Proposed relocation of RF meter.

Status
Not open for further replies.

11bgrunt

Pragmatist
Location
TEXAS
Occupation
Electric Utility Reliability Coordinator
This POCO uses only RF meters for residential services. The Homeowner believes his health has been affected by this RF system attached to the side of his house, one wall away from his bedroom.
He and I have talked about this for many moons but he is determined to move the meter away from his house.
The POCO does not have an OPT OUT program at this time.
I offered the relocation idea and he went to the POCO. They said this type of installation would be okay with them and for one service charge of $50, they would disconnect and reconnect the service when the new riser and meter socket had been installed.
Has anyone done something like this before?
What are the violations if any?
The drawing shows the existing service from the POCO to the house and the proposal that was accepted by the POCO.
 

Attachments

  • Proposed change.jpg
    Proposed change.jpg
    116.8 KB · Views: 0

packersparky

Senior Member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
Inspector
Under current code you have to run four wires from the pole to the house, other than that it's no different than a hundred thousand or so old style farm services.

Why would it have to be four wire to the house? There is no disconnect at the pole. IMO those wires are still service conductors. I dont believe the service point has changed.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
While the may not be a requirement to run 4 conductors between the 'meter pole' and the house, I would consider doing this anyway.

Service conductors are unfused and in the event of a fault can cause lots of damage. This event is really rare, and the cost of providing protection is considered not worth the safety benefit.

The customer has already decided to have the meter moved. So now the cost of protecting the wires on the side of the house is the _incremental_ cost of using a 'meter/main' on the pole and running a 4 wire feeder rather than 3.

Additionally, if the customer is really 'electrosensitive', making the neutral/ground bond at the pole could have the benefit of moving unbalanced current on the ground system away from the house.

-Jon
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
While the may not be a requirement to run 4 conductors between the 'meter pole' and the house, I would consider doing this anyway.

Service conductors are unfused and in the event of a fault can cause lots of damage. This event is really rare, and the cost of providing protection is considered not worth the safety benefit.

The customer has already decided to have the meter moved. So now the cost of protecting the wires on the side of the house is the _incremental_ cost of using a 'meter/main' on the pole and running a 4 wire feeder rather than 3.

Additionally, if the customer is really 'electrosensitive', making the neutral/ground bond at the pole could have the benefit of moving unbalanced current on the ground system away from the house.

-Jon
Both installs still leave you with service conductors on the exterior of the home. The "service point" may actually move but the service disconnecting means stays where it always was.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I think the reason for the meter is so there is continuity through the meter box, allowing for the use of the existing conductors.
There are jumpers designed for this application that can bypass the socket without a meter. If OP can't find any his POCO probably has some.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
Jon,

I don't see any extra safety provided by a fourth conductor in this case. What am I missing?

I'm suggesting that putting the disconnect and OCPD at the pole would change the wires on the side of the house from unprotected service conductors to a protected feeder. The OCPD would provide the additional safety benefit. As I said, the benefit of this is small because having service conductors burn on the side of the house is very rare...but in this specific case the cost of adding protection might also be small.

I don't think that the fourth conductor would provide extra safety, but depending on the code revision might be required if the OCPD is added. If the fourth conductor could be avoided it make adding the OCPD trivial if the meter is being added. Perhaps there might be some way that this OCPD is not considered _the_ service disconnect, avoiding this issue.

On further consideration, adding the 4th conductor would be lots of extra work if requires replacing the service conductors on the side of the house.

Bonding between the service neutral and metallic underground water piping might provide EMF reduction in the house, but the benefits of that are not demonstrated in a way that make it worth the expense.

-Jon
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I'm suggesting that putting the disconnect and OCPD at the pole would change the wires on the side of the house from unprotected service conductors to a protected feeder. The OCPD would provide the additional safety benefit. As I said, the benefit of this is small because having service conductors burn on the side of the house is very rare...but in this specific case the cost of adding protection might also be small.

I don't think that the fourth conductor would provide extra safety, but depending on the code revision might be required if the OCPD is added. If the fourth conductor could be avoided it make adding the OCPD trivial if the meter is being added. Perhaps there might be some way that this OCPD is not considered _the_ service disconnect, avoiding this issue.

On further consideration, adding the 4th conductor would be lots of extra work if requires replacing the service conductors on the side of the house.

Bonding between the service neutral and metallic underground water piping might provide EMF reduction in the house, but the benefits of that are not demonstrated in a way that make it worth the expense.

-Jon

No doubt it does add some more protection - but is totally a design option. But once you but the service disconnect on the pole the house is then supplied by a feeder and not a service - you do need to run an equipment grounding conductor in that case.
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
No doubt it does add some more protection - but is totally a design option. But once you but the service disconnect on the pole the house is then supplied by a feeder and not a service - you do need to run an equipment grounding conductor in that case.

In the event a 4 wire is required, how would the neutral bonded to the meter be dealt with? I don't think there is a way to separate the ground from the neutral in a meter can, is there? I ask because I have never seen a 4 wire circuit feeding a POCO meter.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
No doubt it does add some more protection - but is totally a design option. But once you but the service disconnect on the pole the house is then supplied by a feeder and not a service - you do need to run an equipment grounding conductor in that case.

I wonder...'meter disconnect' switches (sometimes) don't count as the service disconnect. If you have a normal service disconnect at the house, would a breaker at the 'meter pole' necessarily count as the 'service disconnect'?

For added confusion see:
http://www.econline.com/doc/hartwell-on-the-code-is-a-meter-disconnect-sw-0001
-Jon
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
If the meter disconnect does not have OCPD either integral to or adjacent to the disconnect then it cannot be a service disconnect.
If a disconnect on the POCO side of the designated service point has integral OCPD it may still not be the service disconnect since it is not under NEC jurisdiction.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
In the event a 4 wire is required, how would the neutral bonded to the meter be dealt with? I don't think there is a way to separate the ground from the neutral in a meter can, is there? I ask because I have never seen a 4 wire circuit feeding a POCO meter.
If there is meter only on the pole then the conductors at the house would still be service conductors.

If there is a meter and service disconnect at the pole then the conductors at the house would be feeders and then a EGC is required. The service disconnect likely has a place to land an EGC.
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
If there is a meter and service disconnect at the pole then the conductors at the house would be feeders and then a EGC is required. The service disconnect likely has a place to land an EGC.

In the event of the above, if the meter can was left on the house, wouldn't that be a second bonding of the neutral and EGC? Also, no matter what, the meter enclosure will be bonded to the neutral by design.
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
To add to above, how do you feed this with a separate neutral and ECG coming from an OCPD ahead of it, is basically my question.

00332347.jpg
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
To add to above, how do you feed this with a separate neutral and ECG coming from an OCPD ahead of it, is basically my question.

00332347.jpg

Let's face it, if he had to add the forth conductor at that point he might as well do away with the old meter base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top