# NEC Article 230 Number of Sevices



## texasbo (Apr 28, 2011)

Would appreciate help from you guys.

Article 230, allows only one service per building, with exceptions.

It is not uncommon for us to have a multi-tenant building, each with their own service, which is allowed as one of the exceptions. However, our electrical department has always required services to be combined when a single tenant removes the tenant separation wall to combine two spaces into one.

A similar case is in the historic downtown area, where a single tenant removes a fire wall (or two exterior walls) to combine two buildings into a single building.

Time and time again, we are told that nobody else has this requirement, but to me it's black and white.

Are we incorrectly interpreting this section?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## RJJ (Apr 28, 2011)

That is the way I enforce it! When it becomes one space it has one service.

This issue come up all the time.

There are a few condition listed in  that make an  second service necessary.  listed in 230.2 a to d


----------



## peach (Apr 28, 2011)

Of COURSE no one else has the requirement... that's always the case.

Occassionally one of the exceptions works, but rarely will the BO buy it.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 29, 2011)

Thanks so much for the responses RJJ and Peach.

Peach: yes, I'm aware of the exceptions, but the question was, if it doesn't meet the exceptions, are other departments requiring services to be combined when 2 or more tenant spaces are combined into one.


----------



## Bryan Holland (Apr 29, 2011)

Considerable substantiation would be required by the building department I work for to give speical permission to install / allow more than one service at a building or structure. The NEC (230.2) identifies several reasons [(A)-(D)] when additional services would be permitted, other than those, you may be hard press to prove why it is needed...

The NEC is rather silent on your specific case.  It would more likely be something that needs be addressed in a property maintenance code / local ordinance.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 29, 2011)

Bryan Holland said:
			
		

> ...The NEC is rather silent on your specific case.  It would more likely be something that needs be addressed in a property maintenance code / local ordinance.


Bryan, thanks for your input. Could you talk a little more about this last sentence?

Since the NEC allows multiple services for multiple tenant buildings, it implies that each tenant could have their own service. However, it doesn't specifically prohibit a tenant from having more than one service in that case. is that what you're saying? Thankjs again.


----------



## Bryan Holland (Apr 29, 2011)

What I mean is that the NEC doesn't have language which details what you do when you have two services on a two occupancy building that is converted to one occupant.  The code is not retroactive in that way...

So, it would be weird to require an existing service to be removed from service based on an NEC requirement, becuase one doesn't exist!


----------



## texasbo (Apr 29, 2011)

OK, keep playing with me here, because I'm very, very weak in the NEC.

Let's say there is a single building, with two tenants. They each have a sparate service as allowed by 230.2. Everything is legal.

Now, one tenant moves out, and a permit application is submitted to remove the tenant separation wall to create a single tenant building. However, now the two services are not legal. Are you saying that I can't call this a violation per the NEC?

Thanks again for walking me through this.


----------



## Min&Max (Apr 29, 2011)

I would not require the second service to be removed. Seems a little overbearing when the tenant may be gone in six monthes and you once again have two tenants.


----------



## FredK (Apr 29, 2011)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> I would not require the second service to be removed. Seems a little overbearing when the tenant may be gone in six monthes and you once again have two tenants.


I never looked at it that way either.

As long as the tenant wants to pay for two services to the utility, I'm agreeable if they want to combine the service to one that's an even better option, but not my call.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 29, 2011)

Min&max, Fred: how do you reconcile your answers with Article 230.2, which allows only one electrical service per building, and none of the exceptions are met to allow more than one? I understand from a practical standpoint you may be ok with it. However, from a code standpoint how would you justify it? What I'm looking for are actual NEC provisions that either allow or prohibit it, and so far all I've found is prohibition. Again, I appreciate the participation.


----------



## north star (Apr 29, 2011)

*& & & &*

From the 2008 NEC, Article 90.2© will allow it!

*"Article 90.2© Special Permission.* The authority having jurisdiction

for enforcing this _Code _may grant exception for the installation

of conductors and equipment that are not under the exclusive

control of the electric utilities and are used to connect the

electric utility supply system to the service entrance conductors

of the premises served, provided such installations are outside

a building or terminate immediately inside a building wall."

In some cases in this AHJ, the bldg. owner does not want to go to the

expense of removing existing feeder conductors, panels, etc. just to

expand a tenant space, AND, in order to make the potential agreement

attractive to the tenant space leasee, we will allow the CT meter to

be removed and any conductors to be disconnected or otherwise made

safe WHILE being left in their original exterior panel box.....The costs to

connect the additional space, and it's various electrical components,

being absorbed is the price of doing business in that tenant space.

It CAN be done!....The costs to do it are always to be considered first,

BEFORE applying for a bldg. permit!


