service entrance...

[LEO2854]

Please note the OP says "from the meter..."

This sounds like an installation where there will not be any outside disconnecting means - something that is very likely ammended by the local code.

In a similar manner, it's likely the fire code will want an outside disconnect.

The next step in this discussion will be 'what does the NEC mean by 'nearest' the point of service entry?'

I really don't have much concern over 6" of SER going through the wall to a main disconnect on the other side. I do have an issue with unprotected SER going up the wall, across the ceiling, and down the wall to a panel with six breakers in it.

If he's redoing the service, IMO, he needs to have a disconnect at the meter. Code finesse aside, it's simply stupid to not be able to turn things off without pulling the meter.

The next step in this discussion will be 'what does the NEC mean by 'nearest' the point of service entry?'

For the most part we install a main breaker panel in the basement around here with just a meter socket outside usually it is no more than 8' of unprotected cable going from the meter to the panel.

I agree that it would be better to use a meter main socket instead , but the cost of a main breaker meter socket is much more that just a meter socket.

 

[renosteinke]

While I sympathise with the desire to save money, I fear folks assume too much.

For clarity, though ... the siruation you describe, where the meter is feeding a basement panel directly beneath the meter, the length of unprotected wire is minor. In many building types, it is also enclosed in masonry. The location is such that it's unlikely it will be struck by an errant nail. It's almost the texbook reason for the sloppy wording in the NEC.

Still .... a funny thing happens when you look around. I recently bought a Square D "all in one" panel (meter base, main breaker, and breaker spaces) for a lot less than a Square D "meter main" of similar amperage and fewer breaker spaces. Go figure. (My 100-Amp unit cost me about $50). There's no reason you can't feed other panels from the 'all in one;' mine will take up to 70-amp breakers (according to the listing).

My point here is that the extra cost of having a disconnect at the meter need not be a deal-killer. There are real safety advantages- for the fire department, and to the homeowner. I have met folks who got badly shocked hanging a picture. With the growing prevalence of 'tamper resistant' meter rings, it's doubly important to provide a disconnecting means at the meter.

I didn't really think about this much, until I bought a house whose original service had the unprotected service supplying a panel deep within the house. It seems that defining the "nearest" point was vague enough to render the code requirement simply unenforceable. Add to that the six-breaker rule and there wasn't even a main breaker.

I, for one, don't plan on joining the 'race to the bottom.'

 

[iwire]

While I sympathise with the desire to save money, I fear folks assume too much.

For clarity, though ... the siruation you describe, where the meter is feeding a basement panel directly beneath the meter, the length of unprotected wire is minor. In many building types, it is also enclosed in masonry. The location is such that it's unlikely it will be struck by an errant nail.
'

Please take a trip out to this area before assuming such things.

I would say the vast majority of homes out here have only a meter outside and SE cable running inside to a basement panel. It is not enclosed in masonry.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Please take a trip out to this area before assuming such things.

I would say the vast majority of homes out here have only a meter outside and SE cable running inside to a basement panel. It is not enclosed in masonry.

Plus one for around here. Vast vast majority.
Also I missed the point of getting shocked hanging a picture... What does it have to do with the outside service disco?

 

[renosteinke]

My point about getting shocked, and the connection to the outside disconnect ....

I have seen one example here where a local person was cutting out a damaged section of drywall with a hand saw, and cut into the unfused cable that ran from the meter to the interior panel. This was ceiling drywall, that had been damaged by a roof leak. The person not only got quite a shock, ruined the saw, but was not able to turn off the power at all. He had to wait for the PoCo to respond- which they did, at their convenience. It seems the PoCo did not consider this an 'emergency.'

The house I purchased was built in a similar manner, in 1957. That cable exits the back of the meter can, goes up inside the wall six feet to the attic, across the 10ft wide ceiling, and down another three feet or so to a panel in the bedroom closet (a legal location until the 90's). This bedroom has "Masonite" panelling over drywall, meaning that there are several nails into the area of the cable within the wall. 2x4 frame, it's not that hard for a 2" nail to 'strike gold.'

My point is that walls have two sides- and you can hit any cable from either side of the wall. At least household circuits have some manner of fuse or circuit breaker protection. The service, as described, has nothing to limit the current save the size of the PoCo transformer. I'd like to keep that unprotected length of cable as short as possible- and make is quite difficult to damage. A situation like the one in my house, where there is a good 20ft of such cable inside the house, apalls me.

I mentioned the situation where the panel might be directly behind the meter. Another poster replied "ours are in the basement directly under the meter." I'm quite comfortable using the "nearest" principle for these short, direct runs- but what defines the limits to this reasoning? As evidenced by my house, someone felt 'nearest' was an accurate description for a panel three walls over and across the room.

I do know this: A service change quickly became a priority, and the new service has a disconnect (and overcurrent protection) at the meter. My "unfused" conductors are limited to a couple inches of bussbar within the enclosure, surrounded by that nice steel box. The feed to the panel now goes under the house and is in pipe, with less than 5ft. enclosed within any wall- and has the OCPD at the outside enclosure.

 

[kwired]

Around here most service entrance conductors are in raceways - about any type allowed in NEC, not many SE cable unless an old installation, SE cable is permitted you just don't see it much.

As far as hitting service conductors in the wall - that probably will not happen unless maybe it is an old installation.

Service conductors must hit an overcurrent device at the point nearest entrance into the building (or however NEC states this - pretty close) State Electrical Division has determined that point will not be more than 5 feet of conductor inside the building, some local jurisdictions have even said it will be 3 feet. You will not run inside a wall very far if limited to 5 feet or less service conductor inside the building. If you encase it in 2 inches of concrete it is considered outside - but you are using a pretty big hammer and nail if you hit that while hanging a picture - or powder shot nails.

 

[sii]

Going back about a page.....you definitely want to take the class before the exam. It's all questions straight from one version or another of the test (I think there's four or five versions of the EC test). During the test you'll encounter several questions that you covered in the class and can answer quickly. That leaves more time for the harder questions.

They stay very "on topic" and it really helps alot.

 

[Rock Crusher]

Thanks for all the input and advice.
I've had my JW License for almost a year and got laid-off just after I got it. I figured out, as a first year cub, that being a contractor is where it's at. As a JW, I can't pull permits or anything that people around here are wanting. So, I have to wait until I get my contractors license. Lots of work here, just can't do it yet.:ashamed1: