9 service disconnects?

[jaggedben]

So what do they mean by single building or other structure. This shopping building is 1 building but consists of multiple "structures" based off multiple lease spaces that each have their own address and firewall barriers.

It's possible you have multiple buildings at your structure, under the firewall part of the definition. But the service allowed for each one would have to go to the separate building locations. You cannot have the multiple services all at one location that is at a 'building' that is only allowed one service. And they would have to be actual services, connected separately to the utility, not extra sets of service entrance conductors.

 

[electrofelon]

But exception #1 requires that you are permitted to have more than one service under 230.2, which you don't. Also, note that the occupancy related section of 230.2 starts with 'By special permission', implying that you need prior review and approval from the AHJ, you can't just show them the book at your first inspection. Unless the person you are working for has gotten that, you're on thin ice here, in my opinion.

That is not how I read exception #1 JB. Frankly, I am not understanding your interpretation in post #60 at all.

 

[texie]

It's possible you have multiple buildings at your structure, under the firewall part of the definition. But the service allowed for each one would have to go to the separate building locations. You cannot have the multiple services all at one location that is at a 'building' that is only allowed one service. And they would have to be actual services, connected separately to the utility, not extra sets of service entrance conductors.

I agree. Townhomes are a good example of this.

 

[wwhitney]

That is not how I read exception #1 JB. Frankly, I am not understanding your interpretation in post #60 at all.

jaggedben convinced me. The key part of exception #1 I overlooked is the part "one set of service-entrance conductors for each service,
as defined in 230.2." So if 230.2 doesn't allow multiple services, you can't use exception #1.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

Hmm, I have (6) 100A meters/disconnects, (1) 400A Panel with Main and 320 meter, (1) 200A Panel with Main and meter, lastly (1) meter/house panel with main.

The meter/house panel is allowed its own set of service entrance conductors under 230.40 Ex 4. And the service can also supply 2-6 service disconnecting means under 230.40 Ex 2. That gets you up to 7 disconnects (in which case the house meter/panel disconnect could not be grouped with the other six), but not to 9.

So you'll need to eliminate at least 2 service disconnects, e.g. by putting 3 meters on one disconnect, or making two pairs of meters, each with one disconnect, or something like that. And if you want them all grouped together, you'll have to eliminate 3 disconnects.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

Going back to the drawing in post#1, I would insert a disconnect between the tap box and the gutter on the right side. That would reduce your service disconnects to 4 and end all amibiguity about whether it's valid under code. I assume that bank on the right are a group of apartments and the others are commercial spaces and such, so it seems like it would make the most sense, although code-wise it doesn't matter how you whittle down the number.

 

[electrofelon]

jaggedben convinced me. The key part of exception #1 I overlooked is the part "one set of service-entrance conductors for each service,
as defined in 230.2." So if 230.2 doesn't allow multiple services, you can't use exception #1.

Cheers, Wayne

The way I read that, it is just saying you can have a set of service entrance conductors run to each occupancy from each service (if you have multiple services).

 

[kwired]

To me those are all "grouped in one location.". To me, "grouped in one location" doesn't mean you can have, say, 9 all equidistant from each other and then just arbitrarily chunk it up into different groups. But I guess someone else could argue if the dividing wall of the occupancy splits it into two groups you're good.

I'll just say if you going to call that two locations you at least need a plaque at each location telling where the other service locations are

 

[kwired]

It's possible you have multiple buildings at your structure, under the firewall part of the definition. But the service allowed for each one would have to go to the separate building locations. You cannot have the multiple services all at one location that is at a 'building' that is only allowed one service. And they would have to be actual services, connected separately to the utility, not extra sets of service entrance conductors.

If POCO chooses to use one larger transformer to supply all of this ....most you can do is multiple runs to it

 

[kwired]

The way I read that, it is just saying you can have a set of service entrance conductors run to each occupancy from each service (if you have multiple services).

but exception 1 also has "or group of occupancies" embedded in it also (2017 code anyway)

 

[wwhitney]

The way I read that, it is just saying you can have a set of service entrance conductors run to each occupancy from each service (if you have multiple services).

