Definition of Utility

[jtinge]

Is there a formal definition of "utility" or "serving utility" as used in the NEC?

If not, what is to keep an organization form defining their campus electrical distribution system as the "serving utility" for the purpose of applying Article 230 requirements to their buildings?

 

[iwire]

Is there a formal definition of "utility" or "serving utility" as used in the NEC?

No, that is typically handled on a state level by government utility commissions.

 

[GoldDigger]

Which does not rule out the organization from becoming a regulated utility if they are willing to meet the requirements and give up much of their autonomy.

 

[jtinge]

Which does not rule out the organization from becoming a regulated utility if they are willing to meet the requirements and give up much of their autonomy.

So what would the requirements the organization would have to meet to be considered a regulated utility?

Do they just have to own and maintain the power delivery system to their buildings and structures or do they also have to meter and collect payment for the delivered electricity based on public utility rate structures established by statutes and regulations?

 

[iwire]

So what would the requirements the organization would have to meet to be considered a regulated utility?

Do they just have to own and maintain the power delivery system to their buildings and structures or do they also have to meter and collect payment for the delivered electricity based on public utility rate structures established by statutes and regulations?

In my opinion he was just pointing out a very remote possibility.

I don't think you will find anything but a traditional type utility being granted utility status.

Again the rules for it would depend on your location and your local utility oversight organization.


Can I ask you what you think the benefit would be for a campus to be a utility?

Why would 230 be better than 225?

 

[fmtjfw]

In my opinion he was just pointing out a very remote possibility.

I don't think you will find anything but a traditional type utility being granted utility status.

Again the rules for it would depend on your location and your local utility oversight organization.


Can I ask you what you think the benefit would be for a campus to be a utility?

Why would 230 be better than 225?

It is more like NESC vs. NEC and "engineering" versus NEC rules.

For instance, utilities commonly use smaller transformers and smaller conductors for the services than would be allowed by the NEC. Last code cycle a group of colleges and universities lobbied for relief from some requirements (see the 2014 reply to comments for the details) to reduce their capital costs for campus-wide, primary distribution systems.

 

[iwire]

It is more like NESC vs. NEC and "engineering" versus NEC rules.

Please read the OPs question, he did not ask about avoiding the NEC he asked about using article 230. I assume he means vs 225.

 

[fmtjfw]

It is more like NESC vs. NEC and "engineering" versus NEC rules.

For instance, utilities commonly use smaller transformers and smaller conductors for the services than would be allowed by the NEC. Last code cycle a group of colleges and universities lobbied for relief from some requirements (see the 2014 reply to comments for the details) to reduce their capital costs for campus-wide, primary distribution systems.

Please read the OPs question, he did not ask about avoiding the NEC he asked about using article 230. I assume he means vs 225.

If I went to the tremendous cost and bother of becoming a "utility" I would certainly want to use the additional flexibility to reduce my costs.

 

[Pharon]

Is there a formal definition of "utility" or "serving utility" as used in the NEC?

If not, what is to keep an organization form defining their campus electrical distribution system as the "serving utility" for the purpose of applying Article 230 requirements to their buildings?

Check out 90.2(B)(5), Informational Note to (4) and (5).

 

[kwired]

If I went to the tremendous cost and bother of becoming a "utility" I would certainly want to use the additional flexibility to reduce my costs.

And in most places it would work out that way. NEC would not apply to the "utility". At some point though the internal wiring of the buildings is no longer considered utility work even though the owner is a utility.

 

[jtinge]

It is more like NESC vs. NEC and "engineering" versus NEC rules.

For instance, utilities commonly use smaller transformers and smaller conductors for the services than would be allowed by the NEC. Last code cycle a group of colleges and universities lobbied for relief from some requirements (see the 2014 reply to comments for the details) to reduce their capital costs for campus-wide, primary distribution systems.

Please read the OPs question, he did not ask about avoiding the NEC he asked about using article 230. I assume he means vs 225.

Actually my OP goes to both points from an engineering and installation perspective.

If we treat our campus style distribution system as a utility, then we by inference could define "service points" for each building and apply 230 for the building services. Also, we could theoretically engineer our our campus distribution system similar to that of a utility. This is what A/E firms who design new buildings for our campus assume and try to do.

