Two Services for one building

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ashenafidemissie

Member
Location
Milpitas, california
I am working on a project that has two existing buildings (lets say building A and B) with their own services. The service for building A has maxed out but there is available capacity in the Main distribution board fed by Service for Building B. I know NEC only allows one service for one building (unless for exceptions stated) but I would like to know if there is a way I would be able to feed a load in building A from the Main distribution board in building B?
 
The one service per building... is that all buildings or is multiple dwelling different?
Jamaica Utilities want the runs from the meter boxes up the meter pole separate for each meter to a location... and kept separate to the panels inside, of course. So, a few houses I have seen have a spaghetti nest at the top of the meter pole, since some people have as many as eight apartments in their homes. I always thought it would be better to do like in USA with one run to the pole and the bus system I see but...The Jamaican attitude is, it is easier to steal electricity if a bus system is used...
still think it more dangerous their way..lol..
 
This might be more tricky than you would expect.

230.6 says one service per building, and I don't think any of the "unless permitted by" statements apply to your situation.
225.30 says one outside feeder per building, and I don't think any of the "unless permitted by" statements apply to your situation.

However, you are not suggesting more than one service or more than one feeder. Rather, you are suggesting one of each. I don't think the code language, as written, forbids this. I suspect that the "one of each" installation is not in compliance with the intent of the code authors. But it is not in violation of the language they put into the code.
 
charlie b said:
This might be more tricky than you would expect.

230.6 says one service per building, and I don't think any of the "unless permitted by" statements apply to your situation.
225.30 says one outside feeder per building, and I don't think any of the "unless permitted by" statements apply to your situation.

However, you are not suggesting more than one service or more than one feeder. Rather, you are suggesting one of each. I don't think the code language, as written, forbids this. I suspect that the "one of each" installation is not in compliance with the intent of the code authors. But it is not in violation of the language they put into the code.
Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking but I didn't want to comment without first checking the language. The code seems to want "one supply" but the combination of one service and one feeder doesn't seem to be specifically prohibited.
 
charlie b said:
This might be more tricky than you would expect.

230.6 says one service per building, and I don't think any of the "unless permitted by" statements apply to your situation.
225.30 says one outside feeder per building, and I don't think any of the "unless permitted by" statements apply to your situation.

However, you are not suggesting more than one service or more than one feeder. Rather, you are suggesting one of each. I don't think the code language, as written, forbids this. I suspect that the "one of each" installation is not in compliance with the intent of the code authors. But it is not in violation of the language they put into the code.
Click to expand...

electrofelon said:
That is what I was thinking but I didn't want to comment without first checking the language. The code seems to want "one supply" but the combination of one service and one feeder doesn't seem to be specifically prohibited.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but I completely disagree with this concept.

For this concept to be applicable it has to be ignored that the service location is indicated to be at first building or structure and the whole scope of article 225 is branch circuits and feeders to additional buildings or structures.

Article 225 goes on to say the additional branch circuit or feeder supplies are on the load side of the premise service

And this all has to be on the same property under single management

¬“225.30 Number of Supplies.
Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management, each additional building or other structure”
 
david said:
I’m sorry but I completely disagree with this concept.
Click to expand...
You are certainly welcome to do so. But I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Here are three ways to provide power to buildings A and B. Ways #1 & 2 are clearly OK. Way #3 is the one in question.
  1. Utility provides service separately to each building.
  2. Utility provides service to building A. Then, a feeder originating within building A provides power to building B.
  3. Utility provides service separately to each building. In addition, a feeder originating within building A provides power to building B.

For my part, I see nothing in either 225 or 230 that would forbid #3. Each of those two articles focuses solely on its own limits of applicability. Neither addresses any kind of interface with the other.
 
225.1 Scope.
This article covers requirements for outside branch circuits and feeders run on or between buildings, structures, or poles on the premises; and electrical equipment and wiring for the supply of utilization equipment that is located on or attached to the outside of buildings, structures, or poles.

The scope of article 225 indicates outside wiring on the same premise from the premise service point forward. I am simply saying the service point is already established in article 225 to be on the premise and the article is addressing branch circuits and feeders from that established service point forward.

