What's your call?

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: What's your call?

Dave,

A detached accessory building may have a feeder from the primary building on the same property and under the same management and a feeder from another building located on another property with a separate service and under separate management, because the accessory building is shared by both parties. The separate building may have as many separate feeders as there are interested parties that are willing to supply a feeder.

Again, I find no code rules that can be cited to prohibit that installation. And I don't see it any different than where multiple sets of service entrance cables are used for multiple occupancies in a common building. It would be nice to have the disconnects grouped in both cases, but again the code rules do not require this. You could set multiple meters on the outside of the building and run a conduit to the panel inside each occupancy in that building and have the disconnects remote from the meters and from each other and still be in compliance with the code. I see that as the same type of hazard as the use of multiple feeders to a common out building.
Don

[ September 04, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[necbuff]

Re: What's your call?

Will somebody please call the IAEI and find out who is on the related code making panel and call them... there is an answer to this, so go to the head of the stream... If not directly addressed, 90.4 prevails. Like it or not, that is the system. I am 2nd VP of the TN chapter of the IAEI and will find out at the next month meeting about this topic.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: What's your call?

Ken,
As Bob asked earlier in this thread, how does 90.4 permit the AHJ to add rules that are not in the code? Also a comment by a single or even a group of code making panel members is no more valid than the opinions being posted on this thread.
By the way, why would you call the IAEI to find out who the panel members are? They are all listed in the front of the code book.
Don

[ September 04, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[hurk27]

Re: What's your call?

Again this is not any different from the lease radio tower system that I posted earlier in the thread. We work on three towers that clients lease tower space from the tower owner. The owner of the tower doen't want to pay for the power then try to figure out who owe's what, so we install a service as per each tennet's requirements on each tennet's equipment shed and then each tennet's equipment that's mounted on the tower has branch circuits that run up the tower to feed it. There is a house panel that does supply the tower lighting and other equipment that the owner own's. But all the service's are totally separate (except for GEC's bonding) and each tenet pay's his own electric bill.
This has been done this way for many years that I know of and has never been questioned
And if it is wrong. Then how would you propose to do the same Dave. It would be impossible!

 

[websparky]

Re: What's your call?

Wayne,

Here is the difference:

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

A cell tower would fit here.

On the other hand;
Two independant property managements, neither having acces to each others property and structures.

charlie b
Moderator
Member # 27

posted September 01, 2004 03:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if the pole is a ?structure,? you have a total of three items (one structure and two buildings), and two different property managers. So 225.30 would not apply.

[ September 05, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: websparky ]

 

[iwire]

Re: What's your call?

Dave why did you even bother asking the question here?

You had already decided it must fail. Out of all the response you have gotten not one has a code article to back your position.

Yes some response have agreed with your concerns, with comments like bad design etc, but no code language to back it up.

You stated there is one property owner who has a PE designing this. That sounds very much like it is under one management.

Are you telling us the the property owner can not access the tenants electric rooms?

Call me wrong I do not care, I still tried to give you what I thought was a helpful idea about requiring the disconnects to be grouped which in this case would have to be at the pole.

Bob

[ September 05, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[renosteinke]

Re: What's your call?

First of all, the wires serving the pole are "branch circuits," and not "services"- unless someone is going to mount a utility comapny meter there.
Second, the pole -whether you consider it a 'structure,' or not, is a raceway as well. 300-2(c)(1) (1999 NEC) states that conductors of different systems can occupy the same raceway. Since, by mentioning AC and DC together, it is pretty clear that they are talking about circuits with different sources (not from the same panel), it would appear that the light pole can be fed from two different places.
What is required is that each circuit have its' own neutral back to its' panel, and that the two neutrals be identified (200-3, 200-6(d)).


Let's face it: there would be no dispute if the pole contained, say, a 440 v. circuit and a 120 v. circuit- though those obviously come from different panels. I don't believe the NEC cares who pays what part of the electric bill.

I suspect that OSHA rules might require a notice that the pole is supplied from more than one source. OSHA lock out/tag out rules might also be understood to require a common disconnect at the base of the pole as well- but I doubt it.

I say the code allows it.