230.2 multiple services allowable

[hhsting]

Attached sketch shows two tenants A and B. The electrical room which is accessible from outside houses SWBD1 and SWBD2. SWBD1 is new with main service disconnect of 800A and so is the service conductor underground from utility transformer to SWBD1. SWBD 2 is existing with 600A main service disconnect and underground service conductor is existing from utility transformer to SWBD2.

SWBD2 all feeder breakers serve Tenant B space. SWBD1 one feeder breaker serves panels A1, B1 and XFMR A in Vacant Tenant A space and all the rest feeder breaker serve Tenant B space. In future of course when Tenant A is not vacant it will have its one electric service so SWBD2 all feeder breakers would serve Tenant B space only.

Incoming service consorts to SWBD2 is 1 set of 500 kcmil AL and SWBD1 is 2 sets of 500kcmil(AL) both are verified by utility to be sufficient ampacity.

I am wondering if the new SWBD1 underground service would be allow to be considered one service in building since SWBD1 and SWBD2 service disconnects are grouped in one location and supply come from one source in underground service conductors each greater then 1/0AWG first paragraph 230.2. However I am confused by first paragraph of 230.2 which points to 230.40 exception no. 2 which has language supply separate loads and is confusing in my case.

Questions:

1. Would 230.2 first paragraph allow new additional SWBD1 service conductors and can be considered one service overall in future when Tenant A is removed and both SWBD1 and SWBD2 serve Tenant B space only or this is considered multiple services?

2. What about present situation where SWBD1 serves TenantA and Tenant B while SWBD2 serve Tenant B space only in regards to would 230.2 first paragraph allow new additional SWBD1 service conductor to be considered one service or this would be considered two separate services?

Please note this thread is about multiple services not about tenants access to readily accessible overcurrent protection

 

[augie47]

That is one Code Section that could use some work but IMO, you meet then requirements of 230.2/230.40 Exception 2 and it would be considered one service.

 

[hhsting]

Would NEC 2014 section 250.58 still apply for grounding two SWBDs if it’s considered one service but two sets of service conductors each enter different SWBD grouped post #1?

 

[hhsting]

What if in post #1 SWBD #1 was placed outside next to electrical room as shown attached sketch. I am assuming but not sure confused that would not be considered group and not comply with 230.2 first paragraph and 230.40 exception no. 2 and this would then be considered two electric utilities?

 

[kwired]

Not that it is really a NEC concern, but is this all on one meter or is each tenant separately metered?

Would kind of suck to have one tenant move out or get disconnected for non payment, they kill the power to that space and then the other tenant ends up having some their things shut off as well. At same time kind of sucks for one tenant to pay part of the energy bill of the other tenant.

Otherwise as is you have two sets of conductors that are connected at the supply end and supply disconnecting means in the same vicinity - NEC calls this one service.

If they came from separate sources it would be considered two services.

If they landed in separate occupancies NEC permits separate service to each occupancy.

If they landed in separate locations in same occupancy it is not NEC compliant.

If it is two separate sources in separate locations in same occupancy - that is allowed. Signs are required to identify where other disconnects are located though.

 

[hhsting]

Not that it is really a NEC concern, but is this all on one meter or is each tenant separately metered?

Would kind of suck to have one tenant move out or get disconnected for non payment, they kill the power to that space and then the other tenant ends up having some their things shut off as well. At same time kind of sucks for one tenant to pay part of the energy bill of the other tenant.

Otherwise as is you have two sets of conductors that are connected at the supply end and supply disconnecting means in the same vicinity - NEC calls this one service.

If they came from separate sources it would be considered two services.

If they landed in separate occupancies NEC permits separate service to each occupancy.

If they landed in separate locations in same occupancy it is not NEC compliant.

If it is two separate sources in separate locations in same occupancy - that is allowed. Signs are required to identify where other disconnects are located though.

Feeder breaker from SWBD #1 are metered.

Post #4 attachment if SWBD #1 is outside and SWBD #2 is inside would that be considered same location grouped to be considered one service or in that case would be two different services?

 

[kwired]

Feeder breaker from SWBD #1 are metered.

Post #4 attachment if SWBD #1 is outside and SWBD #2 is inside would that be considered same location grouped to be considered one service or in that case would be two different services?

Would not be considered grouped at same location.

