Articles 225 and 230- Detached Gargae

[jtinge]

This has been brought up before and David seems to think those are exceptions and do not add to the conversation. :huh::?

I thought so, but I didn't reread the whole thread to verify.

Mentioned sections would allow feeders with different supply characteristics.

There is similar wording in art 230 for services with different supply characteristics.

Nowhere does NEC specifically address supply being from both feeders and services. ADD: maybe I should say nowhere does it limit supply to be from feeder or service only but not both.

But to have a service and a standby generator (which is going to be either feeder or branch circuit, but not a service) is common, so something is assumed somewhere I guess for that application. And it goes beyond the either you are supplied by service or the generator, if that were the case then "whole house" transfer would be the rule, but you can have a generator that backs up only selected loads, and in such case you can supply those loads from the generator while everything else is simultaneously powered by the service.

I agree with this.

I enjoyed the lively discussion in this thread and found it to be very thought provoking but I too don't have anything new to add that hasn't already been said, so I will stand down.

 

[iwire]

Here is a building I worked on. See if you can count the number of services and generators.

(Hint, the service gear is centered on the roof. )

 

[david]

Not sure I agree with this statement.

If the power supply to the building comes from a customer's distribution system and not a utility, then the supplies can be either feeders and/or SDS's. For an industrial or research type facility, it is not uncommon to have both 480Y/277V and 208Y/120V outdoor unit substations (SDS's) with feeders into the building distribution equipment, and possibly some MV feeders (from a primary distribution substation) to a MV motor/drive or MV power supply.

Wouldn't 225.30 Number of Supplies, (C) Capacity Requirements and (D) Different Characteristics permit this?

This has been brought up before and David seems to think those are exceptions and do not add to the conversation. :huh::?

Wouldn't 225.30 Number of Supplies, (C) Capacity Requirements and (D) Different Characteristics permit this?

I never said that this is an open board and I said we agree that once you get into capacity requirements Different Characteristics you have established a basis for additional supplies to building. I to have invested enough time into this discussion. Where their is disagreement is your position that their is no need to establish any thing it is already allowed without any consideration to those things.

you always take the position when someone here disagrees with you, they somehow just cannot consider what the code is saying,
not that they just disagree with you on a certain subject.

those of us who have the responsibility of determining what the code means have an obligation to stay current, learn and consider the view points of others. Unfortunately when it comes to enforcement it is not a democracy we don't get to vote on it. Those who enforce the code are not always going to be correct, its a fact of life, it has been said a wise man positions himself in the midst of many consolers, But at the end of the day he will still have the responsibility to make the decision.

 

[david]

should we get into discussing manufactured homes can the be supplied by both a service or a feeder or does it need to be only one or the other./QUOTE]

I gave hint to what was in the back of my mind as I posted this so I?m just going to say it and move on from here.


550.10 Power Supply.
Does anybody else care to agree similar language using the mandatory statement shall be a feeder in 550.10 is mandating the supply in that section to be a single feeder supply. And by that statement shall be supplied by excludes the building from being supplied by a service.

Exception # 2 seems to support that position

Exception No. 2: A ?feeder? assembly shall not be ?required? for manufactured homes constructed in accordance with 550.32(B).

Braking the sentence down to it basic form the subject being the power supply
?The power supply shall be a feeder? (consisting of not more than one)

225..30
shall be supplied by only one feeder or branch circuit
?shall be only one feeder? (or branch circuit)

And to emphasize when we disagree it is just two individuals disagreeing nothing more nothing less, so roll your eyes all you want when you disagree with someone, it?s just a disagreement.

 

[Smart $]

...it?s just a disagreement.

Nothing more, nothing less...

Love ya all the same

 

[Dennis Alwon]

First off I am not sure why 550 is even brought up here.'

Secondly- you say you are open to learn from others but to be honest you only seem to be interested in defending your viewpoint. I think most of us don't agree with your thinking but it is up to you to interpret as you see fit. I and many others here do not see where the NEC denies this install. It, imo is as simple as art 225 and 230-- no further and in each article I think that compliancy is met.

Now if you think otherwise then by all means interpret as you will. We are not saying you are wrong with your concept but just that the NEC does not find fault with it. It may be simething you can propose for the 2017 NEC

 

[Smart $]

... It may be simething you can propose for the 2014 NEC

A bit late for 2014... :blink:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

A bit late for 2014... :blink:

Thank you I meant 2017 I will edit :thumbsup:

 

[david]

First off I am not sure why 550 is even brought up here.'

Secondly- you say you are open to learn from others but to be honest you only seem to be interested in defending your viewpoint. I think most of us don't agree with your thinking but it is up to you to interpret as you see fit. I and many others here do not see where the NEC denies this install. It, imo is as simple as art 225 and 230-- no further and in each article I think that compliancy is met.

Now if you think otherwise then by all means interpret as you will. We are not saying you are wrong with your concept but just that the NEC does not find fault with it. It may be simething you can propose for the 2017 NEC

550.10 is only met for comparison of similar language. Since much of the code we use today is a historical document, we do not have the opportunity to interview those who composed the language that codified these sections, comparison of similar text within the same document has long been considered acceptable in trying to extract a consistent meaning of a text.

Defending ones positions is a good learning tool.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

550.10 is only met for comparison of similar language. Since much of the code we use today is a historical document, we do not have the opportunity to interview those who composed the language that codified these sections, comparison of similar text within the same document has long been considered acceptable in trying to extract a consistent meaning of a text.
.

I disagree somewhat with that, especially when it comes to trailers.

In terms of defending your position that is fine but it seems like you are going way beyond to make a point to prove yours. You cannot inspect what I suggested using art 550-- it carries no weight and it would annoy others. IMO, you would have to show where art. 230 or 225 is not complied with

 

[david]

That is the whole of the disagreement that there is a mandatory rule that the building must be supplied by a single feeder, and you need a directive to expand away from that mandatory rule when adding additional supplies, which we do have in article 215.

I went to article 550.10 to prove that the code considered itself to be the case, when a very similar statement was made in that section. You had to have permission to supply a manufacture building with a service instead of the mandated feeder.

There is no intention to go to article 550 to enforce provisions found in article 215 or 230 for that matter.

If what I am saying is not true than there is nothing prohibiting someone for supplying their home with a utility service and a feeder from there neighbor(s) property. In fact there is no limitation that it only be one feeder when you leave the narrow scoping provisions of article 215. Same premise one manager of that property.

As you say it is a permissive code and there is no mention of what to do when it is supplied from a different premise.

I take the position that it is a mandatory rule that it is one premise, buildings on the same property under single management, And it is one supply, until you make use of the provisions to add additional supplies.

As far as a willingness to learn I presented the opposing view of this section in a meeting of other building officials and electrical inspectors and they think I am crazy for considering your understanding of these sections. That of its self has little to add to the merit of what was discussed here.

You have a wide audience of young inexperienced electricians and inspectors to teach your understanding of the code. We disagree, it is that simple.

I have no expectation of teaching you guys anything, If I am not here to teach, than I can only be here to learn.

I have a feeling that I am not the only one that thinks this way, Two opposing views have been presented it time to move on

 

[iwire]

If what I am saying is not true than there is nothing prohibiting someone for supplying their home with a utility service and a feeder from there neighbor(s) property.

In my opinion the NEC would allow exactly that.

Where is the code section you feel prevents it?

Why would doing so be a safety issue that the NEC would need to address?

I take the position that it is a mandatory rule that it is one premise, buildings on the same property under single management, And it is one supply, until you make use of the provisions to add additional supplies.

And again there is no code section that says that. If there were such a rule it would have to be located in article 110 as 225 and 230 can only apply to what their scope says they apply to.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If what I am saying is not true than there is nothing prohibiting someone for supplying their home with a utility service and a feeder from there neighbor(s) property. In fact there is no limitation that it only be one feeder when you leave the narrow scoping provisions of article 215. Same premise one manager of that property.

That is true. As stated where is the article that says I can't

As you say it is a permissive code and there is no mention of what to do when it is supplied from a different premise.

I take the position that it is a mandatory rule that it is one premise, buildings on the same property under single management, And it is one supply, until you make use of the provisions to add additional supplies.

No it is permissive so unless you find an article that tells me I cannot do this then IMO you cannot deny the install no matter how much it irks you.

As far as a willingness to learn I presented the opposing view of this section in a meeting of other building officials and electrical inspectors and they think I am crazy for considering your understanding of these sections. That of its self has little to add to the merit of what was discussed here.

I agree - no merit... It also depends on the inspectors and without getting down on them I have seen my share of them that don't know their ....you know the rest.. BTW- I have never said you were wrong but that I have not see any code cited that suggests what I am saying is incorrect. I bet I can find very many inspectors who would agree with me.

You have a wide audience of young inexperienced electricians and inspectors to teach your understanding of the code. We disagree, it is that simple.

I have no expectation of teaching you guys anything, If I am not here to teach, than I can only be here to learn.

I don't mind being taught but you have not presented an article that shows I cannot do it. It very well may be the intent to not do it but that is not what the articles state

I have a feeling that I am not the only one that thinks this way, Two opposing views have been presented it time to move on

I have no doubt that others see it as you do....and no one is saying it is wrong.

The think I do not follow is you keep saying we cannot have two feeders to a building. Well we don't. We have a feeder and a service. Now if I put both services on the detached structure could I then feed the house from one panel and also the garage and then the other meter feed the upstairs apt. I am sure you will say yes. Now really how is that different if my disconnects are labeled and grouped as stated on the original question.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

David, Fwiw I sent an email to our state engineer dept of insurance who is the authority having jurisdiction for NC. He agrees with you- one feeder or one service but when I ask him for an article to cite he does not give me one.

Another chief electrical inspector in the area is very curious about it and is investigating but he does not see why you can't do this especially if there was a separate entrance-- in his opinion you really have a duplex apt. One feed with a feeder and the other with a service

 

[david]

David, Fwiw I sent an email to our state engineer dept of insurance who is the authority having jurisdiction for NC. He agrees with you- one feeder or one service but when I ask him for an article to cite he does not give me one.

Another chief electrical inspector in the area is very curious about it and is investigating but he does not see why you can't do this especially if there was a separate entrance-- in his opinion you really have a duplex apt. One feed with a feeder and the other with a service

In my opinion it not a question of it being used as two occupancies.
It comes down to being a single building.

We all agree that you can have two entries into the building if there is one supply.

As far as what I would cite (not to get back into the disagreement again)
As the authority, or one representing the authority I would cite 225.30 and I would cite it as a mandatory rule single building single supply.
You and others would disagree, but that is the responsibility of the authority. I would make note to you as I cited this section that other local authorities agree, I would also make note of why I feel it is the correct interpretation of this section

 

[iwire]

David,

Am I to understand you are advocating ignoring direct code sections in favor of trying to get the result you want by combining code articles?

That is simply wrong.

 

[david]

David,

Am I to understand you are advocating ignoring direct code sections in favor of trying to get the result you want by combining code articles?

That is simply wrong.

From the handbook commentary following 225.30

"The fundamental requirement of 225.30 is that a building or structure be supplied by a single branch circuit or feeder, similar to the rule for a single service in 230.2. Sections 225.30(A) through (E) identify conditions under which a building or structure is permitted to be supplied by multiple sources. To address the need for increased reliability of the power source to a premises where critical operational loads (not classed as emergency or legally required standby) are supplied, 225.30(A)(6) is a condition where multiple feeder or branch circuit sources are permitted. Double-ended (main-tie-main) switchgear supplied by two feeders is an example of the type of source covered by this provision."

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material
. (B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.

Article 230 lays down the mandatory rules of attaining supply from to a building through the normal path of a service, from a utility

Article 215 addresses an alternative to attaining supply to a building from a utility by use of a path of a feeder from another structure that is supplied by a service from a utility.
It is an optional or alternative method

Both paths lead back to the utility, (service), In order to use this alternative path of a feeder you have to comply with, 225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management
Which is consistent with

225.1 Scope.
This article covers requirements for outside branch circuits and feeders run on or between buildings, structures, or poles on the premises; and electrical equipment and wiring for the supply of utilization equipment that is located on or attached to the outside of buildings, structures, or poles.

Why can you not except that i am not ignoring the sections you point to I am considering them with a different end result than you

 

[david]

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material
. (B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.

Article 215 addresses an alternative to attaining supply to a building from a utility by use of a path of a feeder from another structure that is supplied by a service from a utility.
It is an optional or alternative method

547.9 Electrical Supply to Building(s) or Structure(s) from a Distribution Point.

A distribution point

shall be ?permitted? to supply any building or structure located on the same premises.

547.9 Electrical Supply to Building(s) or Structure(s) from a Distribution Point.


(B) (2) Conductor Installation. The supply conductors shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Part II of Article 225.
(C) feeders to building(s) or structure(s) shall meet the requirements of 250.32 and Article 225, Parts I and II.

 

[ActionDave]

From the handbook commentary following 225.30

"The fundamental requirement of 225.30 is that a building or structure be supplied by a single branch circuit or feeder, similar to the rule for a single service in 230.2. Sections 225.30(A) through (E) identify conditions under which a building or structure is permitted to be supplied by multiple sources. To address the need for increased reliability of the power source to a premises where critical operational loads (not classed as emergency or legally required standby) are supplied, 225.30(A)(6) is a condition where multiple feeder or branch circuit sources are permitted. Double-ended (main-tie-main) switchgear supplied by two feeders is an example of the type of source covered by this provision."

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material
. (B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.

Article 230 lays down the mandatory rules of attaining supply from to a building through the normal path of a service, from a utility

Article 215 addresses an alternative to attaining supply to a building from a utility by use of a path of a feeder from another structure that is supplied by a service from a utility.
It is an optional or alternative method

Both paths lead back to the utility, (service), In order to use this alternative path of a feeder you have to comply with, 225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management
Which is consistent with

225.1 Scope.
This article covers requirements for outside branch circuits and feeders run on or between buildings, structures, or poles on the premises; and electrical equipment and wiring for the supply of utilization equipment that is located on or attached to the outside of buildings, structures, or poles.

Why can you not except that i am not ignoring the sections you point to I am considering them with a different end result than you

Uggghhh....heaven above save me. I have a headache right now and it is not even Saturday morning yet.

A building can be supplied by two different sources.

Jumping around the code book looking for the key that unlocks the implied secret message is not the way I want to work or be inspected.

 

[david]

Uggghhh....heaven above save me. I have a headache right now and it is not even Saturday morning yet.
A building can be supplied by two different sources.
Jumping around the code book looking for the key that unlocks the implied secret message is not the way I want to work or be inspected.

Of course a building can have two supplies, but that may not answer Dennis question?

In this area there are three different main utility companies. In one area ,years past there was a desperate need for housing, Many single family dwellings became duplexes, along with hundreds of apartments sprung up over the garage in the back. There were no building codes in this state and there is no fire separation.

There are hundreds of two family dwellings with two service drops one on the left and one on the right. Or front and back it doesn?t matter. The service drop hits a insulating knob on the front of the house feeds a meter at the front, The service drop continues to the back hits another knob on the back to use the dwelling as support before it spans again to the garage apartment in the back.

Nobody cared the utility company didn?t and the electrical inspector seen nothing that prevented the installation.

So yes of course a building can be supplied by multiple sources service laterals, service drops, feeders, and branch circuits, and it?s up to interpretation as to what limits those supplies.

If nothing else got accomplished at least the reader of this thread was challenged to think through their own understanding of what does limit the number of supplies or source of supplies to a building.

I do not want to have the last word here so
Dennis it?s all yours and the authorities In NC will have to figure out what they want to cite ,if anything for limiting or not limiting multiple supplies to buildings