Two or more services

[david]

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

 

[electrofelon]

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

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

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".

 

[david]

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".

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.

 

[shortcircuit1]

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.

 

[kwired]

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.

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.

 

[augie47]

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.

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]

Thanks everyone for the answers.

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

If you do tie them together make sure there both the same size and other requirements for paralleled conductors

 

[kwired]

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.

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.

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.

 

[shortcircuit1]

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.

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.

 

[kwired]

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.

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.

 

[shortcircuit1]

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.

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:

 

[kwired]

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:

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.

 

[shortcircuit1]

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.

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:

 

[shortcircuit1]

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.

Fingers crossed