NEC 230.2 Services

[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

I didn't say there was no point to allow multiple laterals to serve a building, in fact, many times it is necessary.

The discussion is trying to determine how many services the OP actually has by definition.

My thoughts are, since a new lateral is being installed to the building and another set of service entrance conductors is being installed to a separate meter and disconnect, that is not common with the existing service conductors already there, it could be considered a separate service of it's own, thus 2 services on this project.

If however the existing service was capable of handling the added load and they tagged onto the existing service conductors ahead of the existing service disconnect without having to install an additional lateral, it would still only count as 1 service in my mind.

JAP>

 

[kwired]

I didn't say there was no point to allow multiple laterals to serve a building, in fact, many times it is necessary.

The discussion is trying to determine how many services the OP actually has by definition.

My thoughts are, since a new lateral is being installed to the building and another set of service entrance conductors is being installed to a separate meter and disconnect, that is not common with the existing service conductors already there, it could be considered a separate service of it's own, thus 2 services on this project.

If however the existing service was capable of handling the added load and they tagged onto the existing service conductors ahead of the existing service disconnect without having to install an additional lateral, it would still only count as 1 service in my mind.

JAP>

"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."

If they end up in same location - still one service.

If they end up in different location - an additional service, but raises question of whether additional services are even allowed.

 

[david]

I didn't say there was no point to allow multiple laterals to serve a building, in fact, many times it is necessary.

The discussion is trying to determine how many services the OP actually has by definition.

My thoughts are, since a new lateral is being installed to the building and another set of service entrance conductors is being installed to a separate meter and disconnect, that is not common with the existing service conductors already there, it could be considered a separate service of it's own, thus 2 services on this project.

If however the existing service was capable of handling the added load and they tagged onto the existing service conductors ahead of the existing service disconnect without having to install an additional lateral, it would still only count as 1 service in my mind.

JAP>

Sorry I know you are a professional,

Jap think of the two laterals as two service entrances in a common two unit apartment building, with the service disconnects grouped side by side in a basement.

The two different meters does not affect the application of the rule.

230.2 dictates that the laterals up to six are to be considered one service in applying the rule.

Yes they are multiple connections to a utility transformer, but that is the point of directing you to 230.70 exception 2 in how they are to be treated as long as there disconnecting means from two to six are grouped together

 

[jap]

230.2 dictates that the laterals up to six are to be considered one service in applying the rule.

I see 230.2 as dictating 2-6 service disconnecting means as being considered one service not 6 laterals.

A lateral may be multiple runs of conduit and conductors to get to the amount of service amperage needed.

JAP>

 

[jap]

On a lighter note regardless, we did an install just as the OP is considering and the AHJ disagreed with our interpretation of " grouped in one location" just because there was a 16" wide block protrusion between the existing service disconnects and the new one we were adding saying that that amount of separation on the outside wall would consider it not all grouped together.

Since "grouped in one area" is an area that is open to interpretation, my only advise to the OP would be, it would be best to get whoever it is onboard from the beginning, to be sure that once you get everything installed, it will pass, and will get energized.


JAP>

 

[david]

I see 230.2 as dictating 2-6 service disconnecting means as being considered one service not 6 laterals.

A lateral may be multiple runs of conduit and conductors to get to the amount of service amperage needed.

JAP>

i agree , it could be three laterals with two service disconnects each, it could be two laterals with three disconnects each, it cold be two laterals with one disconnect for the one lateral and five disconnects for the other lateral.

It could be any combination of laterals and disconnects as long as they are grouped and do not exceed six service disconnects for the total of laterals that supply the building

 

[jap]

i agree , it could be three laterals with two service disconnects each, it could be two laterals with three disconnects each, it cold be two laterals with one disconnect for the one lateral and five disconnects for the other lateral.

It could be any combination of laterals and disconnects as long as they are grouped and do not exceed six service disconnects for the total of laterals that supply the building

Ok I'm starting to see your point now.

