letgomywago
Senior Member
- Location
- Washington state and Oregon coast
- Occupation
- residential electrician
2 100 amp dwelling unit feeders aren't a 200 amp service.
The whole point of this thread is that under the interpretation that 220.82 can only be used for a feeder/service that supplies exactly one dwelling unit, for a feeder/service that supplies two dwelling units the result from the standard method or fictitious triplex method may very well be more than the sum of the 220.82 loads of the two dwelling units. Which makes zero sense, you calculate that dwelling A requires a 125A feeder, and dwelling B requires a 100A feeder, but together they require a 250A feeder.You can do that for sizing the feeder to each dwelling. Sizing the service for all total loads is more complicated and would be smaller than just adding the feeder calc together.
Right. It all depends on the sizes and situation. I just didn't know if they allowed both options in your area. Like you said, when you're dealing with dissimilar sized units, using 220.85 doesn't apply - according to the wording.You can do that for sizing the feeder to each dwelling. Sizing the service for all total loads is more complicated and would be smaller than just adding the feeder calc together. This is where the options of the triplex optional can be useful or even the standard.
In my case the ADU's are permitted as a 'dwelling unit' and I am feeding that dwelling unit from the service panel of an existing main house (a dwelling unit). No separate meter. My options in Oregon are 220.40 (standard) and 220.85using 220.85 doesn't apply - according to the wording.
I agree that it isn't explicitly stated, but doesn't it seem to be heavily implied that they are identical? Why else would they restrict it to units being supplied by a single feeder? It seems that 220.85 is trying to make it clear that this is to be treated as a duplex and not like two single family dwellings.220.85 is not for two identical dwelling units, it states "Where two dwelling units are supplied by a single feeder"
Not "Where two identical dwelling units are supplied by a single feeder"
You need to combine your two units to create "three identical units" .
Then run 220.84, and 220.40 the lesser of the two loads shall be permitted to be used.
This is where it takes some presumptions on our part. When they say "three identical units", what are they identical to? Each of the two units? Or both of the two units combined? IMO, the implication (though certainly not explicitly stated) is that the two units are equal size and therefore each of the hypothetical three units is identical in size to each of the actual units. All units involved in the problem are identical.You need to combine your two units to create "three identical units" .
Then run 220.84, and 220.40 the lesser of the two loads shall be permitted to be used.
Not just essentially, but exactly.I calculate loads for both unequal units as I would for any other multi family complex per 220.84(C) 1- 5 then add 50%, that makes three equal units.
Then apply demand factor of 45%
Essentially its applying a demand factor of of 67.5%
I think a 67.5% PI is a good idea.Not just essentially, but exactly.
Thus under the "but if that's what they meant, they would have written the NEC more simply" category: namely you could delete 220.85 and just extend 220.84 to two dwelling units with a demand factor of 67.5%. (Actually, that would make a good PI, just to get the CMP's response.)
So to the extent that the existence of 220.85 is an argument against my interpretation of the applicability of 220.82, the existence of 220.85 is also an argument against your interpretation of 220.85. : - )
Cheers, Wayne
Take a look at the 2023 NEC.Would you also submit another one that adds the word 'services' to 220.85?