Is this Code Compliant - 1 Building 2 meters separate locations

[kwired]

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

Well there is no doors on the drawing anywhere so I don't know I'd assume this is inside or outside based on the drawing only, just a space designated for electrical in each occupancy is about the most you can get from drawing.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

We are not going to agree on this.

In my opinion Exception 2 has nothing to do with this question. 230.71(B) permits each set of service entrance conductors to have its own set of service disconnects. It is my opinion that the service disconnects for each set of service entrance conductors are handled independently from each other.

Most strip malls around here have multiple meters outside, without disconnects, and each occupancy has its service disconnect(s) within the respective occupancies.

 

[electrofelon]

We are not going to agree on this.

In my opinion Exception 2 has nothing to do with this question. 230.71(B) permits each set of service entrance conductors to have its own set of service disconnects. It is my opinion that the service disconnects for each set of service entrance conductors are handled independently from each other.

Most strip malls around here have multiple meters outside, without disconnects, and each occupancy has its service disconnect(s) within the respective occupancies.

I agree the structure is convoluted. I dont know why they chose to mention grouping in 230.40 Ex #2, that is the job of 230.72. Anyway I have a hard time believing your interpretation has a significant following - I have never seen service disconnects scattered throughout a single occupancy building. For a building that is on a slab, wouldnt people be doing this all the time? Skip the MDP and just go to convenient locations with service panels? I have never ever seen that. IS that common in your area?

Your example about the ungrouped disconnects serving different occupancies I agree is allowed by 230.71 &72 which references 230.40 Ex #1. I am talking about multiple disconnects in a single occupancy building.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree the structure is convoluted. I dont know why they chose to mention grouping in 230.40 Ex #2, that is the job of 230.72. Anyway I have a hard time believing your interpretation has a significant following - I have never seen service disconnects scattered throughout a single occupancy building. For a building that is on a slab, wouldnt people be doing this all the time? Skip the MDP and just go to convenient locations with service panels? I have never ever seen that. IS that common in your area?

Your example about the ungrouped disconnects serving different occupancies I agree is allowed by 230.71 &72 which references 230.40 Ex #1. I am talking about multiple disconnects in a single occupancy building.

In my opinion a building with multiple meters is not a single occupancy building. Each meter has a set of service entrance conductors and those service entrance conductors feed separate occupancies.

 

[electrofelon]

In my opinion a building with multiple meters is not a single occupancy building. Each meter has a set of service entrance conductors and those service entrance conductors feed separate occupancies.

Ok I see the confusion. My past several responses were general in nature and assuming 1 meter, unlike the OP where there are two meters.

Regarding multiple meters, I Could see how that MAY mean multiple occupancies, but not necessarily. Consider a single space that is served by two meters and two non grouped service panels. I dont see how that could be considered two occupancies. NEC doesnt define "occupancy" though so anyone is free to come up their own definition, or better yet see how your local building department defines it.

 

[kwired]

In my opinion a building with multiple meters is not a single occupancy building. Each meter has a set of service entrance conductors and those service entrance conductors feed separate occupancies.

I'd say that depends on why there is multiple meters. If for purpose of separate occupants then yes. If different rate schedule for different kinds of loads then probably no.

If it is because of different voltage, frequency, number of phases, etc that is allowed to supply more than one service to a building, doesn't necessarily have to be grouped in same location either.

 

[electrofelon]

I'd say that depends on why there is multiple meters. If for purpose of separate occupants then yes. If different rate schedule for different kinds of loads then probably no.

If it is because of different voltage, frequency, number of phases, etc that is allowed to supply more than one service to a building, doesn't necessarily have to be grouped in same location either.

Or say you had a space that was originally divided into multiple spaces / tenants/occupancies and there was a meter to a service panel in each space. Later it was taken over by one tenant and the walls removed. I have run into that situation where they now have ungrouped disconnects and 230.40 exception number one can no longer be used

 

[kwired]

Or say you had a space that was originally divided into multiple spaces / tenants/occupancies and there was a meter to a service panel in each space. Later it was taken over by one tenant and the walls removed. I have run into that situation where they now have ungrouped disconnects and 230.40 exception number one can no longer be used

yes, run into that before as well. Or they buy the building next to them and knock hole in the wall. Might still be acceptable but inspectors might want fire doors at very least. And no running circuits from one building into the other.