Two Services for one building

[david]

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. .

you are correct the source in the scope of 225.1 is not identified

225.30 states building supplied from the load side of the service and we know the intent is to limit building supplies.

if we strictly go by the literal reading when the premise source is a on site production such as a generator or solar or anything other than a utility than the number of branch circuit supplies and feeder supplies to additional buildings is no longer a concern

literally 225.30 only addresses feeders and branch circuit supplies to buildings when the premise has a utility service and the branch circuits and feeders are on the load side of the service

What the NEC is intending here is hard to pin point, if additional supplies to buildings need to be closely scrutinized than this section needs to be more clear, if additional supplies to buildings raises a caution or concern than it should be true no matter the source

 

[Adamjamma]

I have been doing loads of thinking on this and I am only coming up with one problem, as a student... the ground potential problems introduced by taking the feed from one building into the other building if the buildings are not somehow bonded to one ground system. But, if one ran a bond from one to the other, using number 4 wire, thus tying the ground systems together for potential...equipotential bonding..lol... then that is overcome. Would a Wye to Wye accomplish the same thing?
Again, student wondering, not trying to make waves. Looking at sections on grounding right now in my study guides and thought about this question...

 

[david]

I have been doing loads of thinking on this and I am only coming up with one problem, as a student... the ground potential problems introduced by taking the feed from one building into the other building if the buildings are not somehow bonded to one ground system. But, if one ran a bond from one to the other, using number 4 wire, thus tying the ground systems together for potential...equipotential bonding..lol... then that is overcome. Would a Wye to Wye accomplish the same thing?
Again, student wondering, not trying to make waves. Looking at sections on grounding right now in my study guides and thought about this question...

At the second building a grounding electrode system is established and is bonded to a non current carrying conductor (equipment ground) back to the supplying building.

The equipment ground and grounding electrodes at the first (supplying building) is bonded through the equipment ground

In other words the two buildings are bonded together through the equipment grounding system

 

[Adamjamma]

At the second building a grounding electrode system is established and is bonded to a non current carrying conductor (equipment ground) back to the supplying building.

The equipment ground and grounding electrodes at the first (supplying building) is bonded through the equipment ground

In other words the two buildings are bonded together through the equipment grounding system

If that is the case then I can see no problems because a feeder is not a service supply.

Place I watched them deal with similar situation was on separate grounds, which was one of the two reasons they did not do it..other was Brexit... and the thought that they may have to close everything in other building and go back to one building if sales losses occurred, well, one production building...

 

[Craigv]

you are correct the source in the scope of 225.1 is not identified

225.30 states building supplied from the load side of the service and we know the intent is to limit building supplies.

if we strictly go by the literal reading when the premise source is a on site production such as a generator or solar or anything other than a utility than the number of branch circuit supplies and feeder supplies to additional buildings is no longer a concern

literally 225.30 only addresses feeders and branch circuit supplies to buildings when the premise has a utility service and the branch circuits and feeders are on the load side of the service

What the NEC is intending here is hard to pin point, if additional supplies to buildings need to be closely scrutinized than this section needs to be more clear, if additional supplies to buildings raises a caution or concern than it should be true no matter the source

In my opinion NEC is pretty clear on this.

It does not explicitly state that a building can't have a branch or feeder AND a service.

And if services were NOT permitted in combination with feeders and/or branches, then 225.37 would have simply stated, "where a building or structure has any combination of branch circuits and feeders,..." and left out "services" entirely.

 

[david]

In my opinion NEC is pretty clear on this.

It does not explicitly state that a building can't have a branch or feeder AND a service.

And if services were NOT permitted in combination with feeders and/or branches, then 225.37 would have simply stated, "where a building or structure has any combination of branch circuits and feeders,..." and left out "services" entirely.

A service and feeder combination is not even the discussion. The discussion is are the multiple supplies limited to the permissive rules in article 230 and article 225. We are (PA.) under NFPA 70/ 2008. The current NFPA 70 2017 addition of the NEC has revised language that states in 225.30 that a feeder or branch circuit supplied additional building can have one feeder originating in the additional building supplying back to the building where the premise utility service is located

This language was added post the 2008 addition of the NEC . If it is deemed already allowed without restriction than there is no need for any such language in the NEC

The discussion is yes buildings with a utility service can have a feeder supply but is that additional supply governed by the permissive rules dealing with additional supplies to buildings or is it the NEC intent that you can do it for any reason you feel like it

 

[packersparky]

A service and feeder combination is not even the discussion. The discussion is are the multiple supplies limited to the permissive rules in article 230 and article 225. We are (PA.) under NFPA 70/ 2008. The current NFPA 70 2017 addition of the NEC has revised language that states in 225.30 that a feeder or branch circuit supplied additional building can have one feeder originating in the additional building supplying back to the building where the premise utility service is located

This language was added post the 2008 addition of the NEC . If it is deemed already allowed without restriction than there is no need for any such language in the NEC

The discussion is yes buildings with a utility service can have a feeder supply but is that additional supply governed by the permissive rules dealing with additional supplies to buildings or is it the NEC intent that you can do it for any reason you feel like it

The NEC does not prohibit a building from being fed from "multiple supplies", it prohibits a building from being supplied by more that one feeder and more than one service (unless one of the conditions are met).

No mention of where the service is located in 225.30. Its only about feeders and branch circuits.

Where a branch circuit or feeder originates in these additional
buildings or other structures, only one feeder or branch
circuit shall be permitted to supply power back to the original
building or structure

A building can be supplied with one service per 230.2 and one feeder per 225.30. Nothing in the NEC prohibits it. It can be done for any reason.
You cannot apply 230.2 to feeders and you cannot apply 225.30 to services.

 

[Craigv]

A service and feeder combination is not even the discussion.

Really? That's the topic of this thread.

The discussion is are the multiple supplies limited to the permissive rules in article 230 and article 225.

Then you must have arbitrarily decided this just now. In post #33 you responded to a direct question asking what you would cite as a violation in the case of a building fed by a service and a feeder ( again, the topic of this thread ). You cited articles 225 and 230. At no point after that post....or within it...did you state a building fed by a service and a feeder would be code-compliant.

We are (PA.) under NFPA 70/ 2008. The current NFPA 70 2017 addition of the NEC has revised language that states in 225.30 that a feeder or branch circuit supplied additional building can have one feeder originating in the additional building supplying back to the building where the premise utility service is located

So? Neither the topic of the thread, nor your left turn to the "permissive rules" has anything to do with returning a feeder back to the originating structure or building.

This language was added post the 2008 addition of the NEC . If it is deemed already allowed without restriction than there is no need for any such language in the NEC

Again, returning a feeder or branch that is supplied by a feeder or branch from the originating structure is NOT the OP's proposed solution.

The discussion is yes buildings with a utility service can have a feeder supply but is that additional supply governed by the permissive rules dealing with additional supplies to buildings or is it the NEC intent that you can do it for any reason you feel like it

:blink: Most of us stated clearly that we feel a service and a feeder are acceptable. If you agree, you haven't been at all clear with all this obfuscation surrounding 225 and 230. As packersparky has repeatedly stated, the exceptions in each article have no bearing on the thread topic issue whatsoever. The OP isn't interested in providing multiple feeders to the second building, or in installing a second service in the second building.

 

[david]

It is up to the authority having jurisdiction to weigh the caution given in permissive language to supplying buildings with multiple supplies.

In addition to the caution needed to disconnect a building from the supply sources Caution is necessary to insure that the different supply systems stay separated throughout the building electrical systems.

The word only in the text gives emphases or caution when supplying a building with more than a single supply.

The word only is not needed in your reading of the text . If a single supply to a building is not being emphasized by the word only there is no meaning to the word only in the text.

The authority having jurisdiction here will side with caution and will look to the permissive language for a bench mark in applying the necessary caution when a building is multi supplied

 

[Craigv]

It is up to the authority having jurisdiction to weigh the caution given in permissive language to supplying buildings with multiple supplies.

