Two or more services

[shortcircuit1]

Article 230 permits one or more services under couple conditions but what if power company says they want to bring in one service for the house, one service for the residential units and one service for the tenant. The total load of the building doesnt exceed 2000A if you are curious. Is it allowed since POCO is doing it?

 

[david]

Article 230 permits one or more services under couple conditions but what if power company says they want to bring in one service for the house, one service for the residential units and one service for the tenant. The total load of the building doesnt exceed 2000A if you are curious. Is it allowed since POCO is doing it?

Are you talking about a service entrance and a house panel or two services supplying dwelling

I have never herd of a utility demanding a service for a house panel / owners panel

Edit< it is common for a separate service entrance

 

[shortcircuit1]

Are you talking about a service entrance and a house panel or two services supplying dwelling

I have never herd of a utility demanding a service for a house panel / owners panel

Edit< it is common for a separate service entrance

Its two services supplying a multifamily dwelling. They meter the meter stacks separately and house meter separately.

 

[david]

The power company can dictate what service is available or what service they are willing to supply to a building, they cannot dictate what service is code and complies to the NEC requirements

But to clarify a service is the drop or lateral from the utility transformer to the building

A separate service conductor from a drop in common with both the house meter and the tenant meter bank is still one service

 

[shortcircuit1]

The power company can dictate what service is available or what service they are willing to supply to a building, they cannot dictate what service is code and complies to the NEC requirements

But to clarify a service is the drop or lateral from the utility transformer to the building

A separate service conductor from a drop in common with both the house meter and the tenant meter bank is still one service

They have two laterals from their transformer to the building. One lateral for house and another for meter bank which brings to my original question as to if POCO is okay doing this?

 

[david]

They have two laterals from their transformer to the building. One lateral for house and another for meter bank which brings to my original question as to if POCO is okay doing this?

if you provide a service disconnect for the house panel grouped with the service disconnect for the tenant meter bank and the total is no more than six throws of the hand, being that this is two laterals this can be NEC compliant

bottom line the installation must comply to the NEC

 

[electrofelon]

I would guess those underground conductors are not service laterals. See 230.40 exception 2.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I would guess those underground conductors are not service laterals. See 230.40 exception 2.

I don't think that is what the exception is saying. 2 runs from the trany to the structure that aren't paralleled becomes 2 services imo. I believe there isn't much you can do however I would ask my inspector about it first

 

[david]

I would guess those underground conductors are not service laterals. See 230.40 exception 2.

my reading of 230.40 exception 2 in general is still taping a single utility service drop or lateral with up to six service entrance cables .

230.2 adds even when up to six service laterals set up as 230.40 exception 2 grouped and max 6 service disconnects, the up to six service lateral will be considered only one service supplying the building

Not sure i agree they are redefining the cable from the utility to the service disconnects, just redefining the way you count the number of services supplying the building

The reason i say that, the allowance is given in 230.2 not 230.40

 

[electrofelon]

my reading of 230.40 exception 2 in general is still taping a single utility service drop or lateral with up to six service entrance cables .

230.2 adds even when up to six service laterals set up as 230.40 exception 2 grouped and max 6 service disconnects, the up to six service lateral will be considered only one service supplying the building

Not sure i agree they are redefining the cable from the utility to the service disconnects, just redefining the way you count the number of services supplying the building

The reason i say that, the allowance is given in 230.2 not 230.40

I think you are mixing up terms. A service lateral is on the utility side of the service point. If there isn't a hand hole or box of some sort, the service point is usually the spades of the transformer and those underground conductors are service entrance conductors not service laterals.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think you are mixing up terms. A service lateral is on the utility side of the service point. If there isn't a hand hole or box of some sort, the service point is usually the spades of the transformer and those underground conductors are service entrance conductors not service laterals.

Service laterals are the underground conductors from the trany

Service Lateral. The underground conductors between the
utility electric supply system and the service point.

Service Point. The point of connection between the facilities
of the serving utility and the premises wiring.

 

[electrofelon]

Service laterals are the underground conductors from the trany

They can be, but often are not. Where the transformer is located on customer property serving a dedicated building, say your typical commercial/industrial setup, the spades are typically the service point and there isn't a service lateral
Where you would have a service lateral would typically be a residential area with underground distribution. There would be a hand hole and that is where the service point would be. These comments of course may be contingent on local practice.

