Utility Contractor Installing Parking Lot Lighting

[San -Brooke]

The local utility is offering service to customers to install parking lot lighting. They are responsible for the installation of direct buried metal poles, they provide power and assume responsibility for general maintenance and charging a monthly flat fee. The problem is they are providing power by coming off a transformer on the pole and installing a locked disconnecting means and then feeding the lighting underground with a hot and neutral only and then driving a ground rod at each pole and running a #6 bare cu to the lug at the handhole from the ground rod. They are not getting an electrical inspection nor do they have a licensed electrician on site to supervise the installation in accordance with State Law. Since they are a utility they feel they are exempt from all of this.

Your thoughts?

 

[Hv&Lv]

The local utility is offering service to customers to install parking lot lighting. They are responsible for the installation of direct buried metal poles, they provide power and assume responsibility for general maintenance and charging a monthly flat fee. The problem is they are providing power by coming off a transformer on the pole and installing a locked disconnecting means and then feeding the lighting underground with a hot and neutral only and then driving a ground rod at each pole and running a #6 bare cu to the lug at the handhole from the ground rod. They are not getting an electrical inspection nor do they have a licensed electrician on site to supervise the installation in accordance with State Law. Since they are a utility they feel they are exempt from all of this.

Your thoughts?

They forgot to read the 1996 NEC.

 

[ceb58]

The local utility is offering service to customers to install parking lot lighting. They are responsible for the installation of direct buried metal poles, they provide power and assume responsibility for general maintenance and charging a monthly flat fee. The problem is they are providing power by coming off a transformer on the pole and installing a locked disconnecting means and then feeding the lighting underground with a hot and neutral only and then driving a ground rod at each pole and running a #6 bare cu to the lug at the handhole from the ground rod. They are not getting an electrical inspection nor do they have a licensed electrician on site to supervise the installation in accordance with State Law. Since they are a utility they feel they are exempt from all of this.

Your thoughts?

If they are a utility company more than likely they are exempt from your state laws. Here the utility will run 12-2 uf from the line side of the meter base to a pole light. No OCP, no disco, no problem because the NEC doesn't govern them.

 

[jeremysterling]

I saw some two-wire parking lot lighting in pvc conduit get hit by a back-hoe last month. When the utility rep arrived, he knew it was theirs because it was two-wire. The only disconnect would have been the cutout to the pole mount transformers for the building's service. There were in-line fuse holders in the hand-holes adjacent to the poles.

An issue that came to light is that a "call-before-you-dig" was made and these utility-owned and maintained lines were never marked.

 

[Little Bill]

If they are a utility company more than likely they are exempt from your state laws. Here the utility will run 12-2 uf from the line side of the meter base to a pole light. No OCP, no disco, no problem because the NEC doesn't govern them.

I was asked to add a receptacle to a pole light in a parking lot. They said they had one on another pole and wanted one on the other end of the parking lot.

When I went to the parking lot to see how the other receptacle had been installed, I had to refuse to do it.

There was only a 12-2 UF cable run to the lights and was spliced in the hand hole to feed other lights. Someone had tapped into that splice and put in the receptacle.

I told them even though they had used a GFCI recep that it was still dangerous as there was no ground and no OCPD. All the GFCI would do is protect anything downstream from it.

Also found out the POCO owned/maintained the lights, and running a recep off them would be "stealing" power!:jawdrop:

 

[kwired]

The local utility is offering service to customers to install parking lot lighting. They are responsible for the installation of direct buried metal poles, they provide power and assume responsibility for general maintenance and charging a monthly flat fee. The problem is they are providing power by coming off a transformer on the pole and installing a locked disconnecting means and then feeding the lighting underground with a hot and neutral only and then driving a ground rod at each pole and running a #6 bare cu to the lug at the handhole from the ground rod. They are not getting an electrical inspection nor do they have a licensed electrician on site to supervise the installation in accordance with State Law. Since they are a utility they feel they are exempt from all of this.

Your thoughts?

Most city street lighting is done in similar fashion in many places. The serving utility installs and maintains street lighting, usually under some kind of contract with the city. Many times these lights are not metered either, they just have an annual rate figured for estimated energy, throw in some extra for maintenance and come up with an amount to bill or contract the city with. Sometimes a new street project will have a true contractor install street lighting and it will be done to codes, but then the utility takes over maintenance and over time some things maybe get changed to something not code compliant as they fail as they are not maintained by someone that has to follow NEC.

Not many utility line guys grasp the equipment grounding conductor concept, they only deal with one grounded conductor and it has a ground rod connected to it at almost every structure in their world, whether it is 120/240, 7.2/13.5kV or 69kV.

 

[San -Brooke]

The problem as I see it is first and foremost that this is being done in many cases on private property. Secondly being reliant on a driven gound only is a violation of NEC. That being the case 90.2 in my opinion clearly then requires these installations be installed in accordance with NEC. And since this in fact should be the case then according to state law at least one licensed electrician should be present on all installations and it should require an electrical inspection.

 

[jusme123]

contractors in that state should lobby gov't to have law prohibiting these installs on private property, otherwise they'll be wiring houses next.

