Grouping of Service Disconnects

[david]

Since there is only one type of service in discussion, in my way of thinking we must get the building supplied by only one service lateral or one service drop.

We just can?t look at where the service entrances end up at we also need to consider where the originate from.
If the service is not in compliance than the service entrances cannot be in compliance.

Again I hope we are in agreement with that

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Since there is only one type of service in discussion, in my way of thinking we must get the building supplied by only one service lateral or one service drop.
...

No matter what the code says, the number of service drops or service laterals is up to the utility. They are both on the line side of the service point and the NEC does not apply to the line side of the service point.

 

[david]

Don,
NFPA 70 2008
Here the cut in card we send states the installation meets NFPA 70, The utility written regulations, and our companies policies.

The utility doesn?t own a lateral in our area; they do own a service drop.

The service lateral here must be in compliance with the NEC, plus other extra utility reg.

 

[david]

No matter what the code says, the number of service drops or service laterals is up to the utility. They are both on the line side of the service point and the NEC does not apply to the line side of the service point.

Just to be clear are you saying the NEC has nothing to say about how many services a building can have?

or are you saying the NEC doesn?t dictate to the utility how to connect to the service point.

Do you define the number of services as how many times a building is supplied (connected to the utility) ?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Just to be clear are you saying the NEC has nothing to say about how many services a building can have?

or are you saying the NEC doesn?t dictate to the utility how to connect to the service point.

Do you define the number of services as how many times a building is supplied (connected to the utility) ?

I am saying that the NEC has nothing to do with things that are on the utility side of the service point. If the utility chooses to supply the building with 50 services, the NEC has nothing to say about that.
The number of services is the number of times the utility supplies the building. Each service is permitted to have a set of service entrance conductors for each occupancy.

 

[david]

I am saying that the NEC has nothing to do with things that are on the utility side of the service point. If the utility chooses to supply the building with 50 services, the NEC has nothing to say about that.
The number of services is the number of times the utility supplies the building. Each service is permitted to have a set of service entrance conductors for each occupancy.

I am saying that the NEC has nothing to do with things that are on the utility side of the service point.

I guess in principle that would be true, I?m not sure that takes any meat away from how many times a building can be connected to what the utility can or is doing on their side.

I?m going to take it that you are not just throwing that out there for hypothetical reasons, from that am I to assume you feel the building in discussion is compliant with 230.2?

 

[electrofelon]

This is not a building code use of the term occupancy. The only way you can have more than one meter for a structure is if there is more than one occupancy or if you have a single occupancy that requires more than one type of electrical supply. For the purposes of this section, multiple meters equals multiple occupancies.

Don, I do not agree. I can have as many meters as I want (up to 6) even on a single family dwelling. The NEC is pretty much mute on the meters and where they go. Yes the service disconncts would need to be grouped for a single family either outside or inside, but the meters dont need to be, hell I could put a meter on each corner of the house, as long as the service disconnects are grouped.

Your comment about NEC use of the term occupancy not being the building code use is plausible, but I say it needs to be defined then. What is a NEC
occupancy? Can I screw a piece of plywood over the opening at the top of my basement stairs and now have two occupancies?


Although the word "service" is not defined with great completeness, I think we can take it to mean one supply from the utility to one location, possibly with parallel conductors (joined at each end). Then we must not confuse "sets of service conductors" with "Services".

 

[electrofelon]

Does a two family dwelling meet the exception 1(building with more than one occupancy ) for 230.40 so that the services do not have to be grouped?

It is one service, with two sets of service entrance conductors. Maybe the two sets go all the way to the service point or maybe they split from one set in a two gang meter or a Jbox. Non grouped service disconnect in each family dwelling/occupancy. I have done it and seen it frequently (so that must mean it is ok )

 

[augie47]

It's amazing to me that in the decades I have been involved in the trade that this has not been clarified. Every time I see this discussion I want to take both sides.
Locally after going through it many times, we resolved it with the thought that 230.70 addresses then number and location of service disconnects in a building or structure (using the building code to define a building). 230.40 governs how many service entrance conductors can be run to that building where the 230.70 grouped disconnects are located.
The only way we would allow the install pictured in the diagram would be if more than one service was allowed by 230.2.
In summary, our approach:230.2 designated the number of services.
230.40 addresses the number of service entrance conductors that can attach to that service.
230.70 addresses the location of the grouped service disconnects for that building.

 

[david]

It's amazing to me that in the decades I have been involved in the trade that this has not been clarified. Every time I see this discussion I want to take both sides.
Locally after going through it many times, we resolved it with the thought that 230.70 addresses then number and location of service disconnects in a building or structure (using the building code to define a building). 230.40 governs how many service entrance conductors can be run to that building where the 230.70 grouped disconnects are located.
The only way we would allow the install pictured in the diagram would be if more than one service was allowed by 230.2.
In summary, our approach:230.2 designated the number of services.
230.40 addresses the number of service entrance conductors that can attach to that service.
230.70 addresses the location of the grouped service disconnects for that building.

I don?t know if it is true where you or others are from, but every utility here has regulations that state the customers installation must be inspected for compliance with NFPA 70

Other than specific regulations dealing with the utilities ownership of their meter and their right to seal their meter. Their written regulations state what part of supplying a building they have control over.

The utilities here wont connect to any service point unless the installation of the building supply up to that point, has been approved by an electrical inspector.

The utilities here can?t by their reg. and won?t on their own run a lateral, or a drop to a service that has first not been inspected.

 

[mwm1752]

The definitions within services, laterals,entrance condusctors have been adjusted these last codes. So with that stated, would it be safe to interprete the service point is where the lateral becomes entrance conductors -- Gennerally the service disconnecting means is the service point which in turn shall be grouped. 230.40 is about service entrance conductors which has no bearing on the drawing as the service point is place on the structure(the occupancy has no bearing on the drawing.)
Therefore the drawing is not compliant with code as the service disconnects are not grouped.
A solution to the issue would be to group the service disconnecting means by the transformer - the service entrance conductor load connection location on the structure drawn would then be compliant.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The service disconnecting means for multiple sets of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with each other. All of the service disconnects for a single set of service entrance conductors must be grouped with each other, but there is no requirement for them to be grouped with the service disconnects for other sets of service entrance conductors.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It's amazing to me that in the decades I have been involved in the trade that this has not been clarified. Every time I see this discussion I want to take both sides.
Locally after going through it many times, we resolved it with the thought that 230.70 addresses then number and location of service disconnects in a building or structure (using the building code to define a building). 230.40 governs how many service entrance conductors can be run to that building where the 230.70 grouped disconnects are located.
The only way we would allow the install pictured in the diagram would be if more than one service was allowed by 230.2.
In summary, our approach:230.2 designated the number of services.
230.40 addresses the number of service entrance conductors that can attach to that service.
230.70 addresses the location of the grouped service disconnects for that building.

I know the rule in 230.2 says only one service, but that rule starts on the load side of the service point. If the utility chooses to provide multiple services to the building, that is outside the scope of the NEC. It is unlikely that they would do that, as it increases their costs, but it is their choice, not the NEC or the AHJ.