Residential service question

Status
Not open for further replies.
yucan2

yucan2

Senior Member
Location
Just south of Chicago
CTCOX said:
I'll leave it here, but the there is a difference between OH lines and UG lines. If it went OH to the house, I would say he is code compliant, but since it is UG, I refer back to 230.90. If you can explain around 230.90, I'll agree, but till then....;)
Click to expand...

Here is my shot at explaining around it or trying to decipher it in a way that I can get to the essence of what I think you're saying.

It appears that we all, the OP, forum members and the NEC are for once in agreement, OCP is required. The point of contention seems to be where is that OCP to be located.

You apparently have taken 203.90 to mean that the OCP should be placed directly after the meter fitting. Well, yes and no.

Yes, if you immediately enter the structure from said meter fitting, however, no, if I leave that meter fitting and run 50ft. around to the opposite side of the structure, as an example, and enter there. The disconnect will and must go at my entry point. Yes, I could have set a disconnect before beginning my journey around the structure, but code does not mandate that I have to. My choice. Oh yes, I could also have taken that journey across the yard from my garage to the main house.
 
Last edited:
chris1971

chris1971

Senior Member
Location
Usa
I unserstand having the meter on the same structure and being able to run the wire on the exterior of the home or in a slab to the breaker panel. My question would be: Wouldn't it be different having the meter on the detached garage and then running it underground to the panel in the home? I'm looking at it as two seperate structures. Similiar to having the meter on a pole then feeding a structure?
 
C

CTCOX

Member
Location
Bettendorf, IA
yucan2 said:
Here is my shot at explaining around it or trying to decipher it in a way that I can get to the essence of what I think you're saying.

It appears that we all, the OP, forum members and the NEC are for once in agreement, OCP is required. The point of contention seems to be where is that OCP to be located.

You apparently have taken 203.90 to mean that the OCP should be placed directly after the meter fitting. Well, yes and no.

Yes, if you immediately enter the structure from said meter fitting, however, no, if I leave that meter fitting and run 50ft. around to the opposite side of the structure, as an example, and enter there. The disconnect will and must go at my entry point. Yes, I could have set a disconnect before beginning my journey around the structure, but code does not mandate that I have to. My choice. Oh yes, I could also have taken that journey across the yard from my garage to the main house.
Click to expand...
I see your point, it does not say where the OCP should be placed outside of readily accessible. The rest is opinion... Place the OCPD directly after the meter. Protect the wire, meter, meter base and garage from an URD fault. If the current configuration is grandfathered in, fine, but if you will install an OCPD, have it protect as much as possible.
P.S. I am a POCO guy and I would be talking to the electrician before I approved it, But I would only be there on a new install and not a re-wire.
 
O

One-eyed Jack

Senior Member
Location
Scotland Neck, NC
CTCOX said:
Art. 100 - Service entrance Conductors = Service equip (transformer) to service lateral.
Service lateral = transformer to first point of connection (including meter). After the meter is not a service entrance conductor. Like I said in a previous post, if there is a work around of 230.90 I will agree, OR if your AHJ and POCO will approve it, go for it. Although be aware, if a customer owned cable (after the meter) faults and causes damage to POCO facilities, or even a neighbors facilities, the Home owner could be held responsible. Without a disconnect on the UG lines, there is no protection between Customer owned equipment and the POCO.
Click to expand...

If you will read the def. of service entrance conductors,Underground system you will see that it does in fact include all conductors from SER Equipment to the point of connection to service lateral. This includes the meter enclosure. Lots of people want to say the enclosure is POCO. Not true. If you;the POCO lay claim to the enclosure then YOU are liable for all damages your equipment may cause. That is why you the POCO have the stickers placed in the enclosure that says "CUSTUMER OWNED EQUIPMENT"
 
George Stolz

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
CTCOX, the second set of circuit conductors running to the garage are as protected by the main in that garage as the main in the house is for it's own. 230.90 is complied with, at the main breakers of each building.
 
C

CTCOX

Member
Location
Bettendorf, IA
I think we all finally agree. The Meter base, conduit to the weather head, wire in the weather head and the weather head are customer owned. The wire to the weather head and the meter itself is typically owned by the POCO (rare circumstances otherwise). If there was a main in the garage, it would protect the URD lines to the house, however, the OP, in this circumstance, stated no main after the meter in the garage. The OP stated from the house main, it went back URD (protected) to the garage's sub panel.
 
chris1971

chris1971

Senior Member
Location
Usa
Did I mention the unfused conductors from the meter are in EMT and buried to the house panel. Also, had the city look for permits on this job and they did not see any electrical permits back to 1988. (1988 as far back as the city can go for permits on their computewr system.) However, I believe this installation predates 1988. I'm not saying this installation is acceptable.
 
