Power Service for Multi-Bay Strip Bldgs

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MyCleveland

Senior Member
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Typical multi-bay / multi-tenant building, could be retail, restaurant, offices/warehouse, etc.
I am sure we have all seen many different methods of power delivery per space.
Each bay will have power delivered, or sometimes an empty conduit in preparation for a build-out.

My question revolves around when two empty bays, each with an existing in-tact electrical service, now becomes a single tenant.

I have one where each side has a 200A 120/208Y service, one with a main indoors and one with a main outdoors. Power service originates from a pole line along rear of property with multiple poles having pole mounted tranny's and overhead to rear bldg wall at numerous locations.

Besides local utility requirement of one-tenant / one-meter, owner does not want to consider consolidation and states multiple jurisdictions that allow the building owner to keep in-tact multiple services (I was told of one location that has four) with MAINS all at different locations for a single tenant.
Please do not consider FIRE WALL separation. While this could be true for the others, it will not be true in my case with the two services.

What am I missing here ?
 
Thanks Larry, but I am still not asking the question correctly....my fault.

Let me try this, two adjacent tenant space bays say 30' wide each and the service disconnects are on the rear wall.

The left bay space say the disconnect is in the far left corner on the rear wall and the right bay space the disconnect is on the far right corner.

Now the space is converted into a single tenant space removing the center wall.
I now have TWO services serving one tenant and the disconnects are 60' away from each other.
Property owner is telling me they do this everywhere and it is approved by local AHJ.
 
MyCleveland said:
Thanks Larry, but I am still not asking the question correctly....my fault.

Let me try this, two adjacent tenant space bays say 30' wide each and the service disconnects are on the rear wall.

The left bay space say the disconnect is in the far left corner on the rear wall and the right bay space the disconnect is on the far right corner.

Now the space is converted into a single tenant space removing the center wall.
I now have TWO services serving one tenant and the disconnects are 60' away from each other.
Property owner is telling me they do this everywhere and it is approved by local AHJ.
Click to expand...

If the building falls within the conditions that allow more than one service, there is no reason that the two services need to be grouped.
On the other hand if there are two sets of service conductors but only one service, then IMHO the two disconnects need to be grouped.
 
GoldDigger said:
If the building falls within the conditions that allow more than one service, there is no reason that the two services need to be grouped.
On the other hand if there are two sets of service conductors but only one service, then IMHO the two disconnects need to be grouped.
Click to expand...

I was worried I was missing something here, mostly because I was told multiple AHJs have allowed this condition for them.
I will be calling the AHJ for this project on Monday and discuss.

IF...the AHJ states they are ok with this....would you leave it as-is or walk away from the job.
 
MyCleveland said:
I was worried I was missing something here, mostly because I was told multiple AHJs have allowed this condition for them.
I will be calling the AHJ for this project on Monday and discuss.

IF...the AHJ states they are ok with this....would you leave it as-is or walk away from the job.
Click to expand...
If the AHJ is OK with it I would go along, I guess.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
This is more just to satisfy my curiosity than anything else. Are you concerned that there is an actual Hazard associated with whatever it is they're doing or just that it's a minor violation of the code. I don't see how it's any worse having the to disconnect switches without the wall then with the wall. Granted one is probably code legal and the other isn't and doing it to code matters even if it really doesn't.
 
GoldDigger said:
If the building falls within the conditions that allow more than one service, there is no reason that the two services need to be grouped.
Click to expand...

That is the key thing we need to clarify in these types of discussions, whether it is multiple services, or multiple sets of service entrance conductors. It seems that many times people will call it "two services" when it is actually not.


On the other hand if there are two sets of service conductors but only one service, then IMHO the two disconnects need to be grouped.
Click to expand...

Note there are several provisions in the 230.40 exceptions that allow the disconnects to not be grouped.
 
MyCleveland said:
Please do not consider FIRE WALL separation.
Click to expand...


I don't think you can, since that may make them separate buildings, thus each "building" can have a service. I would say either that is the case, or the installation is not NEC compliant (I reread your OP and it sounds like there is more than 1 service, not just 1 service with multiple sets of SEC. If it was 1 service with multiple sets of SEC, see 230.40 exception #1 which would allow non grouped disconnects).
 
petersonra said:
This is more just to satisfy my curiosity than anything else. Are you concerned that there is an actual Hazard associated with whatever it is they're doing or just that it's a minor violation of the code. I don't see how it's any worse having the to disconnect switches without the wall then with the wall. Granted one is probably code legal and the other isn't and doing it to code matters even if it really doesn't.
Click to expand...
The scenario of "with the wall" was two separate tenant spaces, each space has a MAIN.
Removing the wall and leaving the TWO mains at 60' apart is not an issue ?

I don't have an issue with the number of mains, just the fact they are not grouped.
Owner is implying they do this at all properties they own and the local AHJs have never made an issue of it.
 
electrofelon said:
I don't think you can, since that may make them separate buildings, thus each "building" can have a service. I would say either that is the case, or the installation is not NEC compliant (I reread your OP and it sounds like there is more than 1 service, not just 1 service with multiple sets of SEC. If it was 1 service with multiple sets of SEC, see 230.40 exception #1 which would allow non grouped disconnects).
Click to expand...

I don't see how 230.40 applies once the wall is removed. This general building power delivery is exactly described in 230.40 example in the handbook, page 134.
Describes a building with 8 storefronts and service conductors brought to each space, and EACH space can have up to six disconnects.
It does not say within each tenant space the mains don't have to be GROUPED.

Thanks for pointing this article out...discussion on the PLAQUE requirement I have not seen before, that I can recall anyway.
Not sure if this applies though, based on original service descriptions...what do you think ?
 
MyCleveland said:
I don't see how 230.40 applies once the wall is removed. This general building power delivery is exactly described in 230.40 example in the handbook, page 134.
Describes a building with 8 storefronts and service conductors brought to each space, and EACH space can have up to six disconnects.
It does not say within each tenant space the mains don't have to be GROUPED.

Thanks for pointing this article out...discussion on the PLAQUE requirement I have not seen before, that I can recall anyway.
Not sure if this applies though, based on original service descriptions...what do you think ?
Click to expand...

I agree 230.40 ex 1 wouldn't apply once the wall is removed. Granted the nec doesn't define "occupancy", but i don't see how in any universe a single space could consist of several occupancies.

Several times I have run into electricians and even inspectors saying I can/must plaque something, however there is nothing in the nec that allows us to use plaques as a general alternative to the grouping requirements.
 
If the authority did their job you would be getting paid to add a second exterior service disconnect and a feed to re-feed and separate the neutrals in reefed panel

Since the authority seems to allow this on several other sites, that puts you in the position of having to define yourself and how to make a living. If we pick and choose than the NEC was never about safety it’s just a rule book to keep score against.

To some of us a book full of rules and we pick, and pick differently throughout our carriers.

To some of us it is a guide based on the combined experience of thought full individuals working through the special interest of those trying to influence the code development process to come op with a standard which is applicable to the electrical industry

To some its a combination of both and address each job based on the unique circumstance that each new job brings
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top