Two Services for one building

[david]

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.

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

it is my opinion article 225 only addresses feeder and branch circuit supplied buildings as well just the article 225 branch circuits and feeders are from a premise established service point

it is up to the authority to limit the supplies to one unless the justification can be determined in article 230 or article 225 for additional supplies either a service supply, feeder supply or branch circuit supply

 

[charlie b]

the scope of article 225 uses the term premises article 225.30 says same property under single management

I will try this only one more time. What 225.30 says is that IF you have single management (and documented safe switching procedures), THEN you are allowed to have more than one feeder to the building (from another building). Nothing in 225 requires two buildings to be under the same management, in order to allow one to feed the other.

 

[charlie b]

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

Nothing in 225.30 mentions single management.

 

[david]

Nothing in 225.30 mentions 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 that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E). For the purpose of this section, a multiwire branch circuit shall be considered a single circuit.

well there must be a change in the text that you are reading

 

[david]

I will try this only one more time. What 225.30 says is that IF you have single management (and documented safe switching procedures), THEN you are allowed to have more than one feeder to the building (from another building). Nothing in 225 requires two buildings to be under the same management, in order to allow one to feed the other.

i can see the text you are reading no longer states the additional buildings or structures being supplied
be on the same property

i am not sure how you are concluding installations under single management in 225.30 (E.) in the text you are reading means something other than the same management

(E) Documented Switching Procedures. Additional feeders or branch circuits shall be permitted to supply installations under single management where documented safe switching procedures are established and maintained for disconnection.

your text reads
(E) Additional feeder or branch circuits shall be permitted to supply installations under single management where Documented safe Switching Procedures are established and maintained for disconnection.

 

[charlie b]

i can see the text you are reading no longer states the additional buildings or structures being suppliedbe on the same property

So I can now see that part of our differing opinions comes from our using different editions of the NEC. The section in question was not changed in the 2017 or 2014 editions. My older editions are at home, so I can't check to see when it changed. What edition are you using?

 

[david]

So I can now see that part of our differing opinions comes from our using different editions of the NEC. The section in question was not changed in the 2017 or 2014 editions. My older editions are at home, so I can't check to see when it changed. What edition are you using?

Pa as stated here many times is under the 2008 addition so that leaves the change in 2011 and it would be interesting what reason was given for the change in 2011

Oh and that brings up a point of interest to those members in PA , PA has adopted the 2014 NEC and will become effective in October 2018

 

[charlie b]

i am not sure how you are concluding installations under single management in 225.30 (E.) in the text you are reading means something other than the same management.

I never said it does. All I said was that 225.30 allows a building to get more than one feeder from another building if the two buildings are under the same management.

As to the question of whether a building owned and managed by one company is allowed to supply a feeder to another building that is owned and managed by a different company, article 225.30 is silent. Since the NEC does not forbid this, we can infer that the NEC allows it. I have actually seen this only one time, and that was just a couple years ago. The two companies had signed a contract that addressed the cost of electricity. I seem to recall that the electric utility company didn't care for the arrangement, and was seeking to limit the use of such contracts. I really don't remember any details.

 

[david]

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?

My advise to the OP, you have little chance you will get an authority to allow this based on it being expedient , without tying your reason to one from article 230 or 225 and show a good reason to allow any additional supplies to a single building

 

[ashenafidemissie]

Thank you so much for all your responses. FYI the two buildings are under the same owner and management. It has been decided to upgrade power for one of the buildings not to supply power from the other one as the owners doesn't want this practice to repeat in future. I have learned a lot from your discussion. Special thanks to Charlie b and David!

 

[Adamjamma]

Thank you so much for all your responses. FYI the two buildings are under the same owner and management. It has been decided to upgrade power for one of the buildings not to supply power from the other one as the owners doesn't want this practice to repeat in future. I have learned a lot from your discussion. Special thanks to Charlie b and David!

the other way to look at that is how the last company I worked for was operating, one owned space and one rented space. Though they could run a feed from the owned space to the rented space for what the rented space could not handle, they decided to upgrade the rented space electric supply, because they figured if business dropped and they had to move out of the rentall, it would cost less to change the electricity back to one site, and they already paid for two meters.

 

[packersparky]

it is my opinion article 225 only addresses feeder and branch circuit supplied buildings as well just the article 225 branch circuits and feeders are from a premise established service point

it is up to the authority to limit the supplies to one unless the justification can be determined in article 230 or article 225 for additional supplies either a service supply, feeder supply or branch circuit supply

IMO, a building supplied by one service and one feeder is not a code violation. What code article would you cite as a violation?

 

[david]

IMO, a building supplied by one service and one feeder is not a code violation. What code article would you cite as a violation?

unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D). 225.30 Number of Supplies.
Unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E).

simple we would site 230.2 or 225.30 you could disagree but we would take the position supply a building by a service the building is allowed one supply = one service as the supply

supply a building with a branch circuit the building gets only one supply = one branch circuit

supply a building with a feeder the building only gets one supply = one feeder

you want to introduce more than one supply we would hold you to the reasons given in 230.2 (A) through (D)

or the reasons given in 225.30 (A) through (E)

and since we are the authority having jurisdiction we would find it reasonable that it is our responsibility to make that determination

 

[david]

unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D). 225.30 Number of Supplies.
Unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E).

