What's your call?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: What's your call?

It seems 210.25 adresses this issue for a dwelling unit.Why wasn't this adressed for a nondwelling instance?
 
Re: What's your call?

IMO 225.10 would not apply here even if this was a dwelling unit we where discussing.

210.25 Common Area Branch Circuits.
Branch circuits in dwelling units shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit. Branch circuits required for the purpose of lighting, central alarm, signal, communications, or other needs for public or common areas of a two-family or multifamily dwelling shall not be supplied from equipment that supplies an individual dwelling unit.
Click to expand...
The light would only be associated with the tenant that is suppling it.
 
Re: What's your call?

which is exactly my point, the restraunt owned the light pole originally not both.
 
Re: What's your call?

correction the light pole was fed from the restraunt originally if the bank came in after the fact.
 
Re: What's your call?

Branch circuits required for the purpose of lighting , central alarm, signal, communications, or other needs for public or common areas of a two-family or multifamily dwelling shall not be supplied from equipment that supplies an individual dwelling unit.
 
Re: What's your call?

ot oh, got trigger happy.
what I meant is if that 3 lamp light was installed in a common area, IMO it would be a violation.

needs for public or common areas of a two-family or multifamily dwelling
Click to expand...
this statement talks about the dwelling. Not about the land around it.
 
Re: What's your call?

right again,that way you have access to the branch circuit disconnecting means without the need to enter the space of another tenant.like it should be
 
Re: What's your call?

Volt101 I was certain that I could feed common space lighting from the tenant panels. After reading your highlighted post I was surprised. :)


Massachusetts Electrical Code.
210.25. Add an exception as follows:
Exception: Branch circuits supplying lighting outlets in common areas on the same floor as a dwelling unit in a new or existing two-family or an existing three-family building shall be permitted to be supplied from equipment that supplies one or more of those dwelling units.
Click to expand...

[ September 01, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: What's your call?

210.25 does not allow common area lighting to be fed from an individual dwelling unit.it must be fed from a house load panelboard.unless a light fixture was installed outside just for a particular dwelling unit,then no other feed from another dwelling unit could enter it.much like the pole light in question.but these rules do not apply to non dwelling installations.
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by jap2525:
210.25 does not allow common area lighting to be fed from an individual dwelling unit.it must be fed from a house load panelboard.
Click to expand...
I agree, I see that in the NEC now. I was just used to MEC rules which allow me to do so. :D

Back to Websparkys original question IMO it is allowed by the NEC by virtue of it not being prohibited. I also do not see this as much of a danger, I often work on site poles that have multiple voltages and circuits running through them. Yes, generally these circuits originate in the same panel or at least the same electric room. ;)

If you open the hand hole and pull out anymore than three wirenuts you should be thinking that you have more than one disconnect to consider.

JMO, Bob
 
Re: What's your call?

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for your input!

My call call is it would be a violation.
Here is where I'm coming from:

Article 100
Service. The conductors and equipment for delivering electric energy from the serving utility to the wiring system of the premises served.
Structure. That which is built or constructed.

230.2 Number of Services.
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.
Click to expand...
The structure is the pole. The structure is permitted to be supplied by ONE service only.

If this wasn't enough, please read below.

ARTICLE 225 Outside Branch Circuits and Feeders
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 electric equipment and wiring for the supply of utilization equipment that is located on or attached to the outside of buildings, structures, or poles.

II. More Than One Building or Other Structure
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 served that is on the load side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied by 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.
Click to expand...
Even if this was on the same property AND under single management, the structure still is not allowed to be supplied by more than ONE feeder or branch circuit.

My call, NO WAY!

Thanks,
 
Re: What's your call?

Hi Dave I think you nailed it with 230.2 that seems very clear and I stand corrected that there was noting to prevent this installation.
:eek: :D

I think 225.30(D) takes 230.30 out of the picture for site poles.

(D) Different Characteristics. Additional feeders or branch circuits shall be permitted for different voltages, frequencies, or phases or for different uses, such as control of outside lighting from multiple locations.

You don't need it anyway. :cool:

Bob
 
Re: What's your call?

1.This pole is a sructure
2. it is not large enough to quailfy for more than one service.
I might be wrong in my thinking but i see the 2 other buildings as basically a source of power no differant than a power company.
No way could i allow this,the risk is far to great to a maybe somewhat less than 100 % alert or unsuspecting electrician.
Why not just have its calculated use figured out and let the other one pay half.Gotta be cheaper this way than paying for rewire
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave,
How does Article 230 enter into this question. The conductors feeding the light pole are either feeders or branch circuit, not service conductors. If there is no utility service to the pole, Article 230 does not apply. The premises wiring starts at the service point which would not be at the pole. The pole is a structure and you could apply 222.30, but if one set of lights is 120 and the other 240, then 225.30(D) would permit the installation. Exception 3 to 225.32 removes the requirement for a disconnect at the pole.
Don
 
Re: What's your call?