However, if the distribution system is not a utility, then the distribution system is comprised of MV and LV feeders and SDS's (primary and secondary unit subs) as the building power sources per the NEC and not NESC, and article 225 is applicable instead of 230.

I think the legacy definition (pre 1999 NEC) of service being the conductors and equipment for delivering energy from the electrical supply system to the wiring system of the premises served is still how a lot of people perceive the distribution system and building power, thus my OP.

 

[iwire]

If we treat our campus style distribution system as a utility, then we by inference could define "service points" for each building and apply 230 for the building services.

I still am at a total loss why you feel being able to use 230 vs 225 would be a benefit. :?

Also, we could theoretically engineer our our campus distribution system similar to that of a utility. This is what A/E firms who design new buildings for our campus assume and try to do.

That I can see saving money but that would be putting the NEC aside altogether.

At that point if you were not directed by the governing body to use the NESC you could choose or make your own standard.

 

[fmtjfw]

I think the point is that the primary and secondary distribution systems in a campus-wide system that buys power from a utility (and/or generates some of its own power like MIT, WVU ...), performs the same function as a utility's primary and secondary distribution systems, and, perhaps should be treated as a utility.

The line of demarcation for a utility between NESC and NEC is essentially:
1) is the installation on the utility's ROW
2) is the function unique to the utility's function (e.g.: generating station, substation, dispatching center), or a general use (office building, garage, machine shop, recreational facility).

For liability purposes I would apply NEC to anything on a campus that did not conform to the utility exemption.

 

[Pharon]

The line of demarcation between utility and customer is the service point.

IMHO, what you are trying to do is illegal, and I can't imagine any AHJ buying into such a philosophy. Here is an excerpt from the 2014 NEC Handbook (page 2), which clarifies this exact point:

Exhibit 90.1 illustrates the distinction between electric utility facilities
to which the NEC applies and those to which it does not apply.
The electrical equipment in the generating plant is not governed
by the rules of the NEC. The warehouse is a typical commercial
facility in which the electrical installation would be governed by
the rules of the NEC, regardless of its ownership. Office buildings
and warehouses of electric utilities are functionally similar to like
facilities owned by other commercial entities.

Industrial and multibuilding complexes and campus-style
complexes often include substations and other installations that
employ construction and wiring similar to those of electric utility
installations. Because these installations are on the load side of
the service point, they are within the purview of the NEC. At an
increasing number of industrial, institutional, and other campus style
distribution systems, the service point is at an owner-maintained
substation, and the conductors extending from that
substation to the campus facilities are feeders (see definition in
Article 100). NEC requirements cover these distribution systems in
225.60 and 225.61 and in Article 399. These overhead conductor
and live parts clearance requirements in the NEC correlate with
those in ANSI C2, National Electrical Safety Code? (NESC), for overhead
conductors under the control of an electric utility.

 

[jtinge]

I still am at a total loss why you feel being able to use 230 vs 225 would be a benefit. :?

I'm not advocating use of 230 over 225 as a benefit.

My perspective is that the NEC applies all the way to our main substation, based on current code language and at least since the 1999 code cycle. When I review designs for our new buildings and distribution systems upgrades, I apply NEC requirements based on our connection to the utility at our main substation. So that means our distribution system is comprised of feeders and power to new buildings are not services.

Most of our buildings are 40+ years old so power to the buildings were treated as services based on the code applicable at the time. We are currently raising a lot of buildings and replacing with new, but there is a pretty entrenched mindset with older designers and engineers that I work with that power to the buildings are "services". Prior to 1999, they treated a service as an electrical supply to a building, which was our distribution system, and when the definition changed to clarify a service was only from a utility, they assumed that the distribution system should continue to be treated as a utility supply

When I walk them through the applicable code sections and show them how the requirements for services and power supplies to buildings have significantly changed over the last 20+ years, I get the "deer in the headlights" look. I'm just trying to make a paradigm shift in the incorrect perception that our campus distribution system can continue to be thought of as a utility.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

While I fully understand that the NEC starts at the service point, the electrons don't.

Other than a code violation, I see no real world safety issues if the campus type distribution is installed like a utility distribution system would be installed. How does the safety of the installation change based on who owns the distribution system?

