4-38 Log #3753 NEC-P04 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(225, Part II and 225.30)
Submitter: Jim Pauley, Square D Company/Schneider Electric
Recommendation: Revise the title of Part II to Article 225 to read as follows:
II. More than One Building or Other Structure Buildings or Other Supplied by
a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s)
In addition, revise the text of 225.30 to read as shown:
225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one A 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 a 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.
Substantiation: The overall intent of Part II of Article 225 needs to be
clarified. The present wording is leading to a significant amount of time being
spent arguing over whether or not a building is supplied from another building
or from a structure or from something else. It would appear that the ultimate
intent of these provisions in Article 225 is to require that we have appropriate
disconnecting means at any building or structure that is supplied by a branch
circuit or feeder. If that is the case, why not simply revise the language to make
that clear.
For example, take a building that has the service disconnect located away
from the building by some distance (i.e. determined by the AHJ to not be at the
building itself). The conductors from the service disconnect to the building are
an outside feeder. We would expect that the provisions of Part II apply to that
feeder when it gets to the building.
The problem is with the present wording that says “each additional building or
structure”. If the service disconnect is a pad mounted single switchboard
section, the only way you can argue that Part II of 225 applies is to argue that
the switchboard is a “structure”. I believe that it only adds confusion to say that
a piece of electrical equipment is a structure.
The proposed revision to both the Part II title and to 225.30 would simply the
text to simply say that if you have a building supplied by a feeder or branch
circuit, you have to comply with Part II. Note that the proposed title for Part II
is identical to the title used by CMP 5 for 250.32. The use of the same
terminology in both parts of the code would greatly benefit users in applying
the proper rules.
The suggested revision to 225.30 that changes “…of the service
disconnecting…” to …of a service disconnecting… is to simply recognize that
there may be more than one service disconnecting means on the premises.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the title as follows: Buildings or Other Structures Supplied by a
Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s).
The panel accepts the changes to the first sentence of Section 225.30.
Panel Statement: The panel accepted in principle the title change but revised
the wording. The panel accepted the remainder of the proposal.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
