does Tap rule apply to secondary side of utility pad mount transformer?

binwork91

Senior Member
Location
new york
Occupation
electrical engineer
Does the Tap Rule apply to the secondary side of a utility pad-mounted transformer?

The utility company provides a pad-mounted transformer that steps down to 208/120Y. The transformer is located outdoors.

I need to run two feeders into the building: one for the switchboard and one for the meter that feed fire alarm, and fire pump. The feeder length is more than 25 feet.

I am looking at NEC 240.21(B), but none of them seem to apply. Someone mentioned that the NEC does not apply to utility equipment.

Please help."
 
Sounds more like service conductors than feeders. Basically until you hit the meters the conductors are not under the NEC.
 
Sounds more like service conductors than feeders. Basically until you hit the meters the conductors are not under the NEC.
yes, service conductor. So I can run two service conductor into the building: one for the switchboard and one for the meter that feed fire alarm, and fire pump. And I don't need to worry transformer secondary side protection, correct?
 
yes, service conductor. So I can run two service conductor into the building: one for the switchboard and one for the meter that feed fire alarm, and fire pump. And I don't need to worry transformer secondary side protection, correct?
Probably, read 230.2 for services allowed. There are also POCO rules that will need to be considered.
 
yes, service conductor. So I can run two service conductor into the building: one for the switchboard and one for the meter that feed fire alarm, and fire pump. And I don't need to worry transformer secondary side protection, correct?
Its been a long time since a second service was allowed for the back-up source.
 
I need to run two feeders into the building: one for the switchboard and one for the meter that feed fire alarm, and fire pump. The feeder length is more than 25 feet.
These are not feeders so a tap rule would not apply so the length is irrelevant.
 
Roger's code reference is the one for your case. This would be a second service situation, not a second set of service conductors.
So it would be considered two services or one? I've always found these service rules and a million exceptions to be confusing. Would it be similar to this from the NECH?Screenshot_20250108-181245.png
 
So it would be considered two services or one? I've always found these service rules and a million exceptions to be confusing. Would it be similar to this from the NECH?

I think it would have to be 2 services. I dont think you can install it as a 230.40 install because doesnt the fire pump disconnect have to be NOT grouped with the other disconnects? So couldnt use exception #2. I guess you could use 230.40 exception #1 if the fire pump disconnect and other disconnects ae in different occupancies?
 
Doubt you get any inspector to agree to that. Roger has the code.
I assume the XF is metered?
 
Top