FWIW, around here, ...there are some excellent Commercial electrical

contractors who would be happy to connect the additonal tenant space

to the existing tenant space, ...in a compliant manner....The costs to do

this is what "kills the deal" sometimes!
​*& & & &*
​


----------



## chris kennedy (Apr 29, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Article 230, allows only one service per building, with exceptions.


Agreed



> It is not uncommon for us to have a multi-tenant building, each with their own service


This is where I see a great deal of confusion as to the definition of the word "service". Tex, you didn't give details of the service involved here. Would it be;A) POCO service entrance conductors hit a main disconnect then a line gutter that serves multiple tenant meters and discos?

B) POCO service entrance conductors hit line gutter that serves multiple tenant meters and discos?

If A then your service ends at the main disco and a tenant can have as many POCO cash registers as the design requires.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 29, 2011)

North star, chris; good input! What I am talking about in this case are two separate overhead services, two separate meters, and two separate disconnects serving a single building. If I understand what you're both saying (remember, I am really weak with NEC), you would allow a single service conductor with a gutter to serve multiple panels/meters. I completely agree and allow it all the time. We suggest they remove one overhead/underground service, but keep all existing equipment at the back of the building and feed it from the panel behind the space where the service is. Basically, everything remains the same, except one main panel is fed from another. I have no problem whatsoever with that. If the FD kills the service, they kill everything in the building/tenant space.  Really appreciate it guys.


----------



## RJJ (May 3, 2011)

Texasbo: Just has this issue yesterday. The electrical contractor says they allow this second service in other AHJ's to remain. I could have guessed that was coming.

Our decision is base on 230. 2008 NEC. None of the exceptions applied.

Besides the language given in the section for services under 230.1 & 230.2 the heart of the matter is contained in 90.5 Mandatory Rules.(A)

Both 90.5 and 230 have a shall clause contained and that creates a mandatory command for code application.

I can agree with Bryon that code doesn't state that an existing service needs removal, but it clearly states that only one service can be present.


----------



## texasbo (May 4, 2011)

Thanks RJJ, and thanks to everyone who responded.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 23, 2011)

I have one owner and two spaces with two separate services. One service is new. Now here is the issue. The one occupancy is a restaurant and the adjoining one is a banquet facility. They want door to adjoin the two areas by a door way. The wall separating them is 1hr and sprinklered. To qualify for the two services none of the exceptions apply unless one uses 230.2 (b) (1) or maybe © (3) any thoughts.


----------



## north star (Sep 26, 2011)

** * * **

RJJ,

Article 230.2, ©(3) is the "catch all phrase" that allows a lot of

AHJ's to install whatever they want to......I do not agree with it

and am not in favor of installing / allowing multiple meters at one

location / building.

That said, ...recently, we had a Comm. remodeling project where the

existing tenant expanded their space by incorporating an existing

[ vacant ] tenant space next door......They had 4 separate meters

before the remodeling project....They still do!.....The current

protocol here is to allow these type of "multi-meter" services to

remain..........It is "politically" more agreeable to allow them to

remain than to require the tenant; whether new or existing, to

remove & rework the wiring systems... that is considered "cost

prohibitive".

** * * **


----------



## beach (Sep 26, 2011)

> I have one owner and two spaces with two separate services. One service is new. Now here is the issue. The one occupancy is a restaurant and the adjoining one is a banquet facility. They want door to adjoin the two areas by a door way. The wall separating them is 1hr and sprinklered. To qualify for the two services none of the exceptions apply unless one uses 230.2 (b) (1) or maybe © (3) any thoughts.


RJJ, if they used "approved fire doors" between the two spaces per the definition of "Building" in the NEC it may work assuming that the walls separating the units are true "Fire walls"


----------



## jj1289 (Sep 26, 2011)

Generally we would also allow the second service to remain, but would require labels identifieing the locaiton of the other service main disconnect.  The only time we would require the services to be combined is if they were rewiring the space.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 26, 2011)

Beach & North Star / JJ: I am thinking the same. Problem is that the IBC does not call for it in a sprinklered building. So does the NEC trump the IBC or is it just my call. NorthStar I agree when you read through the whole section and the definition section you basically can do what ever you want.


----------



## beach (Sep 26, 2011)

RJJ, Since the question pertains to strictly electrical...... I would stick with the definition in the NEC.


----------



## Frank (Sep 27, 2011)

We require the ungrouped services to be combined per the NEC


----------



## north star (Sep 27, 2011)

** * * **





> "So does the NEC trump the IBC or is it just my call."


From the '06 IBC,*Section 102.1 - GENERAL:*

"Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials,

methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement,

the specific requirement shall be applicable."



From *Section 102.4 Referenced codes and standards. *

The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the

requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference.

Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes

and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.

I would apply "the most restrictive shall govern", ...if allowed to!

** * * **


----------