A/A Fuel GTX

A/A Fuel GTX

Senior Member
Location
WI & AZ
Occupation
Electrician
Dennis Alwon said:
If the entire house were on a slab I could run that PVC under the slab and come up anywhere and install the panel at the nearest point of entry. Entry would be where the PVC exits the slab. I believe-- I am certain-- that will pass with today's code
Click to expand...

I agree. The service entrance conductors under the slab are considered outside of the building.
 
S

satcom

Senior Member
chris1971 said:
Did I mention the unfused conductors from the meter are in EMT and buried to the house panel. Also, had the city look for permits on this job and they did not see any electrical permits back to 1988. (1988 as far back as the city can go for permits on their computewr system.) However, I believe this installation predates 1988. I'm not saying this installation is acceptable.
Click to expand...

If they buried EMT that tells you they din;t have a clue.
 
joebell

joebell

Senior Member
Location
New Hampshire
CTCOX said:
Art. 100 - Service entrance Conductors = Service equip (transformer) to service lateral.
Service lateral = transformer to first point of connection (including meter). After the meter is not a service entrance conductor.
Click to expand...



These are still service entrance conductors, the service equipment is not the transformer it is the equipment that contains the service disconnecting means. The only violation I would consider is the EMT raceway that was installed.
 
mcclary's electrical

mcclary's electrical

Senior Member
Location
VA
joebell said:
These are still service entrance conductors, the service equipment is not the transformer it is the equipment that contains the service disconnecting means. The only violation I would consider is the EMT raceway that was installed.
Click to expand...



Maybe they put asphalt compound on it. 358.10 B
 
Last edited:
joebell

joebell

Senior Member
Location
New Hampshire
mcclary's electrical said:
Maybe they put asphalt compound on it. 358.10 B
Click to expand...


358.10 Uses Permitted.

(B) Corrosion Protection. Ferrous or nonferrous EMT, elbows, couplings, and fittings shall be permitted to be installed in concrete, in direct contact with the earth, or in areas subject to severe corrosive influences where protected by corrosion protection and judged suitable for the condition.



I believe the original poster commented that a permit could not be verified for this install so who who judgeed the corrosive protection suitable for the condition?
 
S

satcom

Senior Member
mcclary's electrical said:
Maybe they put asphalt compound on it. 358.10 B
Click to expand...

You gave me a good laugh this morning, your right, there are some guys that will go thru that much work, thinking they are saving a buck, I have seen them use old paint to coat it also, there is craft work, and then there is butcher work, either way, coated or not, we know they picked the cheap route.
 
S

satcom

Senior Member
jumper said:
I understood what you meant the first time. Never understood why it is legal.
Click to expand...

The code is the min requirement, to comply with, it does not require us to do more then the min, in most cases, some common sense, and experience tells us to do more then the required min, to provide a quality product.
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
CTCOX said:
Let me ask you this, is there a panel in the garage or does it go straight from the meter to the house and then back to the garage on a seperate branch circuit. If this is the case, imagine a cable fault between the meter and the house. What would melt down first, the meter base which is attached to the garage (= possible fire) or the transformer supplying voltage from the POCO (= transformer lid goes boom, oil spill and possible customer responsibility of cost due to customer owned equip.). Check out 230.90 (A). Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

The reason for overcurrent protection on a conductor is to protect the conductor from overload. On a service conductor the only good this does on the supply side is provide some degree of protection to a conductor that may be allowed to carry many times its ampacity where it may enter a building.

It is not there to protect the power company transformer. You can have a 30 amp service if it serves a single load in some cases but it who knows what size transformer the POCO may supply it with if it serves multiple customers.

POCO's usually will have enough protection on their equipment to prevent catastrophic failure as you mentioned.

Many of the single phase pole mounted transformers around here have internal protection.

The times I have seen or heard of a transformer that failed like you say were because POCO employee installed the wrong primary protection either by ignorance or maybe on an outage service call and did not have right fuse on truck so put in what they had and then never changed it later.

If fault is on load side of meter customer paid for energy used during the fault event, if POCO had larger transformer they could have sold more fault event energy;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top