225.37 Identification.
230.2 Number of Services. (E) Identification.

both article 230 and article 225 after defining except able reasons a building could have additional supplies identify the combination of supplies as a service and a feeder or a feeder and a branch circuit or a branch circuit and a service, two or more services or two or more feeders. the combination is not limited in the articles

 

[packersparky]

unless permitted in 230.2(A) through (D). 225.30 Number of Supplies.
Unless permitted in 225.30(A) through (E).

225.37 Identification.
230.2 Number of Services. (E) Identification.

both article 230 and article 225 after defining except able reasons a building could have additional supplies identify the combination of supplies as a service and a feeder or a feeder and a branch circuit or a branch circuit and a service, two or more services or two or more feeders. the combination is not limited in the articles

The scoping statement in 230.1 states that the article applies only to services and the scoping statement in 225.1 states that the article only applies to outside branch circuits and feeders.

The number of supplies covered in 225.30 only applies to outside branch circuits and feeders via the text that follows and the scoping statement. It is the same with 230.2

You cannot use 225.30 or 230.2 to not allow a building to be supplied with one feeder and one service. Neither apply as the building only has one service and one feeder.

 

[david]

The scoping statement in 230.1 states that the article applies only to services and the scoping statement in 225.1 states that the article only applies to outside branch circuits and feeders.

The number of supplies covered in 225.30 only applies to outside branch circuits and feeders via the text that follows and the scoping statement. It is the same with 230.2

You cannot use 225.30 or 230.2 to not allow a building to be supplied with one feeder and one service. Neither apply as the building only has one service and one feeder.

230.2 (E) and 225.37 take you strict scoping provisions right out the window

230.2 (E) does not deal solely with buildings supplied by multi services nor does 225.37 directs you to only consider buildings with multiple branch circuits or feeders 230.(E) crisscrosses between service supplied buildings and feeder supplied buildings the same as 225.37

Both articles have a narrow allowance for supplying buildings with multiple supplies taking both articles together it is fair to say it is the codes intention to limit the number of supplies to buildings.

neither article allows additional supplies without meeting a min criteria for an authority to evaluate the necessity of an additional supply to any given building

It is it seems your position that the NEC falls short of addressing specifically buildings with multiple supplies when one supply is a utility and the other is a feeder .

So somehow any other combination of multiple supplies is a safety concern and somehow the feeder / service combination has no concern

That’s when the Authority having jurisdiction must step in an make that determination

 

[charlie b]

My reading of 230.2(E) and 225.37 tells me that the code is explicitly acknowledging the possibility that a building might have both a service and an outside feeder. However, the simple truth is that the NEC has no words that would be used to disallow having one service and one feeder. For my part, I think such an installation would be outside the intent of the code's authors. Perhaps this possibility never came into any Code Making Panel's agenda. But the words are what the words are (now citing "Charlie's Rule").

Bottom line:

• There are words that essentially say, "only one service, unless you meet the following,"
• There are words that essentially say, "only one outside feeder, unless you meet the following,"
• There are no words that say, "if you have a service, then you can't also have an outside feeder," and
• There are no words that say, "if you have an outside feeder, then you can't also have a service."

If you think this represents a safety concern, then see if you can get a comment into the 2020 code cycle.

 

[LarryFine]

Reminds me of my recent squabble about the feeder with no neutral. Nothing specifies it's allowed, but nothing specifies it's disallowed. The conclusion was based on the specification that the neutral must be sized per the neutral calculated load; no neutral load means no neutral needed.

 

[macmikeman]

Think different: Construct an interior concrete or cement block wall between two sections of the one building , one which extends upwards thru the existing roof for 36" along the entire length of the slice thru the now two halves , and extends 30" beyond each end , with no openings in it's entirety between the two sides , and viola, you now have two buildings and can legally code wise install two services.

 

[kwired]

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

225.1 scope never mentions what the source is, so it doesn't matter if that second source is from service or on site production, a feeder is a feeder, a branch circuit is a branch circuit. There is as mentioned in 225 and 230 the "unless permitted in...." which allows additional supplies in both sections for emergency systems, fire pumps, different characteristics, etc.

Think different: Construct an interior concrete or cement block wall between two sections of the one building , one which extends upwards thru the existing roof for 36" along the entire length of the slice thru the now two halves , and extends 30" beyond each end , with no openings in it's entirety between the two sides , and viola, you now have two buildings and can legally code wise install two services.

Yes, and is an easy way to power a large addition to an existing facility also. Quite often a two hour separation will be required by other codes anyway. You do have to watch so that you don't bring circuits from one "building" into the other though. Common passageway between old and new will need fire doors as well.