Might be allowed as a permitted separate service to each occupancy with that particular arrangement.

 

[hhsting]

Would not be considered grouped at same location.

Might be allowed as a permitted separate service to each occupancy with that particular arrangement.

They changed the config SWBD #1 has main service disco but one of the feeder breaker serves Tenant B and all the rest serve Tenant A space.

SWBD#2 with main service disco serves all of Tenant B space.

I don’t see how this can be allowed as separate service to each occupancy?

 

[electrofelon]

Like Augie said, it meets 230.2/230.40 Exception 2 and it would be considered one service. I would just add that for it to be considered two services, you would need to meet one of the exceptions in 230.2. I do not see you meeting any of those.

 

[hhsting]

Like Augie said, it meets 230.2/230.40 Exception 2 and it would be considered one service. I would just add that for it to be considered two services, you would need to meet one of the exceptions in 230.2. I do not see you meeting any of those.

I think Augie said regarding post #1 attachment.

Different arrangement shown post #4 attachment. Does that attachment meet 230.2/230.40 exception no.2?

 

[augie47]

Diagram in Post #4 would not fly here as one serivce disconnect outside and one insisde
would not meet 230,72 on grouping of disconnects for the "one" service.

 

[electrofelon]

I think Augie said regarding post #1 attachment.

Different arrangement shown post #4 attachment. Does that attachment meet 230.2/230.40 exception no.2?

I see sketch from post #4 as non compliant. Disconnects are not grouped (and don't see this meeting any of the allowances for multiple service entrance conductors with non grouped disconnects such as 230.40 exception #1). Also, you are still not meeting any of the allowances for a second service - nothing has really changed, ungrouping the disconnects doesn't suddenly allow you to consider it two services.

 

[hhsting]

I see sketch from post #4 as non compliant. Disconnects are not grouped (and don't see this meeting any of the allowances for multiple service entrance conductors with non grouped disconnects such as 230.40 exception #1). Also, you are still not meeting any of the allowances for a second service - nothing has really changed, ungrouping the disconnects doesn't suddenly allow you to consider it two services.

Ok I thats what I thought. I have person and engineers who keeps on arguing that outside switchgear is in same vicinity as inside switchgear post#4 attachment so it would be compliant with NEC 2014 Section 230.2 first paragraph and 230.40 exception no. 2.

 

[electrofelon]

Ok I thats what I thought. I have person and engineers who keeps on arguing that outside switchgear is in same vicinity as inside switchgear post#4 attachment so it would be compliant with NEC 2014 Section 230.2 first paragraph and 230.40 exception no. 2.

Possibly, it does depend on how you interpret the word "grouped in one location". IMO that is a stretch.

 

[hhsting]

Possibly, it does depend on how you interpret the word "grouped in one location". IMO that is a stretch.

Buddy in my opinion that is stretched as well. Unfortunately their is no concrete definition of grouping or grouped at one location in NEC. It’s a battle! I wonder how unofficial interpretation would view this by NFPA.

 

[kwired]

Possibly, it does depend on how you interpret the word "grouped in one location". IMO that is a stretch.

I agee. They are in same proximity if you ignore the wall that separates them. NEC doesn't give details on how to determine what is in same location.

I'd think that not many AHJ's would let this one pass though.

 

[hhsting]

Going back to post#1 if you replace the attachment post #1 with attachment in this post would two SWGRs main disconnect be grouped and considered one service?

 

[augie47]

There is no NEC definition of "grouped" so it would be an AHJ call.
Here, if that is a dedicated electrical room, it might be allowed with signage.

 

[hhsting]

There is no NEC definition of "grouped" so it would be an AHJ call.
Here, if that is a dedicated electrical room, it might be allowed with signage.

It is electrical room only dedicated. I am just wondering How might one reconfig to comply in dedicated electrical room?

 

[electrofelon]

Going back to post#1 if you replace the attachment post #1 with attachment in this post would two SWGRs main disconnect be grouped and considered one service?

Just to be clear, grouping/non grouped and number of services are different things. grouping doesn't necessarily make it one service. Two services need not be grouped, but can be. One service with multiple disconnects usually have to be grouped, but there are some exceptions (230.40 exceptions).

You are still asking us to provide an NEC definition of "grouped in one location" when there is none. If you are acting as the AHJ you will just have to decide for yourself.