Article 225.30

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Valdes

John Valdes

Senior Member
Location
SC.
Occupation
Retired Electrician
225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one 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 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.

A feeder already exists. Would a three way switch loop between two detached structures (dwelling & garage) be a violation of this article?
 
I think it depends on what the switch loop is switching, and where the power comes from.
  • For example, if a switch inside the garage, and a switch inside the house, combine to control a light on the outside of the house, lighting the path from house to garage, with the power source being the panel within the house, then you could argue that that branch circuit is not supplying a load within the garage. That might be legal.
  • By counter-example, if the same two switches control a light mounted on the garage, again with the power source being the panel within the house, then I think the branch circuit does supply the garage. This would not be legal.
  • Finally, if the same two switches control a light mounted on the garage, but if the power to the light came from the panel inside the garage, then you don't have a second power source to the garage, and that would be legal.
 
Lets say the power source comes from the garage. The main is shut off in the house, you still have hot conductors in the house and visa versa.

I would think the authors of NEC article 225.30 were looking to protect persons from experiencing electrical shock, thinking the power source was shut off, but hot conductors are still present. Or is this one of those articles that are hard to interpret and left to the AHJ to decide.

I just double checked the article. It seems 225.30 (D) is the exception. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Last edited:
I would say that John makes two good points 1) 225.30(D) 2) What the idea behind the code section might have been.

I told the story in another thread about all of the panels being completely gutted and when one of my guys went to cut a box loose, he lost a new pair of linemen's. Seemed that the exterior lights, which originally had a switch going to them (we traced it) had been added to a time clock in another building.
 
cowboyjwc said:
. . . he lost a new pair of linemen's. . .
Click to expand...
Why does it seem to always be new cutters? I have a couple pair that I burned wire stripping notches in and had to get new ones (pair of Kleins and a pair of side cuts). :)
 
charlie said:
Why does it seem to always be new cutters? I have a couple pair that I burned wire stripping notches in and had to get new ones (pair of Kleins and a pair of side cuts). :)
Click to expand...

I don't know.

My old ones had a hole in the cutter and a big notch on one side.:D

I think someone explained it, it wasn't Murphy's law, I think they called it Kliens law.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top