Are Service risers allowed in-wall in your area?

[jumper]

I have not done it nor have I seen it, but I had a meeting with inspector today and he said he would pass it and it is accepted by him and POCO. So I dunno. Yes I guess.

Dominion Power VA, Southern VA.

 

[Mgraw]

I have not seen in the wall risers. It is common around here for through the overhang risers. I have not seen SE cable either. Four POCOs in the area, LUS, Slemco. Cleco, and Entergy. Didn,t see anything in their drawings that would allow in the wall risers.

 

[Buck Parrish]

No for me excluding a rare 'through the roof' mast installation.
__________________
Or contained under (behind) 2" or more of concrete.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Yes for me. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and also Southern California Edison and I know that San Diego Gas and Electric allows it.

 

[pete m.]

So for overhead you must now run exposed, correct?

Correct. The mast is permitted to penetrate the eave and pass directly through if necessary but the remainder is exposed.

Pete

 

[mcclary's electrical]

I've never done it. But I believe it's allowed here, because I've seen several done that way. All seemed to be from the 60's and 70's era. Two reasons I think it would not be allowed now,

1) unprotected conductors
2) very easy to "steal" power

 

[mxslick]

I've never done it. But I believe it's allowed here, because I've seen several done that way. All seemed to be from the 60's and 70's era. Two reasons I think it would not be allowed now,

1) unprotected conductors
2) very easy to "steal" power

Point one is one I was about to disagree with, but it could mean one of two things and I think you're referring to "not fused" in this case. :grin:

Point two, although valid, is a POCO/design issue and not a Code issue.

Keep 'em coming guys, several states have yet to chime in.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

Point one is one I was about to disagree with, but it could mean one of two things and I think you're referring to "not fused" in this case. :grin:

Point two, although valid, is a POCO/design issue and not a Code issue.

Keep 'em coming guys, several states have yet to chime in.

yes, I meant unfused.

 

[paul]

WA state...allowed!

 

[hurk27]

In looking at this diagram I see for surface mount they require 5/16th" U-bolts How in the world do you ever replace or upgrade a service installed like this??? do they really think this will stop a large oak tree from bringing down this service???
With this install not only will they have to replace the service, but they will have to rebuild the whole back wall of the house:roll:

PVC on gables for me, tree comes down pulls insulator off, pulls PVC off which breaks off just above meter, leaving male adapter in to protect conductors from shorting out, I come out glue new male adapter back on and reinstall riser, and insulator, and done and power back on in 20-40 minutes, homeowner happy, utility happy, me happy with check in pocket.:grin:

 

[gndrod]

WA state...allowed!

Good details from WA L&I code. As far as local POCO's...Puget Power, Seattle Light, Tacoma Power all follow the State requirement. In the city jurisdictions, WA AHJ's require protective conduit as does OR, CA, and NV as opposed to exposed SE cabling for residential Service installs. There are rural exceptions.

 

[iwire]

WA state...allowed!

I have to point out that this does not mean the AHJ has to accept it. It only means that the power company will accept it.

The AHJ could accept it as they do in CA or they could refuse to accept it based on 230.70(A)(1).

 

[acrwc10]

I have to point out that this does not mean the AHJ has to accept it. It only means that the power company will accept it.

The AHJ could accept it as they do in CA or they could refuse to accept it based on 230.70(A)(1).

This is a VERY important thing to remember in all jurisdictions, they building official is the one who interprets the code in that area. This sometimes is to our advantage, sometimes not.
90.4 Enforcement.
This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
The NEC is a "model code" what that means is, it is not code until a jurisdiction adopts it. Or writes their own code using the NEC as a "Model" to form their code from. In Ca. we have the CEC (one of the 7 or so books that make up "title 24" the Ca. building code) it is basically the NEC with minor changes. Some states use the NEC without changes.

 

[paul]

I have to point out that this does not mean the AHJ has to accept it. It only means that the power company will accept it.

The AHJ could accept it as they do in CA or they could refuse to accept it based on 230.70(A)(1).

Taken from our WA State codes:


296.46B.230.070 Service equipment - disconnecting means.

(10) In addition to the requirements of NEC 230.70(A), service equipment, subpanels, and similar electrical equipment must be installed so that they are readily accessible and may not be installed in clothes closets, toilet rooms, or shower rooms. All indoor service equipment and subpanel equipment must have adequate working space and be adequately illuminated.

(11) The service disconnecting means must be installed at a readily accessible location in accordance with (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(a) Outside location: Service disconnecting means will be permitted on the building or structure or within sight and within fifteen feet of the building or structure served. The building disconnecting means may supply only one building/structure. The service disconnecting means must have an identification plate with one-half-inch high letters identifying:

(i) The building/structure served; and

(ii) Its function as the building/structure main service disconnect(s).

(b) Inside location: When the service disconnecting means is installed inside the building or structure, it must be located so that the service raceway extends no more than fifteen feet inside the building/structure.

 

[mxslick]

Taken from our WA State codes:


296.46B.230.070 Service equipment - disconnecting means.

(10) In addition to the requirements of NEC 230.70(A), service equipment, subpanels, and similar electrical equipment must be installed so that they are readily accessible and may not be installed in clothes closets, toilet rooms, or shower rooms. All indoor service equipment and subpanel equipment must have adequate working space and be adequately illuminated.

(11) The service disconnecting means must be installed at a readily accessible location in accordance with (a) or (b) of this subsection.

(a) Outside location: Service disconnecting means will be permitted on the building or structure or within sight and within fifteen feet of the building or structure served. The building disconnecting means may supply only one building/structure. The service disconnecting means must have an identification plate with one-half-inch high letters identifying:

(i) The building/structure served; and

(ii) Its function as the building/structure main service disconnect(s).

(b) Inside location: When the service disconnecting means is installed inside the building or structure, it must be located so that the service raceway extends no more than fifteen feet inside the building/structure.

That's a bingo!!

That's how to interpret the Code correctly. 230.70(A) specifically addresses the location of the disconnect, not how the conductors reach it.

And they have the common sense to specifically set a finite limit on the length of the conductors within the structure. Which is something I agree is necessary as the shorter the length of service conductors inside, the less risk of hazards.

Still quite a few locations to hear from, keep 'em coming.

The split is a lot closer than I though it would be .....very interesting.