NEC 230.2 Services

[codequestion]

Not sure what you mean by above i.e. how is it 230.40 ex 2 and how is not?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

Is it normal to have service point at outside transformer utility and to have utility meter in the building?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

 

[david]

Is it normal to have service point at outside transformer utility and to have utility meter in the building?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

I think your confused, or we confused you. Both the utility service drops and the service lateral are two utility connections to the building. Both are two services to the building. Both are normally a violation of the No. of services a building can have.

What 230.2 is saying is if you have more than one lateral from a utility transformer up to a max of six laterals and six service disconnects grouped together at on location,,

as long as non of the laterals are smaller than 1/0 in size.

you can treat the service laterals as one service. In other words you can treat the laterals as if they where service entrance conductors, the same rules would apply to the laterals as the number of service entrance sets 230.40

230.2 Number of Services.
A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D). For the purpose of 230.40, Exception No. 2 only, underground sets of conductors, 1/0 AWG and larger, running to the same location and connected together at their supply end but not connected together at their load end shall be considered to be supplying one service.

 

[david]

sorry to small

Edit: All the stuff about point of service doesn't matter when dealing with laterals from a utility transformer. Ether they are utility lateral or there service entrances conductors ether way you are directed to 230.40 exception 2 in applying the rules for service entrance conductors sets grouped at one location

 

[david]

Is it normal to have service point at outside transformer utility and to have utility meter in the building?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

Unless the building is large the utilities usually require the metering to be out side

Recently a 72 unit apartment building had the metering inside by utility CO. design

 

[david]

In other words you can treat the laterals as if they where service entrance conductors, the same rules would apply to the laterals as the number of service entrance sets 230.40

The difference in 230.2 no of services and 230.40 no of service entrance.

The rest of the exceptions in 230.40 for example ex 1,3,4,5 do not apply to laterals from a utility transformer.
As soon as you get away from laterals and there service disconnects being grouped at one location

or you have a lateral smaller than 1/0 you have more than one service to the building.

You than need to go back to 230.2 and determine if the additional services are allowed.

 

[kwired]

I know the number of meters does not mean multiple services hence the reason I said "fed separately" and is a "good argument", I didn't state it was multiple services. The fact that there are multiple laterals could mean more than one service.

If the service disconnecting means are not grouped in one location then they are multiple services. Where meter(s) are located or if there even is a meter is not really an NEC concern here when determining what is a service.

If there are multiple services then you must meet conditions that allow multiple services - fire pumps, emergency systems, multiple occupancy, higher capacity needed then POCO will deliver in a single supply... outside those conditions most of the time when all the laterals are coming from the same source they must hit no more then six service disconnecting means grouped at same location.

Different voltage, frequency, number of phases is a separate service - and is allowed.

 

[roger]

If the service disconnecting means are not grouped in one location then they are multiple services. Where meter(s) are located or if there even is a meter is not really an NEC concern here when determining what is a service.

Pretty much the same everywhere I have worked in the southeast

If there are multiple services then you must meet conditions that allow multiple services - fire pumps, emergency systems, multiple occupancy, higher capacity needed then POCO will deliver in a single supply... outside those conditions most of the time when all the laterals are coming from the same source they must hit no more then six service disconnecting means grouped at same location.

Different voltage, frequency, number of phases is a separate service - and is allowed.

I think most in this thread know all that especially if they have read through 230.2, so being that is the case, what is your answer to the OP?

Roger

 

[kwired]

Pretty much the same everywhere I have worked in the southeast

I think most in this thread know all that especially if they have read through 230.2, so being that is the case, what is your answer to the OP?

Roger

His one line drawing isn't clear on locations of disconnecting means. If they are all grouped together it is one service and is legal.

If not grouped together then he has multiple services - and likely a violation of 230.2 unless (A) through (C) apply to the ones located separate from the others. (D) doesn't apply because it is the same source.

Add: Because it is same source (C) doesn't really apply either.