In addition to the caution needed to disconnect a building from the supply sources Caution is necessary to insure that the different supply systems stay separated throughout the building electrical systems.

The word only in the text gives emphases or caution when supplying a building with more than a single supply.

The word only is not needed in your reading of the text . If a single supply to a building is not being emphasized by the word only there is no meaning to the word only in the text.

The authority having jurisdiction here will side with caution and will look to the permissive language for a bench mark in applying the necessary caution when a building is multi supplied

The spin you're putting on this is dizzying. You are making up your own definitions of common terms, and attempting to claim that wording in one part of these articles implies something that affects other parts of the article that are unrelated. The Code does not work by implied wording. Something is either required, permitted, or prohibited. Some wording can be vague, but that is not intentional.

"Only" means solely or exclusively. It does not "give emphasis or caution".

The Code's permissive rules are still rules, not "permissive language" as you call them. "Shall be permitted" and "shall not be required" are not the implied gray area you are attempting to make them.

The Special Conditions listed in 225.30(A) do not imply that an AHJ must weigh the permissibility of having a feeder to a building with a service. Unless the AHJ has specifically restricted this type of installation by adopting different language, there is no interpretation of what is actually written that can prohibit a feeder and a service in one building. The special conditions in 225.30(A) DO NOT restrict a feeder or a branch supplying a building supplied by a utility.

The bottom line is still simple: The Code has no prohibition, and what is not prohibited is allowed.

 

[david]

230.2 Number of Services.
The text supports limiting services to one unless the permissive rules in 230.2 can be applied
The authority can look at what is in print and state the text supports limiting services to one, the effect is the majority of buildings will only have one service

II. More Than One Building or Other Structure
225.30 Number of Supplies.
225.30 could have used the same style as 230.2 and say 225.30 number of feeders or branch circuits

The authority has the right to look at the written language and conclude service are being limited in 230.2 and supplies to building are being limited in 225.30

The authority having jurisdiction has the right to conclude the NEC intent is to limit service or other supplies to a building and buildings to only having one.

The effect in making that lawful interpretation is the majority of building will have only one supply, if the building supply is a service or if the buildings supply is a feeder or if the building supply is a branch circuit. Look around your neighborhood , your state, look around the country and see if that is not the case.

You can state here that the text that includes the word only should not put emphases on making the determination as to the intent of 230.2 or 225.30 that is your choice. And if you are the authority having jurisdiction in your area you could administer and enforce this section of the code in your area

Limiting building supplies to only one is not pulling language out of the air it is language supported by the NEC

The OP question was answered early in this thread. The broader discussion can only be resolved for you by the Authority having Jurisdiction that is the way the NEC is set up. Most municipalities have an appeal process. If you do not agree with your authority. If you think you can persuade an appeals board, go through the process of having a board agree with your understanding of the NEC

 

[Adamjamma]

well, I have been in buildings that were part of a complex, that had shops supplied from their own panels, yet also had other areas supplied from the main panels for the site...
The old blacksmiths shop had an MWBC running from main panel to it, via underground conduit. The woodshop had its own service sub panel, and then the Foundry had two underground feeders for lighting and outlets, running to different ends of the building.

Some of the shops were on second floor areas, others on first floor and three residences on top floors.. spread across a complex of six streetfront buildings and five back section buildings... and fed using one bank of meters and panels in building five...

So we had as many as 5 feeds to some buildings, three passing through to other buildings.

Guess none of that would be to code now but Dominion Resources had no problems with it in eighties.

 

[Craigv]

230.2 Number of Services.
The text supports limiting services to one unless the permissive rules in 230.2 can be applied
The authority can look at what is in print and state the text supports limiting services to one, the effect is the majority of buildings will only have one service

II. More Than One Building or Other Structure
225.30 Number of Supplies.
225.30 could have used the same style as 230.2 and say 225.30 number of feeders or branch circuits

Limiting services to one is NOT the issue here. How do you not see the difference between permitting one service, or one feeder or one branch circuit, and permitting a service and a branch circuit or feeder? You're conflating two services with combinations of a service and a feeder or a branch circuit. They are not the same, and the Code does not restrict it. What is not forbidden is permitted. PERIOD.