Also there have been changes in the NEC in the last couple of code cycles that have resulted in very little difference between an NEC compliant distribution system and an utility distribution system.

 

[jtinge]

While I fully understand that the NEC starts at the service point, the electrons don't.

Other than a code violation, I see no real world safety issues if the campus type distribution is installed like a utility distribution system would be installed. How does the safety of the installation change based on who owns the distribution system?

Also there have been changes in the NEC in the last couple of code cycles that have resulted in very little difference between an NEC compliant distribution system and an utility distribution system.

I agree. The most significant differences that come to mind are whether or not you need to use service rated equipment and the use of 250.24 vs. 250.30 and 32 bonding and grounding requirements.

 

[GoldDigger]

The other difference, theoretically, is that the utility can be expected to maintain a certain standard of engineering design and supervision that might be hard to duplicate on a smaller scale.
Although the history of gas pipeline maintenance by PG&E calls that assumption into question....

 

[fmtjfw]

The line of demarcation between utility and customer is the service point.

IMHO, what you are trying to do is illegal, and I can't imagine any AHJ buying into such a philosophy. Here is an excerpt from the 2014 NEC Handbook (page 2), which clarifies this exact point:

Exhibit 90.1 illustrates the distinction between electric utility facilities
to which the NEC applies and those to which it does not apply.
The electrical equipment in the generating plant is not governed
by the rules of the NEC. The warehouse is a typical commercial
facility in which the electrical installation would be governed by
the rules of the NEC, regardless of its ownership. Office buildings
and warehouses of electric utilities are functionally similar to like
facilities owned by other commercial entities.

Industrial and multibuilding complexes and campus-style
complexes often include substations and other installations that
employ construction and wiring similar to those of electric utility
installations. Because these installations are on the load side of
the service point, they are within the purview of the NEC. At an
increasing number of industrial, institutional, and other campus style
distribution systems, the service point is at an owner-maintained
substation, and the conductors extending from that
substation to the campus facilities are feeders (see definition in
Article 100). NEC requirements cover these distribution systems in
225.60 and 225.61 and in Article 399. These overhead conductor
and live parts clearance requirements in the NEC correlate with
those in ANSI C2, National Electrical Safety Code? (NESC), for overhead
conductors under the control of an electric utility.

Wrong line. I meant that a utility need not follow NEC when wiring a power plant, substation, power dispatching center.

A utility needs to follow the NEC when it is wiring a building that is not unique to its purpose as a utility. If it builds an office building, a truck garage, a recreational facility then it must follow the NEC.

This is about how NEC regulates wiring in structures that happen to be owned by a utility.

(same applies to other public utilities, telephone, gas, and cable?)

 

[kwired]

I'm not advocating use of 230 over 225 as a benefit.

My perspective is that the NEC applies all the way to our main substation, based on current code language and at least since the 1999 code cycle. When I review designs for our new buildings and distribution systems upgrades, I apply NEC requirements based on our connection to the utility at our main substation. So that means our distribution system is comprised of feeders and power to new buildings are not services.

Most of our buildings are 40+ years old so power to the buildings were treated as services based on the code applicable at the time. We are currently raising a lot of buildings and replacing with new, but there is a pretty entrenched mindset with older designers and engineers that I work with that power to the buildings are "services". Prior to 1999, they treated a service as an electrical supply to a building, which was our distribution system, and when the definition changed to clarify a service was only from a utility, they assumed that the distribution system should continue to be treated as a utility supply

When I walk them through the applicable code sections and show them how the requirements for services and power supplies to buildings have significantly changed over the last 20+ years, I get the "deer in the headlights" look. I'm just trying to make a paradigm shift in the incorrect perception that our campus distribution system can continue to be thought of as a utility.

There have been changes in NEC in more areas then just service/feeders in last 40 years. You install anything new to codes at time of installation, old installs are usually not required to be brought to current codes just because codes changed, even for normal maintenance purposes, but may need changed when remodel happens - often that is more up to AHJ then NEC.

If you are having trouble with people understanding the code- maybe they need educated on what current code is, you were never a utility to start with, but maybe code once was more in line with how utilities do things.

Guys that exclusively wire dwellings would never make it today if all they knew is how it was done 20-40 years ago, you have to keep up with changes.