 

[david]

I think you are mixing up terms. A service lateral is on the utility side of the service point. If there isn't a hand hole or box of some sort, the service point is usually the spades of the transformer and those underground conductors are service entrance conductors not service laterals.

I'm definitely not mixing up terms

 

[david]

They can be, but often are not. Where the transformer is located on customer property serving a dedicated building, say your typical commercial/industrial setup, the spades are typically the service point and there isn't a service lateral
Where you would have a service lateral would typically be a residential area with underground distribution. There would be a hand hole and that is where the service point would be. These comments of course may be contingent on local practice.

Very seldom here are the meters located interior, I would think the OP is discussing service laterals going to two different meters, one a meter bank for the tenants and the second a meter for the house/ owners apartment

I would take it the conductors in question are service laterals.

If the service disconnects are not grouped this would be two services supplying the building

 

[electrofelon]

I'm definitely not mixing up terms

David,

Where I thought you were using the wrong term is the part in red in this post:

my reading of 230.40 exception 2 in general is still taping a single utility service drop or lateral with up to six service entrance cables .

230.2 adds even when up to six service laterals set up as 230.40 exception 2 grouped and max 6 service disconnects, the up to six service lateral will be considered only one service supplying the building

Not sure i agree they are redefining the cable from the utility to the service disconnects, just redefining the way you count the number of services supplying the building

The reason i say that, the allowance is given in 230.2 not 230.40

those are sets of service entrance conductors, not service laterals

 

[electrofelon]

Very seldom here are the meters located interior, I would think the OP is discussing service laterals going to two different meters, one a meter bank for the tenants and the second a meter for the house/ owners apartment

I would take it the conductors in question are service laterals.

It is possible they are service laterals. We would need to know where the service point is to say for sure. If they are service laterals, then he has two services, and would be subject to the permissions allowing multiple services - by my reading of the definitions.

 

[david]

It is possible they are service laterals. We would need to know where the service point is to say for sure. If they are service laterals, then he has two services, and would be subject to the permissions allowing multiple services - by my reading of the definitions.

I can agree he has two service laterals, but because we are talking about service laterals it will depend on first that they are both 1/0 or greater in size and secound the service disconnects grouping.

he can have two service laterals and still be considered to only have one service and not have to meet the criteria that would give allowance for two services

the OP never mention the (location) or grouping of the service disconnects

Edit: Actually the OP may be talking about three service laterals

one service for the house, one service for the residential units and one service for the tenant.

Its two services supplying a multifamily dwelling. They meter the meter stacks separately and house meter separately.

 

[electrofelon]

..... If they are service laterals, then he has two services....

Ive been thinking about that statement and its connection (if any) with this statement in 230.2 that has been mentioned:

....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.

What is the purpose of that statement? Is it even necessary? I dont see that 230.40 Ex 3 needs any clarification that its one service. So, are they trying to "add" some allowance in there? I was thinking maybe they want to allow for multiple conductor sets where there are no service entrance conductors. In that statement, they do just say "underground conductors" not restricting them to service entrance conductors so service laterals would be included. For example, say we had two separate but grouped service disconnects and the service point was at the line terminals. Or (perhaps more likely) there were two separate meter enclosures and the service point was at the utility side meter lugs. That wold sort of make sense, but the problem is it seems inappropriate to reference 230.40 EX 3 because that doesnt fit what is going on :?: Any thoughts?

 

[electrofelon]

I can agree he has two service laterals, but because we are talking about service laterals it will depend on first that they are both 1/0 or greater in size and secound the service disconnects grouping.

he can have two service laterals and still be considered to only have one service and not have to meet the criteria that would give allowance for two services

the OP never mention the (location) or grouping of the service disconnects

Edit: Actually the OP may be talking about three service laterals

I was typing while you were typing..... I am having trouble with the part in red, which is what my last post was about. I am still cogitating on that......

 

[electrofelon]

I would agree that two laterals could be considered one service, like one of my examples in post #18, if it wasnt for that "for the purposes of 230.40 ex 3 only" statement. I am not sure why that is there.