 

[roger]

His one line drawing isn't clear on locations of disconnecting means.

I think everyone agrees with that.

If they are all grouped together it is one service and is legal.

If not grouped together then he has multiple services - and likely a violation of 230.2 unless (A) through (C) apply to the ones located separate from the others. (D) doesn't apply because it is the same source.

Add: Because it is same source (C) doesn't really apply either.

I think everyone agrees with that too.

Roger

 

[steve66]

So I think we all agree as long as the disconnects are grouped, and the conductors are 1/0 or larger, you have one service, and it complies with the NEC, and should make the electrical inspector happy.

I will also add that you might want to contact the electric utility and review the proposed installation with them. You will usually find they have their own set of rules about everything, from number of services and meters to the location of the meters. So just because the NEC allows something, the utility may not. And the utility rules will probably seem to vary from place to place, project to project, and person to person.

Personally, I doubt they will object to adding a service lateral, but they may want the meters outside, or in a room they have access to.

 

[jap]

I know the number of meters does not mean multiple services hence the reason I said "fed separately" and is a "good argument", I didn't state it was multiple services. The fact that there are multiple laterals could mean more than one service.

After reading the rule I agree.

It's actually easier to picture the scenario with overhead service conductors since there is a physical connection from the riser wires to the service conductors, whereas on a lateral the service conductors generally land directly on the lugs of a terminal box for group metering, employ the tap rule to branch off to separate meters and disconnects, or land on the lugs of a service disconnect like the op has drawn.

The existing service already has 1 set of service entrance conductors.
The way it reads seems to indicate that adding the 2nd set of conductors from the transformer to the building to install the additional disconnect would seem to deem it 2 services.

at least that's the way I see it.

JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

Not sure what you mean by above i.e. how is it 230.40 ex 2 and how is not?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

I think I confused you. Let me clarify. In post 34, I was just making a point about multiple meters and multiple sets of service entrance conductors being joined to a SINGLE drop per 230.40 ex 2. The difference between the two cases I gave in that example are that with the three gang socket and single riser, the multiple sets start/split at the meter socket. With the three individual sockets, the multiple sets go all the way to the service drop. Re-read 230.40 exception 2 and you will see that both are allowed. Just thought it would be a little easier to see using an overhead service. This has nothing to do with your situation.

 

[kwired]

After reading the rule I agree.

It's actually easier to picture the scenario with overhead service conductors since there is a physical connection from the riser wires to the service conductors, whereas on a lateral the service conductors generally land directly on the lugs of a terminal box for group metering, employ the tap rule to branch off to separate meters and disconnects, or land on the lugs of a service disconnect like the op has drawn.

The existing service already has 1 set of service entrance conductors.
The way it reads seems to indicate that adding the 2nd set of conductors from the transformer to the building to install the additional disconnect would seem to deem it 2 services.

at least that's the way I see it.

JAP>

If the disconnect being added isn't grouped with the original ones - you definitely are adding an additional service, and unless it is supplying equipment permitted to be on an additional service is a no no.

Therefore the disconnect being added is just a modification or improvement to the existing service and not an additional service. It does make the service have a total of six disconnecting means - so this service is maxed out now when it comes to adding more disconnects.

If the second meter is for special rate or something like that it could possibly be justification for calling it an additional service, but isn't actually addressed in NEC either so it would be an AHJ call.

 

[jap]

If the disconnect being added isn't grouped with the original ones - you definitely are adding an additional service, and unless it is supplying equipment permitted to be on an additional service is a no no.

Therefore the disconnect being added is just a modification or improvement to the existing service and not an additional service. It does make the service have a total of six disconnecting means - so this service is maxed out now when it comes to adding more disconnects.

If the second meter is for special rate or something like that it could possibly be justification for calling it an additional service, but isn't actually addressed in NEC either so it would be an AHJ call.

But they aren't adding the additional disconnect to the existing service conductor set.

