2 feeders or 2 sets of service conductors

[Dennis Alwon]

If I have a 400 amp meter/main on a pole with 2 runs (feeders) to a dwelling then I am in violation however, if I have a meter with no ocpd's at the pole then I can run 2 sets of service conductors from the meter to 2 separate 200 amp panels at the dwelling. I believe this to be true....

My question is why? Is one more dangerous than the other?

I was looking at 230.2 and 230.40 exception 2 to verify that 2 sets of service conductors would be considered one service. Am I reading this correctly?

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). For the purpose of 230.40, Exception
No. 2 only, underground sets of conductors, 1/0 AWG and
larger, running to the same location and connected together at
their supply end but not connected together at their load end
shall be considered to be supplying one service.

230.40 Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets. Each
service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground
service conductors, or service lateral shall supply only
one set of service-entrance conductors.

Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting means in separate
enclosures are grouped at one location and supply separate loads
from one service drop, set of overhead service conductors, set of underground
service conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance
conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several such service
equipment enclosures.

 

[electrofelon]

If I have a 400 amp meter/main on a pole with 2 runs (feeders) to a dwelling then I am in violation however, if I have a meter with no ocpd's at the pole then I can run 2 sets of service conductors from the meter to 2 separate 200 amp panels at the dwelling. I believe this to be true....

My question is why? Is one more dangerous than the other?

I was looking at 230.2 and 230.40 exception 2 to verify that 2 sets of service conductors would be considered one service. Am I reading this correctly?

Dennis I agree with your assessment and puzzlement of the situation. IMO the general prohibition against multiple feeders should be scrapped, or at least revised to allow the situation you discussed.

 

[winnie]

I also agree that the 'multiple set of feeders' restriction be relaxed.

IMHO it should be easy and obvious how to shut off all electrical power to a building. So having a requirement for 'one' disconnect makes sense.

But we already have that 'six throws of the hand' counts as one disconnect, and we already have the approach of two 200A panels counting for a 400A residential service.

IMHO 2 or 3 feeders all entering a building at one location with 2 or 3 grouped disconnects would meet the intent of this code section just fine.

Jon

 

[wwhitney]

Well, the 2020 NEC did add 225.30(B) on buildings supplied by feeders:

225.30(B) Common Supply Equipment. Where feeder conductors originate in the same panelboard, switchboard, or other distribution equipment, and each feeder terminates in a single disconnecting means, not more man six feeders shall be permitted. Where more than one feeder is installed in accordance with this section, all feeder disconnects supplying the building or structure shall be grouped in the same location, and the requirements of 225.33 shall not apply. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the load served.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I have to get used to looking online at the 2020. For some reason I still go to the 2017. Perhaps it is a bit easier than the online version. The other day it was so slow I was getting annoyed.

 

[tortuga]

I have to get used to looking online at the 2020. For some reason I still go to the 2017. Perhaps it is a bit easier than the online version. The other day it was so slow I was getting annoyed.

Same here, I use my 2017 PDF all the time.
the 2020 online thing is unusable in the field with no reception, slow to load.
My 2020 Handbook is so full of errors its unusable.
My 2020 spiral bound is also chock full typo's it like I typed it.
At this point I'd pay anything for 2020 NEC PDF

 

[tom baker]

If I have a 400 amp meter/main on a pole with 2 runs (feeders) to a dwelling then I am in violation however, if I have a meter with no ocpd's at the pole then I can run 2 sets of service conductors from the meter to 2 separate 200 amp panels at the dwelling. I believe this to be true....

My question is why? Is one more dangerous than the other?

I was looking at 230.2 and 230.40 exception 2 to verify that 2 sets of service conductors would be considered one service. Am I reading this correctly?

In WA we can have up to six feeders to a building, bldg disconnects must be grouped.

 

[jap]

If I have a 400 amp meter/main on a pole with 2 runs (feeders) to a dwelling then I am in violation however, if I have a meter with no ocpd's at the pole then I can run 2 sets of service conductors from the meter to 2 separate 200 amp panels at the dwelling. I believe this to be true....

My question is why? Is one more dangerous than the other?

I was looking at 230.2 and 230.40 exception 2 to verify that 2 sets of service conductors would be considered one service. Am I reading this correction

I'm confused as to how you are going to have (2) Feeders in this scenario.

A parallel set of conductors to make a 400 amp feed to the dwelling would be 1 feeder.

Are you planning on tapping the 400 amp Main and run (2) 200 amp feeders to the dwelling?

In that case, you would also be subject to the tap rules that apply.

Jap>

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I'm confused as to how you are going to have (2) Feeders in this scenario.

A parallel set of conductors to make a 400 amp feed to the dwelling would be 1 feeder.

Are you planning on tapping the 400 amp Main and run (2) 200 amp feeders to the dwelling?

In that case, you would also be subject to the tap rules that apply.

Jap>

They are not parallel if they are not connected at both ends. At the panel end they go to the respective panels they are not connected together

(H) Conductors in Parallel.
(1) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper
conductors, for each phase, polarity, neutral, or grounded
circuit shall be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically
joined at both ends) only in sizes 1/0 AWG and larger
where installed in accordance with 310.10(H)(2) through
(H)(6).

 

[jap]

They are not parallel if they are not connected at both ends. At the panel end they go to the respective panels they are not connected together

So you are running 2 200amp feeds from a single 400 amp breaker?

JAP>

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So you are running 2 200amp feeds from a single 400 amp breaker?

JAP>

No feeders are coming from 2- 200 amp breakers But they could come from a 400 if it follows tap rule

 

[jap]

No feeders are coming from 2- 200 amp breakers But they could come from a 400 if it follows tap rule

I see.

Thanks,

JAP>

 

[jap]

For a minute I thought someone was considering (2) seperate 200 amp feeders from 2 separate 200 amp breakers as being connected together at the supply end.


JAP>

 

[tom baker]

Well, the 2020 NEC did add 225.30(B) on buildings supplied by feeders:

225.30(B) Common Supply Equipment. Where feeder conductors originate in the same panelboard, switchboard, or other distribution equipment, and each feeder terminates in a single disconnecting means, not more man six feeders shall be permitted. Where more than one feeder is installed in accordance with this section, all feeder disconnects supplying the building or structure shall be grouped in the same location, and the requirements of 225.33 shall not apply. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the load served.

Cheers, Wayne

We had the same rule in WA for some time, the 2020 NEC change may of been submitted from someone here