 

[ceb58]

The problem as I see it is first and foremost that this is being done in many cases on private property. Secondly being reliant on a driven gound only is a violation of NEC. That being the case 90.2 in my opinion clearly then requires these installations be installed in accordance with NEC. And since this in fact should be the case then according to state law at least one licensed electrician should be present on all installations and it should require an electrical inspection.

You are not reading deep enough into 90.2. Read 90.2 (B)(5)(a-d). The only thing the NEC covers towards a utility is, as stated, in 90.2 (A)(4) is their office buildings and such. Yes, it seems wrong that they can and do things we would get burned for but the liability is also on them for their installs. Sorry but its another dead horse:weeping:

 

[San -Brooke]

You are not reading deep enough into 90.2. Read 90.2 (B)(5)(a-d). The only thing the NEC covers towards a utility is, as stated, in 90.2 (A)(4) is their office buildings and such. Yes, it seems wrong that they can and do things we would get burned for but the liability is also on them for their installs. Sorry but its another dead horse:weeping:

I have read it as well as the explanation in the 2011 NEC handbook which explains that they are not exempt from NEC guidelines for these installations.

 

[San -Brooke]

You are not reading deep enough into 90.2. Read 90.2 (B)(5)(a-d). The only thing the NEC covers towards a utility is, as stated, in 90.2 (A)(4) is their office buildings and such. Yes, it seems wrong that they can and do things we would get burned for but the liability is also on them for their installs. Sorry but its another dead horse:weeping:

This link explains it well!
http://www.mikeholt.com/instructor2/img/product/pdf/1284398344sample.pdf

 

[San -Brooke]

 

[mivey]

You are not reading deep enough into 90.2. Read 90.2 (B)(5)(a-d). The only thing the NEC covers towards a utility is, as stated, in 90.2 (A)(4) is their office buildings and such. Yes, it seems wrong that they can and do things we would get burned for but the liability is also on them for their installs. Sorry but its another dead horse:weeping:

Correct.

I have read it as well as the explanation in the 2011 NEC handbook which explains that they are not exempt from NEC guidelines for these installations.

Then you need to read NESC section 011 as well that says the installs ahead of the service point that are under the exclusive control of the utility must comply with the NESC.

This link explains it well!
http://www.mikeholt.com/instructor2/img/product/pdf/1284398344sample.pdf

But maybe not well enough. The utilities operate under the NESC and the lights will be installed AND MAINTAINED according to procedures and guidelines that guide the utilities, not an EC operating under a different set of rules.

 

[mivey]

View attachment 8489

And what does that have to do with what is being discussed? The utility is not relying on an earth return alone.

 

[mivey]

contractors in that state should lobby gov't to have law prohibiting these installs on private property, otherwise they'll be wiring houses next.

So? The houses would be subject to the NEC.

 

[San -Brooke]

Correct.

Then you need to read NESC section 011 as well that says the installs ahead of the service point that are under the exclusive control of the utility must comply with the NESC.

But maybe not well enough. The utilities operate under the NESC and the lights will be installed AND MAINTAINED according to procedures and guidelines that guide the utilities, not an EC operating under a different set of rules.

The install is being done by an electrical contractor sub-contracted by the utility.

 

[kwired]

The install is being done by an electrical contractor sub-contracted by the utility.

That would still require an inspection here. If the utility was installing it themselves then maybe not. But only public street and lot lighting would be installed by a utility here. Private streets or lots would have to be done by a contractor arranged and paid by the owner.

 

[mivey]

The install is being done by an electrical contractor sub-contracted by the utility.

Does not matter. NESC says that is still covered under the NESC . Utilities use contractors all the time.

That would still require an inspection here. If the utility was installing it themselves then maybe not. But only public street and lot lighting would be installed by a utility here.

If under the exclusive control of the utility, it must follow the NESC.

Private streets or lots would have to be done by a contractor arranged and paid by the owner.

That is a different case. I am talking about utility owned and maintained lighting.

 

[kwired]

There is a small town nearby here that has a city owned municipal power supplier. The city is the POCO with their own linemen that maintain the city electrical system. They also end up installing and maintaining electrical equipment on city owned property, which I wish they would stop doing. City owned property includes parks and recreation areas and you can see some signs of them not being versed all that well on NEC at times. And if you ever gain access to interior of things you see even more signs.

If a new building or something bigger is going on then contractors will install it, but these guys take over maintenance, and do many installations on smaller projects.

 

[mgookin]

Most utilities call them "Lease Lights" and you can read their tariff where they spell out "energy only" or "energy + lamping". In the former, the customer owns the luminaire and the utility supplies energy only. In the later the utility supplies energy plus owns and performs all maintenance on the luminaire.

Utilities are exempt when working on their equipment & systems. While the service drop to your home does not have an easement which you can find on a recorded plat, it is an easement "by consent".

They are doing the same with lease lights. If grandma wants a security light in her back yard, the utility will put one there. Same if a commercial property owner wants lease lights. It's all in an "easement by consent".

But that does not mean the utility can sub-contract work without that subcontractor getting a permit. The exemption covers utilities only when their personnel do the work. We make Mastech get permits for traffic signal systems and all work where AHJ has to do an inspection as a prerequisite to getting power turned on.