The authority has the right to look at the written language and conclude service are being limited in 230.2 and supplies to building are being limited in 225.30

They can conclude that the Moon is cheese as the Earth is flat. This thread and this forum are not here to try to divine or speculate what any particular AHJ will conclude.

The authority having jurisdiction has the right to conclude the NEC intent is to limit service or other supplies to a building and buildings to only having one.

The effect in making that lawful interpretation is the majority of building will have only one supply, if the building supply is a service or if the buildings supply is a feeder or if the building supply is a branch circuit. Look around your neighborhood , your state, look around the country and see if that is not the case.

You can state here that the text that includes the word only should not put emphases on making the determination as to the intent of 230.2 or 225.30 that is your choice. And if you are the authority having jurisdiction in your area you could administer and enforce this section of the code in your area

Again, you're speculating. I can easily state that an AHJ will agree with me completely. That doesn't change anything or help the OP.

Limiting building supplies to only one is not pulling language out of the air it is language supported by the NEC

It absolutely is pulling language out of the air, because building supplies are not limited to one. You've repeatedly cited the articles that specifically permit multiple supplies.

The OP question was answered early in this thread. The broader discussion can only be resolved for you by the Authority having Jurisdiction that is the way the NEC is set up. Most municipalities have an appeal process. If you do not agree with your authority. If you think you can persuade an appeals board, go through the process of having a board agree with your understanding of the NEC

And yet again, not the topic of this thread.

 

[david]

It absolutely is pulling language out of the air, because building supplies are not limited to one. You've repeatedly cited the articles that specifically permit multiple supplies..

limited supplies by limited conditions
225.30 Number of supplies you want to conclude the text is straight forward it is not

And when the text is not straight forward than an authority can only try and determine what is the NEC concern what is the safety concern what is the intent of the NEC

You obviously do not like that conclusion an you are entitled to dislike it. The reality is we have the NEC we have Electricians , we have Authorities and we have Appeal Boards

and i do not have anything further to add

 

[packersparky]

limited supplies by limited conditions
225.30 Number of supplies you want to conclude the text is straight forward it is not

And when the text is not straight forward than an authority can only try and determine what is the NEC concern what is the safety concern what is the intent of the NEC

You obviously do not like that conclusion an you are entitled to dislike it. The reality is we have the NEC we have Electricians , we have Authorities and we have Appeal Boards

and i do not have anything further to add

225.30 is straight forward. It is in Article 225 which covers outside branch circuits and feeders. It does not cover services.

 

[Craigv]

limited supplies by limited conditions
225.30 Number of supplies you want to conclude the text is straight forward it is not

And when the text is not straight forward than an authority can only try and determine what is the NEC concern what is the safety concern what is the intent of the NEC

You obviously do not like that conclusion an you are entitled to dislike it. The reality is we have the NEC we have Electricians , we have Authorities and we have Appeal Boards

and i do not have anything further to add

You have nothing to add because your argument won't hold water. The language is straightforward:

-No Code paragraph expressly forbids a service and a feeder to the same building. If there was "intent" or a "safety concern" to prevent this, there is no reason this would be excluded and left for authorities to surmise and guess what NEC is thinking.

-Article 225.37 specifically states "Where a building or structure has any combination of feeders, branch circuits or services passing through it,..." If a service and feeder, or a service and branch circuit were prohibited, this Article would read, "Where a building or structure has any combination of feeders or branch circuits..." There would be no need to mention services, as they in combination with a feeder or branch circuit would be prohibited.

-Article 225.30 deals exclusively with branch circuits and feeders. The fact that services are not mentioned here means there is no restriction on having a feeder and a service. Silence is consent, not "well, let's think about what the NEC was intending....hmmmm....." The NEC is a literal text, not a Ouija Board...