Agreed, but you still need permission to have multiple services under 230.2 to be able to use 230.40 Ex 1. So what category under 230.2 allows more than one service for the OP? If it were 230.2(B)(1) or (2), I would assume the OP would know that the special permission had been secured.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JasonCo]

Just hypothetically speaking, for learning purposes. What if this location did allow for two services. Would I have to run two separate underground service laterals or can I just run 1 service lateral into the tap box and hard pipe over to a different portion of the building's back wall to install the other service?

 

[kwired]

Just hypothetically speaking, for learning purposes. What if this location did allow for two services. Would I have to run two separate underground service laterals or can I just run 1 service lateral into the tap box and hard pipe over to a different portion of the building's back wall to install the other service?

kind of comes back to what I was getting at early in the thread, might depend on if the tap box belongs to POCO or owner.

Similar yet different, what if POCO moves transformer to tap box location and all connections are made up in transformer? Also many real world situations (though usually in residential neighborhoods) where they have pole top transformer with one set of conductors to a pedestal/tap box from which they then supply multiple customers. But that tap box is usually not subject to NEC and is controlled by POCO. What leaves for conductors may or may not be subject to NEC, all depends where the "service point" is in that installation.

I think in any similar situation there needs to be meetings and agreements between POCO, AHJ, and installer. I think NEC is pretty flexible in situation like this thread is about, but at same time I think needs to be some consistency in a particular jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is going to accept one way but not another they need to be consistent with it in all similar installations.

 

[wwhitney]

What if this location did allow for two services. Would I have to run two separate underground service laterals or can I just run 1 service lateral into the tap box and hard pipe over to a different portion of the building's back wall to install the other service?

My first question would be how 230.40 Ex 1 can be combined with 230.40 Ex 2. As 230.40 Ex 1 would allow two sets of service entrance conductors for the two services, I would think that one of those sets could be replaced with 2-6 sets under 230.40 Ex 2. That gets you to 7 sets. Can 230.40 Ex 2 be applied to each service separately, to allow up to 12 sets of service entrance conductors on a single underground lateral for a building that is allowed 2 services under 230.2?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

My first question would be how 230.40 Ex 1 can be combined with 230.40 Ex 2. As 230.40 Ex 1 would allow two sets of service entrance conductors for the two services, I would think that one of those sets could be replaced with 2-6 sets under 230.40 Ex 2. That gets you to 7 sets. Can 230.40 Ex 2 be applied to each service separately, to allow up to 12 sets of service entrance conductors on a single underground lateral for a building that is allowed 2 services under 230.2?

Cheers, Wayne

230.2 basically tells us for exception 2 that conductors that originate at same supply end point but end at different points at the load end are considered one set, those still need to end up in a grouped location per allowed service as a general rule.

 

[JasonCo]

kind of comes back to what I was getting at early in the thread, might depend on if the tap box belongs to POCO or owner.

If customer owns the tap box, then the service point would be at the tap box, which is what you're saying. The customer also owns the wire and raceway going up the weather head at the pole mounted transformer. This raceway and wire is installed and payed for by the property owner. Any future damages or expenses are payed for by the owner, not POCO. The owner owns this. So would this not mean that the service point would possibly be at the spiced wires at the weather head? Making this one service with 9 service disconnects.

 

[jaggedben]

It's been clear from your very first description that the service point is either at the tap box or upstream of it, and that you have too many service discos. Also, to repeat, having too many services is just a different code violation, and not a solution.

 

[JasonCo]

Alright thanks for the help. Sometimes I feel like my brain is running on 4 RAM while others are running on 8 haha. I do apologize for the 4 pages of somewhat repeated questions, I just had a hard time wrapping my mind around particular exceptions and certain qualifying conditions depending on the circumstance. All is good now, thanks for your help and everyone here that did chip in. I can sometimes test people's patience, believe me I am aware! I'm a new Journeyman so hopefully the more I get into the book the better I will start to understand the terminologies and wording of the code. I just bought Volume 1 and 2 of Mike Holt's 2020 Understanding the National Electrical Code, just received it, I'm feeling a bit more optimistic now haha.

 

[JasonCo]

Just cracked the book open. Found this interesting photo inside. Thought I'd share it.

 

[jaggedben]

Just cracked the book open. Found this interesting photo inside. Thought I'd share it.

View attachment 2556518

Yes, so they split the service into three separate drops. But note that each mast has a disconnect before power is distributed to the meters. So there are only three service disconnects.