them... And since it already has over head services - don't think you can go to those poles until you find out who owns those.... They might be POCO - they might be owned by some hippy commune - we can't tell from here....

 

[Jerseydaze]

Ok how bout this if i bring 2 circuits over on one 12-3 do I still need a sub?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Ok how bout this if i bring 2 circuits over on one 12-3 do I still need a sub?

No but you would need a disconnect for the MWBC. No panel is required and thus no ground rods either.

 

[iwire]

From Can I do this #1:With two seperate services on each building you could not do what is here in 'can I do this #2' If the "service conductors" are removed from one building or another then sure feeding an overhead service or even control wiring is fine... - it will be acting as a sub-panel, although both will have an electrode system and grounding according to 250.32. Otherwise it would be a violation of 230.2.

I see no violation of 230.2.

 

[Jerseydaze]

From Can I do this #1:With two seperate services on each building you could not do what is here in 'can I do this #2' If the "service conductors" are removed from one building or another then sure feeding an overhead service or even control wiring is fine... - it will be acting as a sub-panel, although both will have an electrode system and grounding according to 250.32. Otherwise it would be a violation of 230.2.... But if you're going forward as one building serving another - see the rest of 225... It lays out everything you need hieghts, means of attachement....


Now this control wiring for the 3-way you wanted in the other thread.... If you look at 225.30 - you're stuck again...

A way around it - as mentioned before in the other thread - is to make this control wiring - "other than a branch circuit or feeder". I've done this before - make an LV circuit to use as switching, and a contactor to operate the lighting. But as mentioned before - there are some cleaner easier ways to go about that with out that with radio controlled etc...

And as mentioned - you need to find out more about this private road - who owns it, and what type of right of way it may be providing and to whom and by whom. If it is say a private right of way to a public entity, or serve as trucking access to neighbors - it may have to be above 18' to lowest point over the road - which may mean poles to acomplish this... IMO if this person owns it or not - the best method is underground at that point. But you need to find out who owns it, and what is allowed or required by them... And since it already has over head services - don't think you can go to those poles until you find out who owns those.... They might be POCO - they might be owned by some hippy commune - we can't tell from here....

If the 3 way is fed from the garage what is the problem with running it back to the house?

 

[iwire]

If the 3 way is fed from the garage what is the problem with running it back to the house?

Nothing as far as I am concerned.

230.2 prohibits multiple services on a building, it does not prohibit a building from having both a service and a feeder or branch circuit from another source.

 

[e57]

Nothing as far as I am concerned.

230.2 prohibits multiple services on a building, it does not prohibit a building from having both a service and a feeder or branch circuit from another source.

How so Bob? Having one service, then a branch circuit from another is not supplying from two services?

230.2 Number of Services.​

​

​

​

​

A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D).​

Sure it does not have two sets of service conductors - but it would be supplied by two. And likewise, 225.30 is simular in that way... (But we can't tell from here if they are even the same property, or for that matter even adjacent due to the road in the middle...)

 

[iwire]

Mark, in my opinion 230 can only apply to a service it cannot apply to branch circuits or feeders.

230.2 prohibits two services from being installed on one building. (unless it meets one of the exceptions)

230.2 cannot, and does not prevent a building from being supplied with a service and a branch circuit from another service.

 

[e57]

230.2 cannot, and does not prevent a building from being supplied with a service and a branch circuit from another service.

I see that as a contradiction both in the wording of 230.2, and likewise of 225.30 if applicable - since these appear to be seperate and seperated properties. In the very least the disconnects would need to be grouped and identified to which service they were fed from. And it would ultimately be up to the AHJ to decide - but I doubt I am alone in the opinion that it is not allowed....

 

[iwire]

I see that as a contradiction both in the wording of 230.2, and likewise of 225.30 if applicable - since these appear to be seperate and seperated properties. In the very least the disconnects would need to be grouped and identified to which service they were fed from. And it would ultimately be up to the AHJ to decide - but I doubt I am alone in the opinion that it is not allowed....

Well I do have the scope of 230 and I am pretty sure Charlie B on my side. I do not think there is anything for an AHJ to decide.

 

[charlie b]

Mark, in my opinion 230 can only apply to a service it cannot apply to branch circuits or feeders.

I agree. Just look at the scope paragraph 230.1.

230.2 cannot, and does not prevent a building from being supplied with a service and a branch circuit from another service.

I agree again. In fact, as soon as you start talking about branch circuits or feeders, I read 230.1, and at that point I lose interest in the entire 230.

Now, does anyone want to talk about "intent"? I think the whole idea of "one only, but here's some exceptions" is related to the fire fighter. The less work that person has to do, and the easier we make that person's work, the safer that person will be, and the sooner the fire will be put out. So having one service plus a branch circuit that originates from another service tends to go against this concept. But IMHO the words, as written, do not prohibit it.

 

[charlie b]

. . . I am pretty sure Charlie B on my side.

I was, as soon as the PayPal transaction cleared.

 

[iwire]

I was, as soon as the PayPal transaction cleared.

I had to get a loan from 'Vinny' at the bar to cover it but it was all worth it. :grin:

 

[iwire]

Now, does anyone want to talk about "intent"?

I am not even sure we go against the intent considering (and I am willing to admit I could be wrong here) with the number of exceptions to the basic rule there are I do not get the impression the CMP is all that concerned.

 

[e57]

Now, does anyone want to talk about "intent"? I think the whole idea of "one only, but here's some exceptions" is related to the fire fighter. The less work that person has to do, and the easier we make that person's work, the safer that person will be, and the sooner the fire will be put out. So having one service plus a branch circuit that originates from another service tends to go against this concept. But IMHO the words, as written, do not prohibit it.

The 'intent' I too see as pretty clear... The fact that the two structures are on different properties is the only stumbler here. And even then - I don't see it as maybe you and Bob. (Iwire - I could see diagreeing with me just to disagree with ME - kidding.... )

So two questions for you both:

1. Two services on the same structure without fitting a need by qualification or special permission would be a violation? (my answer yes...)
2. Two branch circuits or feeders on the same structure without fitting a need by qualification or special permission would be a violation? (my answer yes...)

One more question:
The 'hole' the both of you seem to see is the scope? 230 vs 225...

IMO the wording is clear:

230.2 Number of Services.
A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D).​

This is a structure supplied by two, one on it, and one at the neighbors house. Even if it is a via a branch circuit...

Service. The conductors and equipment for delivering electric energy from the serving utility to the wiring system of the premises served.​

This one would be served by two...

 

[iwire]

The second building is not being supplied by a second service it is being supplied by a feeder or branch circuit.

Services end at the disconnect.

Would you say your refrigerator is supplied by a service or a branch circuit?

 

[iwire]

The second building is not being supplied by a second service it is being supplied by a feeder or branch circuit. (and in the case of a switch leg is not even being supplied)

Services end at the disconnect.

Would you say your refrigerator is supplied by a service or a branch circuit?