Service disconnect bonding for detached structure question

[iwire]

Under the NEC, it doesn't matter. Premise(s) is not defined by the NEC and is not limited to a single parcel of land as distinguished by the local government's land management bureau.

So my entire town is one premise?

I disagree and see it as david does.

 

[Smart $]

So my entire town is one premise?

I disagree and see it as david does.

It could be. I don't live there. I don't know. But I'm willing to wager it is not.

And you know damn well there are services out there that cross property lines. It's a matter of the AHJ and POCO having no issues with it.

 

[iwire]

It could be. I don't live there. I don't know. But I'm willing to wager it is not.

And you know damn well there are services out there that cross property lines. It's a matter of the AHJ and POCO having no issues with it.

I can't think of any utility line that runs overhead from a utility pole to property 1 and then another set from property 1 to property 2.

 

[Smart $]

I can't think of any utility line that runs overhead from a utility pole to property 1 and then another set from property 1 to property 2.

The utility line (drop) only runs to property 1. Service entrance conductors run from property 1 to property 2.

It is possible for the run to property 2 to be a continuation of a drop (either as a drop extension or changeover to underground lateral)... but then the meter would likely be on property 2 and the service entrance conductor sets permitted and disconnect grouping issue would be moot.

 

[Smart $]

The utility line (drop) only runs to property 1. Service entrance conductors run from property 1 to property 2.

Actually in this case, a feeder runs to Cottage B, as the service disconnect is at Cottage A.

It has not been established whether Cottage B is on the same property or not. There is nothing in the NEC which prohibits running a feeder to another property. Legal issues could exist outside the scope of the NEC.

 

[kwired]

I can't think of any utility line that runs overhead from a utility pole to property 1 and then another set from property 1 to property 2.

I can probably find you some that do, but they likely will be minimum of at least 15-20 years old.

 

[iwire]

I can probably find you some that do, but they likely will be minimum of at least 15-20 years old.

Please do.

 

[kwired]

Please do.

When you coming?

Exactly what was described may be a little more rare but I bet I could find at least one like that. I can show you many service drops that cross other properties without any easement, but again all are older and if you were to change those services out they likely will not reconnect as is if there is no proper easement.

When you get into small town municipal owned power companies they thought they could do whatever they wanted years ago. Only the last 15-20 years did they finally start following what the bigger POCO's typically do for most common operations and installation methods in order to help limit potential liabilities. There are still some of those installs in place that you will typically only find in some of those small POCO systems.

 

[david]

Under the NEC, it doesn't matter. Premise(s) is not defined by the NEC and is not limited to a single parcel of land as distinguished by the local government's land management bureau.

"commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes"

The NEC may not have a specific definition but the term can be defined
I'm not sure if your area has a property maintenance code, but our area does.


"PREMISES. A lot, plot or parcel of land, easement or public
way, including any structures thereon."
International property maintenance code.

And from the NEC.
Premises Wiring (System). Interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed. This includes (a) wiring from the service point or power source to the outlets or (b) wiring from and including the power source to the outlets where there is no service point.
Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires, motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.

 

[Smart $]

"commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes"

The NEC may not have a specific definition but the term can be defined
I'm not sure if your area has a property maintenance code, but our area does.


"PREMISES. A lot, plot or parcel of land, easement or public
way, including any structures thereon."
International property maintenance code.

And from the NEC.
Premises Wiring (System). Interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed. This includes (a) wiring from the service point or power source to the outlets or (b) wiring from and including the power source to the outlets where there is no service point.
Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires, motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.

Question: Two adjacent properties, separate deeds, are owned by the same entity. Can the owner legally run a feeder from one parcel to the other without an easement or combining the properties under one deed?

The way I see it, I'm not qualified to say one way or the other for all cases.

 

[david]

Question: Two adjacent properties, separate deeds, are owned by the same entity. Can the owner legally run a feeder from one parcel to the other without an easement or combining the properties under one deed?