Hi Don,

How does it not apply? The pole and the conductors in it are part of the premises wiring system. The definition of "service" states that a service delivers energy to the premises wiring system.

If there were a premise that actually had more than one service, and you were trouble shooting a piece of equipment, would you not want to know "which service" was supplying power to the equipment as opposed to just which branch circuit or feeder? The point is, when there is more than one source of power there are special rules. None of the rules permit more than one source of power to feed one piece of equipment that is not designed or listed to operate or be installed in that manner.

Don't you agree that 230 and 225 are in harmony?
Take a look at 225.30 (A) and (B) and
compare them to 230.2 (A) and (B).
The are basically word for word.
 
Re: What's your call?

Originally posted by iwire: Charlie B I do not understand how we are going to raise the voltage through a high impedance fault. . . . can you explain it in a different way?
Click to expand...
It?s hard without a picture. Normal current flow is from the panel, via a breaker, via the hot leg, to the light, via the cold leg, back to the source. There is also an EGC that connects to the case (i.e., light pole) to the panel, via the bonding jumper to the neutral, and thus to the source. This situation has two such circuits, and has the two EGCs connected to the same point at the light pole. Please note that the two breaker panels need not be from the same utility source, and certainly need not be from the same phase.

Now consider a short circuit within one side (i.e., from one hot leg to the pole). If it is a direct short, the current from the hot to the pole, via the EGC to the panel, via the bonding jumper to the neutral, would be enough to trip the breaker. Let?s suppose there is some resistance in the short circuit path, so that the total current flow (normal current through the lamp plus short circuit current via the EGC) is not enough to trip the breaker.

There will be some voltage at the point of connection to the pole. How much voltage will depend on the length and size of the EGC. That voltage, whatever it is, will be impressed along the other circuit?s EGC, back to the other building?s main panel, via the bonding jumper to the other building?s neutral, and there be placed in parallel with current returning to the other panel via the other neutral wires. So current will flow from the fault point toward both buildings.

I strongly suspect that the current and voltage values will be too small to create a safety risk, and that this is just an academic exercise. Still, I would call this a bad design, whether code compliant or not.

Did that help?
 
Re: What's your call?

Dave,
The definition of "service" states that a service delivers energy to the premises wiring system.
Click to expand...
The "service" stops where the premises wiring system starts. Article 230 stops where the premises wiring starts.
Premises Wiring (System). That interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed, that extends from the service point or source of power, such as a battery, a solar photovoltaic system, or a generator, transformer, or converter windings, to the outlet(s). Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment.
Click to expand...
Service Point. The point of connection between the facilities of the serving utility and the premises wiring.
Click to expand...
The rules in 225 and 230 are parallel, but Article 230 applies to the service and Article 225 to the premises wiring system. If both sets of fixtures are of the same voltage, then you can cite a violation of 225.30, however if the contractor or engineer is sharp, he or she can take advantage of 225.30(D) and make an installation is in compliance with the NEC rules.
None of the rules permit more than one source of power to feed one piece of equipment that is not designed or listed to operate or be installed in that manner.
If there were a premise that actually had more than one service, and you were trouble shooting a piece of equipment, would you not want to know "which service" was supplying power to the equipment as opposed to just which branch circuit or feeder?
Click to expand...
When it comes to a question like this, it is not a matter or what you or I want, it is only a matter of what the code rule says.
Don

[ September 01, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
Click to expand...
 
Re: What's your call?

This is a tough call. The NEC does not account for all kinds of installations that can occur, this one probably being a very good example.

This is in my opinion one of the uses and reasons that 90.4 has been written.
The AHJ has to make a determination based on what he sees at the job site, and his experience in the industry.

My opinion, based on what has been explained, is this should not be permitted.
1. Two different sources of power, from two different buildings (services).
2. No proper labeling of conductors as to which system each comes from.

Pierre
 
Re: What's your call?

I think as was said this could be made safe and allowable if let's say two lockable disconnects was used and permanently identified.
This would be no different from a lease space towers where each tenant would have his own service for the equipment on the tower that feeds from each tennent's equipment shack. I'm sure Dereck has run into this one. But the main concern is to make sure there is lockable disconnects and that each disconnect and associated wiring is identified to which service it is fed from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top