All the article 225 branch circuits and feeders on the same premise are from the same service point
 
So it becomes strictly up the authority to say no, a building is to be supplied only once unless one of the exceptions in article 230 or article 225 indicate a second supply could be done safely
 
david said:
The scope of article 225 indicates outside wiring on the same premise from the premise service point forward. I am simply saying the service point is already established in article 225 to be on the premise and the article is addressing branch circuits and feeders from that established service point forward.
Click to expand...
Building A is one premises. Building B is a separate premises. In my "Way #2," building B gets power downstream from the service point of building A, but it is not (in your words) "outside wiring on the same premise." It is outside wiring on a different premises. The code does not require the two buildings to be on the same plat of land and under the same management control. But it is hard to imaging two different owners agreeing to supply power to the two buildings using "Way #2."

 
charlie b said:
Building A is one premises. Building B is a separate premises. In my "Way #2," building B gets power downstream from the service point of building A, but it is not (in your words) "outside wiring on the same premise." It is outside wiring on a different premises. The code does not require the two buildings to be on the same plat of land and under the same management control. But it is hard to imaging two different owners agreeing to supply power to the two buildings using "Way #2."
Click to expand...

i understand where you are going with this and i understand there are other positions on this.

We should all agree in article 225 the service point is established to be on the premise and the additional branch circuits or feeders are supplying additional structures on the same property under single management
 
david said:
We should all agree in article 225 the service point is established to be on the premise and the additional branch circuits or feeders are supplying additional structures on the same property under single management
Click to expand...
I would like to split a hair here. Well, two hairs actually.
  1. The service point is on one premise, and the additional feeder serves a separate premise. The NEC defines "premises wiring system," but it does not define "premises." My interpretation is that "different structure" (i.e., different building) means "different premises."
  2. Article 225.30(E) gives the owner the option to install more than one feeder from one building to another, for "installations under single management. . . ." But it does not require two buildings to be on the same property (meaning property having only one legal description, as opposed to separate properties with different legal descriptions), nor does it require two buildings to be under single management, in order to allow a feeder from one building to supply the other.

 
charlie b said:
I would like to split a hair here. Well, two hairs actually.
  1. The service point is on one premise, and the additional feeder serves a separate premise. The NEC defines "premises wiring system," but it does not define "premises." My interpretation is that "different structure" (i.e., different building) means "different premises."
  2. Article 225.30(E) gives the owner the option to install more than one feeder from one building to another, for "installations under single management. . . ." But it does not require two buildings to be on the same property (meaning property having only one legal description, as opposed to separate properties with different legal descriptions), nor does it require two buildings to be under single management, in order to allow a feeder from one building to supply the other.
Click to expand...

225.30 Number of Supplies.
Where more than one building or other structure is on the same property and under single management, each additional building or other structure


I’m going to use the term charging statement and in full disclosure the term is not original to me I think it was Ryan in Mike Holts training DVDs that uses that term

The charging statement in 225,30 already established the branch circuit or feeder supplied structure or buildings in article 225 to be on the same property that is under single management

Edit if we are going to pull away from the same property under single management we have to pull away from article 225
 
charlie b said:
I would like to split a hair here. Well, two hairs actually.
  1. The service point is on one premise, and the additional feeder serves a separate premise. The NEC defines "premises wiring system," but it does not define "premises." My interpretation is that "different structure" (i.e., different building) means "different premises."
  2. Article 225.30(E) gives the owner the option to install more than one feeder from one building to another, for "installations under single management. . . ." But it does not require two buildings to be on the same property (meaning property having only one legal description, as opposed to separate properties with different legal descriptions), nor does it require two buildings to be under single management, in order to allow a feeder from one building to supply the other.
Click to expand...

the scope of article 225 uses the term premises article 225.30 says same property under single management
 
Just want to mention: it was NOT stated that the buildings were under separate ownership/management. Only that there are two buildings with separate services.
 
jumper said:
David, not disagreeing, but what does “charging statement” mean or how do you define it?

New terminology to me.
Click to expand...

As used in the training DVDs it’s the general statement in this case found in 225.30 the statement that establishes the rule

Then there are the statements that address the rule and in discussion 225.30 (E.) the statement of safe switching procedures should not be thought to change the statement of buildings and structures under single management on the same property

225.30 (E) did not change the charging statement in 225.30 it only further stipulated documented safe switching procedures
 
I agree with Charlie. IMO, 225.30 only deals with feeders and could not be used to limit a building from being supplied by one service and one feeder.
 
david said:
As used in the training DVDs it’s the general statement in this case found in 225.30 the statement that establishes the rule

Then there are the statements that address the rule and in discussion 225.30 (E.) the statement of safe switching procedures should not be thought to change the statement of buildings and structures under single management on the same property

225.30 (E) did not change the charging statement in 225.30 it only further stipulated documented safe switching procedures
Click to expand...

Okay, I accept the definition as you are using it. Charging statement, gotta remember that, I like it. Thanks.

I gave my answer in #2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top