Two or more services

Status
Not open for further replies.
im going to say this than go back and re-read

230.40 ex 2 on is only about up to six service entrance cables taping off of a single service drop lateral or under ground service conductors any how you get the point and the grouping requirement

230.2 allows for multiple sets of service laterals up to six say going to six say meters and the six service entrance cables coming off of the up to six service laterals

yes i see 230.2 as necessary
 
Last edited:
david said:
im goin to say this than go back and re-read

230.40 ex 2 on is only about up to six service entrance cables taping off of a single service drop lateral or under ground service conductors any how you get the point and the grouping requirement
Click to expand...

Agreed

230.2 allows for multiple sets of service laterals up to six say going to six say meters and the six service entrance cables coming off of the up to six service laterals
Click to expand...

I think that is what the intent is. I dont think the language and logic is sound. They need to add/change the wording to 230.40 Ex 2 to say "one or more service laterals".
 
electrofelon said:
Agreed



I think that is what the intent is. I dont think the language and logic is sound. They need to add/change the wording to 230.40 Ex 2 to say "one or more service laterals".
Click to expand...

230.40 has no restriction on conductor size and i think it is intent to reference a single service and grouping.

230.2 gives allowance to what would be multiple services to be considered one service and apply the rule in 230.40 to the single service created by multiple under ground conductors from the utility.
 
Thanks everyone for the answers. I read 230.40 Exp.2 and according to that as long as your underground service entrance conductors are larger than 1/0 and the disconnects grouped at one location multiple laterals from the POCO transformer will count as one. In my case my two service laterals will terminate into a trough and then they will feed a meter bank with main breaker,a house meter disconnect which are on the same wall. I am trying to see if that falls under the definition of grouped? They all are on the same wall may be couple feet apart.
 
shortcircuit1 said:
Thanks everyone for the answers. I read 230.40 Exp.2 and according to that as long as your underground service entrance conductors are larger than 1/0 and the disconnects grouped at one location multiple laterals from the POCO transformer will count as one. In my case my two service laterals will terminate into a trough and then they will feed a meter bank with main breaker,a house meter disconnect which are on the same wall. I am trying to see if that falls under the definition of grouped? They all are on the same wall may be couple feet apart.
Click to expand...

Most will consider that grouped. There is no description in NEC of what is or is not "grouped" for such situations. Sometimes local authorities have their own policy on what they will or will not accept. Sometimes you get case by case special approval for those unique situations that you don't run into very often - especially when dealing with something existing.
 
shortcircuit1 said:
Thanks everyone for the answers. I read 230.40 Exp.2 and according to that as long as your underground service entrance conductors are larger than 1/0 and the disconnects grouped at one location multiple laterals from the POCO transformer will count as one. In my case my two service laterals will terminate into a trough and then they will feed a meter bank with main breaker,a house meter disconnect which are on the same wall. I am trying to see if that falls under the definition of grouped? They all are on the same wall may be couple feet apart.
Click to expand...

Muddy the water a bit....
Do all the laterals terminate in the same trough ?
If so, is the power company dictating which lateral supplies which load (meter).

If not, it sounds like you might simply have parallel conductors which can terminate together in your trough.
 
david said:
230.2 gives allowance to what would be multiple services to be considered one service and apply the rule in 230.40 to the single service created by multiple under ground conductors from the utility.
Click to expand...

A building or other structure served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D). 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.
Click to expand...


I don't see it as an allowance, it says in that condition it shall be considered to be supplying one service.

Also if anything in A thru D applies then there is permission to have additional services anyway, though OP's description so far doesn't seem to justify any of those.
 
augie47 said:
Muddy the water a bit....
Do all the laterals terminate in the same trough ?
If so, is the power company dictating which lateral supplies which load (meter).

If not, it sounds like you might simply have parallel conductors which can terminate together in your trough.
Click to expand...

Yes all the laterals terminate in the same trough. I am sure POCO is gonna bring in different size laterals to feed different loads..In that case yes POCO will dictate what lateral supplies which load.
 
shortcircuit1 said:
Yes all the laterals terminate in the same trough. I am sure POCO is gonna bring in different size laterals to feed different loads..In that case yes POCO will dictate what lateral supplies which load.
Click to expand...
They are coming from same source?

If POCO is supplying it I guess it at very least would come under 230.2 (C)(2) as the serving agency is dictating what will be delivered in a way, and NEC doesn't start until you get past the service point.

If AHJ doesn't like it he needs to speak to POCO about it, as the EC doesn't really have a choice. This can lead to (C)(3) special permission allowing it.
 
kwired said:
They are coming from same source?

If POCO is supplying it I guess it at very least would come under 230.2 (C)(2) as the serving agency is dictating what will be delivered in a way, and NEC doesn't start until you get past the service point.

If AHJ doesn't like it he needs to speak to POCO about it, as the EC doesn't really have a choice. This can lead to (C)(3) special permission allowing it.
Click to expand...

They all are going to come from same transformer vault somewhere on the street.

Before we even go to 230.2(c) to talk about multiple services, my scenario counts as one service since they all terminate into the one location(trough) and the disconnects are grouped together as well :roll:
 
shortcircuit1 said:
They all are going to come from same transformer vault somewhere on the street.

Before we even go to 230.2(c) to talk about multiple services, my scenario counts as one service since they all terminate into the one location(trough) and the disconnects are grouped together as well :roll:
Click to expand...
I agree, though there is that mentioning in 230.2 of conductors being 1/0 and larger, which could throw a wrench into the gears if you have one of them being a smaller supply.
 
kwired said:
I agree, though there is that mentioning in 230.2 of conductors being 1/0 and larger, which could throw a wrench into the gears if you have one of them being a smaller supply.
Click to expand...

True i have three disconnects which are rated at 800a,600a and 200a. I think that should be safe enough with out getting into trouble :thumbsup:
 
kwired said:
Most will consider that grouped. There is no description in NEC of what is or is not "grouped" for such situations. Sometimes local authorities have their own policy on what they will or will not accept. Sometimes you get case by case special approval for those unique situations that you don't run into very often - especially when dealing with something existing.
Click to expand...

Fingers crossed :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top