A new set of conductors not associated with the original conductors is being added and therefore is a separate lateral in my mind even if fed off of the same transformer.

JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

I know the number of meters does not mean multiple services hence the reason I said "fed separately" and is a "good argument", I didn't state it was multiple services. The fact that there are multiple laterals could mean more than one service.

I think it gets into a semantic difference depending on where the service point is. For example consider two sets of SEC running to the transformer spades which is the service point. That meets 230.40 ex 2 and the wording in 230.2. Now say there is a hand hole after the transformer and that is the service point. The utility runs two laterals to it and your two sets connected to them. Now we are dont meet the "from one service lateral" clause so it would be two services. Now take the second example but connected everything common, and you are back to being ok because now it is a single lateral run in parallel.

 

[kwired]

But they aren't adding the additional disconnect to the existing service conductor set.

A new set of conductors not associated with the original conductors is being added and therefore is a separate lateral in my mind even if fed off of the same transformer.

JAP>

still fits the description in 230.2 "underground sets of conductors, 1/0 AWG and larger, running to the same location and connected together at their supply end but not connected together at their load end shall be considered to be supplying one service."

There might be more then six raceways because of parallel conductors, but is still only six sets of conductors.

If they don't all end up in same location then they are not considered a single service - but you then need to have conditions that allow more then one service to the building/structure.

 

[david]

After reading the rule I agree.

It's actually easier to picture the scenario with overhead service conductors since there is a physical connection from the riser wires to the service conductors, whereas on a lateral the service conductors generally land directly on the lugs of a terminal box for group metering, employ the tap rule to branch off to separate meters and disconnects, or land on the lugs of a service disconnect like the op has drawn.

The existing service already has 1 set of service entrance conductors.
The way it reads seems to indicate that adding the 2nd set of conductors from the transformer to the building to install the additional disconnect would seem to deem it 2 services.

at least that's the way I see it.

JAP>

.The way it reads seems to indicate that adding the 2nd set of conductors from the transformer to the building to install the additional disconnect would seem to deem it 2 services. at least that's the way I see it.JAP>

Just a question how would adding a second lateral now change the rule from adding it at the time of the original service was built.

employ the tap rule to branch off to separate meters and disconnects, or
JAP>

Not to be picky , wouldn’t it be more correct to say do the load calculations to the “tap “conductors and provide the correct over current protection for the conductors.
When you say tap rules that tends to send you to feeder taps

 

[jap]

Just a question how would adding a second lateral now change the rule from adding it at the time of the original service was built.

Because the new set of conductors does not land in the same place the original conductors do.


[/QUOTE]Not to be picky , wouldn’t it be more correct to say do the load calculations to the “tap “conductors and provide the correct over current protection for the conductors.
When you say tap rules that tends to send you to feeder taps[/QUOTE]

No,
If you bring service conductors into a gutter, then tap off of those conductors to say 6 different meters and disconnects above or below the gutter, you are still dealing with service conductos in the gutter.

JAP>

 

[kwired]

Because the new set of conductors does not land in the same place the original conductors do.

Not to be picky , wouldn’t it be more correct to say do the load calculations to the “tap “conductors and provide the correct over current protection for the conductors.
When you say tap rules that tends to send you to feeder taps[/QUOTE]

No,
If you bring service conductors into a gutter, then tap off of those conductors to say 6 different meters and disconnects above or below the gutter, you are still dealing with service conductos in the gutter.

JAP>[/QUOTE]It wasn't all that clear if the new conductors land in same location as the originals. If they do (same location in this case includes adjacent to existing, and maybe some more leeway depending on AHJ in some cases) then it is just one service.

Just don't confuse those "taps" with 240.21 feeder taps. I don't think you did, but some easily do this.

 

[david]

Because the new set of conductors does not land in the same place the original conductors do.


JAP>

I would say that is the exact point of allowing multiple laterals to service a building. Granted it might be up to the authority to define grouping of the service disconnect