The way I see it, I'm not qualified to say one way or the other for all cases.

The way I see it you would be outside of the scope of what is covered in the NEC and would need to seek permission from the Authority.

I Know article 547 does not apply to your discussion on this but I think it’s worth looking at for a moment.

Your Service Point would look more like a distribution point and we find guidelines for distribution points commonly allowed in article 547. Distribution points include service entrance supplied and feeder supplied buildings as long as they are on the same premise and under single management.

“Distribution Point. An electrical supply point from which service drops, service conductors, feeders, or branch circuits to buildings or structures utilized under single management are supplied.
FPN No. 1: Distribution points are also known as the center yard pole, meterpole, or the common distribution point.
FPN No. 2: The service point as defined in Article 100 is typically at the distribution point.”

“547.9 Electrical Supply to Building(s) or Structure(s) from a Distribution Point.
A distribution point shall be permitted to supply any building or structure located on the same premises. The overhead electrical supply shall comply with 547.9(A) and (B), or with 547.9(C). The underground electrical supply shall comply with 547.9(C) and (D).”

I feel your outside the scope of the NEC because of the definition of service point and premise wiring. I feel the NEC gives you permission to supply a premise with a service (in most cases a building) article 230 states with exception that a service can supply only one service entrance

 

[Smart $]

The way I see it you would be outside of the scope of what is covered in the NEC and would need to seek permission from the Authority.

Being Code-aware, I likely would from an installer perspective. From an owner perspective, I may not. On the latter, it would not be like I was trying to steal electricity for the second parcel, and to be otherwise Code compliant, the service would still have to support the load of both parcels.

There are two problems discussing premises as used in Code. First is the singular form of the word has an entirely different meaning. Only the plural form has any bearing on Code issues. Second, the plural sense of a singular-meaning plural word form is not spelled any differently.

Without a Code definition limiting the extent to one parcel, every use of premises can mean one or several parcels.

 

[kwired]

Being Code-aware, I likely would from an installer perspective. From an owner perspective, I may not. On the latter, it would not be like I was trying to steal electricity for the second parcel, and to be otherwise Code compliant, the service would still have to support the load of both parcels.

There are two problems discussing premises as used in Code. First is the singular form of the word has an entirely different meaning. Only the plural form has any bearing on Code issues. Second, the plural sense of a singular-meaning plural word form is not spelled any differently.

Without a Code definition limiting the extent to one parcel, every use of premises can mean one or several parcels.

With the previous post being about art 547, that hits me where I do a lot of work.

There are many farms anymore with multiple buildings (I guess they have always had multiple buildings, but today there is a big difference in amount of load compared to just 30-40 years ago in some of those buildings) - some all fed from one "center yard pole", others may have the "old farm" on center yard pole but that new grain storage facility (on same parcel of land) is on a separate service, and likely different voltage/number of phases.

I have one customer that has three utility feeds to one area of his property that has buildings structures. One service feeds a shop building, one feeds his house and some of the still existing older structures, then there is a 480/277 three phase service supplying the grain bins in the same general area. But if you count all his property there other services feeding irrigation equipment though it is a few thousand feet away on same property.

Now the crop land is likely on separate legal deed for each "quarter section" but the house and other buildings are on one portion of one of those quarter sections. They can separate the improved portion and sell it separately, or even break it into separate sections should they want to sell the house but keep the bins to go with the farming operation, but now it is all under one owner, and distances between some items still makes sense to supply with multiple services if the utility will provide them.

I also have another customer with large swine operation. Two self contained complexes on one property, each fairly identical to the other. Each complex has what you may consider multiple buildings or structures for different portions of operations, but are all connected via enclosed passageways. So once you enter the "front door" you go to/through multiple buildings to get to the far building but never once do you go outdoors.