JAP>

 

[jap]

If a building had 1 group metering setup with a 400 amp tap box and (2) 200 amp meters and tenant mains at one end of a building on the back wall,
Then,
A 6 pack meterpack located in the middle of the building on the back wall for a (6) unit apartment space.
Then
Another 6 pack meterpack located on the other end of the building for another (6) unit apartment space.

Should it be failed for having more than 6 movements and everything not grouped in one location if all of this is fed off of (1) utility transformer?
Would it make a diference if there were (3) utility transformers, (1) for each of the (3) locations?

JAP>

 

[kwired]

If a building had 1 group metering setup with a 400 amp tap box and (2) 200 amp meters and tenant mains at one end of a building on the back wall,
Then,
A 6 pack meterpack located in the middle of the building on the back wall for a (6) unit apartment space.
Then
Another 6 pack meterpack located on the other end of the building for another (6) unit apartment space.

Should it be failed for having more than 6 movements and everything not grouped in one location if all of this is fed off of (1) utility transformer?
Would it make a diference if there were (3) utility transformers, (1) for each of the (3) locations?

JAP>

that is not one service, they originate at same source but do not all end in the same location. Would have to be allowed to supply the building with more then one service - which multi-occupancy is something that does allow this. Even so, some AHJ will still allow separate service if suitable rating is between each section you wish to treat as a separate building, usually 2 hr rating. Public access buildings will likely require such construction anyway.

 

[jap]

that is not one service, they originate at same source but do not all end in the same location. Would have to be allowed to supply the building with more then one service - which multi-occupancy is something that does allow this. Even so, some AHJ will still allow separate service if suitable rating is between each section you wish to treat as a separate building, usually 2 hr rating. Public access buildings will likely require such construction anyway.

See how ironic the real world is?

We are in a disagreement with with an inspector at this very moment that each location is it's own separate service.

He brought up the need to have to install a disconnect ahead of the (2) 6 pack locations before he will pass it.

He considers this install as having (14) service disconnects as it is now.

JAP>

 

[david]

If a building had 1 group metering setup with a 400 amp tap box and (2) 200 amp meters and tenant mains at one end of a building on the back wall,
Then,
A 6 pack meterpack located in the middle of the building on the back wall for a (6) unit apartment space.
Then
Another 6 pack meterpack located on the other end of the building for another (6) unit apartment space.

Should it be failed for having more than 6 movements and everything not grouped in one location if all of this is fed off of (1) utility transformer?
Would it make a diference if there were (3) utility transformers, (1) for each of the (3) locations?

JAP>

Without all the building code issues defining the building or buildings
You said a single multi occupancy building with three services
230.2 (B)

 

[jap]

Without all the building code issues defining the building or buildings
You said a single multi occupancy building with three services
230.2 (B)

And therefore each of the (3) service locations allowing up to (6) disconnects at each location, correct?

JAP>

 

[kwired]

And therefore each of the (3) service locations allowing up to (6) disconnects at each location, correct?

JAP>

Let's just say that every allowed service can have up to 6 disconnecting means.

 

[jap]

Within a 30 mile radius that particular rule is interpreted 3 different ways by 3 different areas inspectors and power companies.

JAP>

 

[kwired]

Within a 30 mile radius that particular rule is interpreted 3 different ways by 3 different areas inspectors and power companies.

JAP>

I'm guessing it is how many services are allowed is what may vary. Otherwise I would think most will go with only six disconnecting means allowed at any one service.

 

[jap]

I'm guessing it is how many services are allowed is what may vary. Otherwise I would think most will go with only six disconnecting means allowed at any one service.

That is correct.
The biggest issue is the difference of opinions on what actually constitutes a single service vs. multiple services.

JAP>

 

[nysprkdude]

My apologies if already answered as I always get to these late

My apologies if already answered as I always get to these late

If the two service laterals connect to the same output of the transformer, it is considered a single service as defined by 230.2. Then the six throw, grouping of disconnects, etc. would be applied as a single service.

Attached pdf shows two service lateral into same building. New service lateral has its own service disconnect and the other existing service lateral has main service disconnect which goes to the trough from which then has disconnects to load.

My question does adding new second service lateral qualify as being adding new services and require special permission per NEC 230.2?