Is this Code Compliant - 1 Building 2 meters separate locations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Other than service switches needing to be grouped together you can put your meters wherever you want as far as the NEC is concerned your poco might have a problem with it though.i would run it by then

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
After going through the NEC, I believe the first option is definitely a code violation. (Can't have service conductors for Tenant B interior to Tenant A space)

I believe this is the correct way to do it... Can you confirm?
ibb.co

1-Building-2-Tenants-Question

Image 1-Building-2-Tenants-Question hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co


Thanks
 
Dennis Alwon said:
There is nothing wrong with the wireway in the first drawing.
Click to expand...
The wireway would be fine in the first drawing if both service disconnects were at the wireway. It appears they are not and the service disconnect for Tenant B is not located "nearest the point of entry" of the service conductors. I would red tag that, but the second drawing is fine.
 
nickelec said:
Other than service switches needing to be grouped together you can put your meters wherever you want as far as the NEC is concerned your poco might have a problem with it though.i would run it by then

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The service disconnects for the two sets of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped together. The locations of the disconnects in the drawings are fine.
The first drawing would be a violation because the B disconnect is not located "nearest the point of entry" of the service entrance conductors..
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The service disconnects for the two sets of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped together. The locations of the disconnects in the drawings are fine.
The first drawing would be a violation because the B disconnect is not located "nearest the point of entry" of the service entrance conductors..
Click to expand...

IMO the service conductors are outside and I will disagree with you on figure one. There is no entry as far as I can see.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
IMO the service conductors are outside and I will disagree with you on figure one. There is no entry as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
It appears to me that the wireway is inside the unit A utility room and the service conductors run into the wireway and are tapped to feed the two units. So the service conductors for B enter A and then leave A and run to B.
 
Y would the service switches not need to be grouped together on this scenario

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
My take on the first one:

1. To have the disconnects not grouped you would need to be able to utilize 230.40 exception number one. This would depend on how your ahj defines "occupancy."

2. There is nothing specifically prohibiting tenant B's conductors passing through tenant A's space, but 230.70(A)(1) may be a problem. If the ahj defines a certain distance allowed inside before the disconnect, and you meet that, for all parts of the service conductors inside the building, I don't see why it would be a problem (but just for this number 2, number 1 may still be an issue.)
 
nickelec said:
Y would the service switches not need to be grouped together on this scenario

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for other sets of service entrance conductors.
It is common for strip malls to have a group of meters on the outside with no service disconnects. From each meter a set of service entrance conductors is run to the service disconnect in the electrical rooms of each occupancy.
 
electrofelon said:
There is nothing specifically prohibiting tenant B's conductors passing through tenant A's space, b
Click to expand...
You could take 230.3 and apply it (maybe). 230.3 does not allow one building to be supplied through another (shall not pass through interior of another). It's because service/service entrance conductors have no overcurrent protection which is why they have all the concrete encasement requirements to be considered outside a building.
 
designer82 said:
You could take 230.3 and apply it (maybe). 230.3 does not allow one building to be supplied through another (shall not pass through interior of another). It's because service/service entrance conductors have no overcurrent protection which is why they have all the concrete encasement requirements to be considered outside a building.
Click to expand...
Unless A and B are two different buildings, either physically or legally, I dont see how that would apply.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The service disconnects for one set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for other sets of service entrance conductors.
It is common for strip malls to have a group of meters on the outside with no service disconnects. From each meter a set of service entrance conductors is run to the service disconnect in the electrical rooms of each occupancy.
Click to expand...

Agree, except for the multiple sets permitted by 230.40 Ex#2, those must be grouped.
 
electrofelon said:
Agree, except for the multiple sets permitted by 230.40 Ex#2, those must be grouped.
Click to expand...
Only the 2 to 6 disconnects associated with one set of service entrance conductors must be grouped with each other. The 2 to 6 disconnects associated with the second set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for the first set of service entrance conductors.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Only the 2 to 6 disconnects associated with one set of service entrance conductors must be grouped with each other. The 2 to 6 disconnects associated with the second set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for the first set of service entrance conductors.
Click to expand...
I do not agree. Exception #2 states:

Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting
means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location
and supply separate loads from one service drop, set of
overhead service conductors, set of underground service
conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance
conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several
such service equipment enclosures.

I agree the wording is somewhat ambiguous from the "several such" part, but I believe that is just referring to components within the single group. I have never seen such an installation where there are ungrouped groups of disconnects just scattered around a building, and cant recall anyone saying I can do that.
 
electrofelon said:
I do not agree. Exception #2 states:

Exception No. 2: Where two to six service disconnecting
means in separate enclosures are grouped at one location
and supply separate loads from one service drop, set of
overhead service conductors, set of underground service
conductors, or service lateral, one set of service-entrance
conductors shall be permitted to supply each or several
such service equipment enclosures.

I agree the wording is somewhat ambiguous from the "several such" part, but I believe that is just referring to components within the single group. I have never seen such an installation where there are ungrouped groups of disconnects just scattered around a building, and cant recall anyone saying I can do that.
Click to expand...
Even if items in drawing were on outside instead of inside, it is questionable if you can do so with only one service drop or lateral vs separate drop/lateral to each allowed service.

Then factor in what may be deemed on POCO side of the "service point" - to which NEC doesn't apply to.
 
IMO, from the drawing we have an indentation with a door. I don't see that as inside. We did a job similar to this and basically it was a covering for the equipment. I never considered it inside or the meter would not have been allowed there-- in this area anyway. It is equivalent to boxing in the service equipment so you don't have to look at it. There is no access from inside the building per the drawings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top