One utility service to each complex. 600 amp 208/120 to each, with POCO primary extending into property and then branching each way to feed separate padmount transformers near main mechanical room of each complex. Is all under one owner, employees do go back and forth between the two complexes, yet we could completely wipe one complex out and the other could easily continue operation. Should this per NEC have been supplied with only one service?

 

[GoldDigger]

Being Code-aware, I likely would from an installer perspective. From an owner perspective, I may not. On the latter, it would not be like I was trying to steal electricity for the second parcel, and to be otherwise Code compliant, the service would still have to support the load of both parcels.

There are two problems discussing premises as used in Code. First is the singular form of the word has an entirely different meaning. Only the plural form has any bearing on Code issues. Second, the plural sense of a singular-meaning plural word form is not spelled any differently.

Without a Code definition limiting the extent to one parcel, every use of premises can mean one or several parcels.

In that usage "premisis" or "premis" would have to be the singular of "premises". Too bad the English language does not provide for that.

 

[david]

With the previous post being about art 547, that hits me where I do a lot of work.

There are many farms anymore with multiple buildings (I guess they have always had multiple buildings, but today there is a big difference in amount of load compared to just 30-40 years ago in some of those buildings) - some all fed from one "center yard pole", others may have the "old farm" on center yard pole but that new grain storage facility (on same parcel of land) is on a separate service, and likely different voltage/number of phases.

I have one customer that has three utility feeds to one area of his property that has buildings structures. One service feeds a shop building, one feeds his house and some of the still existing older structures, then there is a 480/277 three phase service supplying the grain bins in the same general area. But if you count all his property there other services feeding irrigation equipment though it is a few thousand feet away on same property.

Now the crop land is likely on separate legal deed for each "quarter section" but the house and other buildings are on one portion of one of those quarter sections. They can separate the improved portion and sell it separately, or even break it into separate sections should they want to sell the house but keep the bins to go with the farming operation, but now it is all under one owner, and distances between some items still makes sense to supply with multiple services if the utility will provide them.

I also have another customer with large swine operation. Two self contained complexes on one property, each fairly identical to the other. Each complex has what you may consider multiple buildings or structures for different portions of operations, but are all connected via enclosed passageways. So once you enter the "front door" you go to/through multiple buildings to get to the far building but never once do you go outdoors.

One utility service to each complex. 600 amp 208/120 to each, with POCO primary extending into property and then branching each way to feed separate padmount transformers near main mechanical room of each complex. Is all under one owner, employees do go back and forth between the two complexes, yet we could completely wipe one complex out and the other could easily continue operation. Should this per NEC have been supplied with only one service?

No,

the whole point in locking at article 547 was to look at a premise with multiple buildings and equipment being feed by more than one service and feeders. I don’t know about the property you are considering but article 547 clearly states same management, same premises.

547.9 Electrical Supply to Building(s) or Structure(s) from a Distribution Point.

(E) Identification. Where a site is supplied by more than one service with any two services located a distance of 150 m (500 ft) or less apart, as measured in a straight line, a permanent plaque or directory shall be installed at each of these distribution points denoting the location of each of the other distribution points and the buildings or structures served by each

 

[Smart $]

No,

the whole point in locking at article 547 was to look at a premise with multiple buildings and equipment being feed by more than one service and feeders. I don’t know about the property you are considering but article 547 clearly states same management, same premises.

547.9 Electrical Supply to Building(s) or Structure(s) from a Distribution Point.

(E) Identification. Where a site is supplied by more than one service with any two services located a distance of 150 m (500 ft) or less apart, as measured in a straight line, a permanent plaque or directory shall be installed at each of these distribution points denoting the location of each of the other distribution points and the buildings or structures served by each

Please do not use the word premise. It has an entirely different meaning than the word premises, which is the word used throughout Code.

As I explained earlier, one parcel of land can be referred to as premises. However, two or more parcels of land can also be referred to as premises. Code would have to make a distinction between the two uses of the word to limit installations to one parcel of land.