Two-Family Dwelling Service.

[AC\DC]

Hello, Met the POCO at a Two-family Dwelling unit. They want to supply 2 separate services to this Single building.
One living space above one below. The Upper space has a garage below were the current panel is.
Services and Disconnects for each will be located on oposit sides of the building. Asked the GC/Owner if there have fire wall separating the two units. have a couple questions.

1: Does 230.2(d) "Different uses" qualify for this set up. I think so.
2: If There is no fire wall. Then it is a Single building, then the only way for two service is to meet 230.2
3: If there is a fire wall, then they are just treated as separate building. As long as Unit 1 power does not cross over into unite 2 and vice verse

I could have one Underground service feeding two meters with disconnects grouped, but POCO and GC don't want that at this location ( Tight area to make that work).

 

[augie47]

Did they have a reason for 2 services ??

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In my opinion this rule does not even belong in the NEC...the final authority for the number of services to a building is the utility.

 

[James L]

1: Does 230.2(d) "Different uses" qualify for this set up. I think so.

I'm gonna go with "no"

I wired an up/down building with 2 services, with separate uses on each floor -
120/208 3ph for pizza shop below
120/240 1ph for apartment above

It had separate overhead drops on each side

It really is a matter for POCO to decide, imho

 

[Hv&Lv]

I’m in the “No” category.
It’s not a different frequency, voltage, phase, or rate class.
firewall is going to be in building code, not NEC.
A firewall would let this work like a duplex apartment with services on each end.

Remember, the utility doesn’t understand the NEC a lot of times. Neither does the GC.
Utility rules can’t make you violate NEC rules, no different than NEC can’t make us violate NESC.

I bet electrical inspector or fire marshal would overrule the POCO and the GC.

 

[AC\DC]

Thanks I’ll give them a call tomorrow.

I'm gonna go with "no"

Ya a probably would agree if I was not trying to justify it