opinion on service upgrade . . .

[brantmacga]

this stems from a random thought I had today; wanted to get opinions.


Occasionally, I get called to change out SEU service masts that are fastened directly to the wall. Most of the time, its when someone is upgrading their siding or just feels uneasy about the cracked cable sheath.

So we put in a 2" RMC mast through the roof, but when this is done, the POCO requires a new meter base to be installed as well. Even if its just a 100A/150A service, if its on a dwelling, they require a 200A O/H meter base.

All of these I've ever done were services using SEU feeders; the rule here is, if its just a 1 for 1 swap, no disconnect is required and the SEU feeder remains in place. It is "grandfathered".

So now my question; using the above logic, lets say you need an actual 200A upgrade for electric appliances. Would you be okay swapping the meter base and mast, and using tap lugs to feed a 200A or even 100A outdoor panel installed next to the meter base?

I was just thinking about a couple of previous installations and wondering if this would have been legal using the grandfather clause on the existing service.

We commonly do this type of installation for pools, installing a 70A disco enclosure mounted next to the meter base tapped straight off the feeder.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . no disconnect is required and the SEU feeder remains in place. . .

That confuses me. With no disconnect, wouldn't the SEU still be Service Entrance Conductors?

It seems like you have a service disconnect at the original panel, inside the dwelling, and you are asking about adding another service disconnect, but outside? 230.72

 

[brantmacga]

There would be no disconnect on the original SEU, and you'd actually have to take conductors from the meter base to the 200A disco for the outdoor panel, and tap the SEU off that inside the meter base.

Again, just thinking out loud here.

I see what you're saying though.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

Wouldn't you end up with the main panel inside with the main breaker, and the pool panel outside, and your disconnects not exactly "closely grouped?"

 

[One-eyed Jack]

There would be no disconnect on the original SEU, and you'd actually have to take conductors from the meter base to the 200A disco for the outdoor panel, and tap the SEU off that inside the meter base.

Again, just thinking out loud here.

I see what you're saying though.

Simply put we would not allow that in Halifax County. Just for starters you have most likely violated the tap rule. Also as Lawnguy stated your disco's would not be grouped.

 

[220wire]

Why not put one enclosure on the wall for a cleaner appearance? It's pretty easy to convince people of the added costs if they aren't one-star people

 

[wawireguy]

Sounds simpler to just put the new mast and meter can in..

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

20+ years agoe we used to install a second 100a service on homes where re-working the existing was too costly, when the HO goes ballistic that the new pool or kitchen reno requires a new upgrade, or whatever other reason. $350.00 bang - new 100 a service, mast, panel and meter.

 

[lakee911]

20+ years agoe we used to install a second 100a service on homes where re-working the existing was too costly, when the HO goes ballistic that the new pool or kitchen reno requires a new upgrade, or whatever other reason. $350.00 bang - new 100 a service, mast, panel and meter.

Who can afford a pool and not a service upgrade?

 

[220wire]

Who can afford a pool and not a service upgrade?

One-star people who "pay" their taxes. They don't tell you the only tax they pay is sales tax

 

[brantmacga]

Simply put we would not allow that in Halifax County. Just for starters you have most likely violated the tap rule. Also as Lawnguy stated your disco's would not be grouped.

What tap rules are being violated? Taps can leave the enclosure as long as the OCP on the conductor you tap off is not more than 10x the ampacity of the tap conductor.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

Who can afford a pool and not a service upgrade?

You would be suprised how many people live life on a financial edge and are a paycheck or two away from ruin. My take on the situation is, the salespeople tell the pool buyer or the kitchen buyer XX.00 worth of electrical is included in the price of the "complete job" and anything beyond that is additional. Either the HO doesn't understand that a new 50a double wall oven and new 6-burner cooktop, or a pool panel with 2 x 20a and a 40a 2pole breaker for a hottub can't connect to their original 60a Levittown service, or they just play the game of "I had no idea" hoping the store will absorb the cost, or at least split the cost.

 

[iwire]

Just for starters you have most likely violated the tap rule.

What tap rule?

 

[brantmacga]

What tap rule?

that's what i asked a couple of posts above.

i can't find any violation w/ the tap described, but if there is, i'd certainly like to know it.

 

[pjg]

Wouldn't you end up with the main panel inside with the main breaker, and the pool panel outside, and your disconnects not exactly "closely grouped?"

I agree, mains have to be grouped

 

[brantmacga]

I agree, mains have to be grouped

technically speaking, i would agree with you on the grouping of mains; but looking back at the original post, i noted that the original installation left in place is grandfathered.

do you think these alterations are enough to warrant rebuilding the entire service just to group mains?

what about with proper labeling in place, such as to note all interior power is not disconnected at the outside?

 

[iwire]

technically speaking, i would agree with you on the grouping of mains;

Technically speaking the mains have to be grouped.

 

[pete m.]

what about with proper labeling in place, such as to note all interior power is not disconnected at the outside?

Where in the NEC is the permission given to not group the disconnects for a service and apply "proper labeling"?

As I understand the scenario given, you still only have one service to the structure but you are proposing to split up the service disconnects. If there were more than one service to the structure as permitted in 230.2 then the disconnects for each respective service would be grouped and labeling in accordance with 230.2(E) would be required.

The "tap" that you are talking about is not a tap. They are service conductors.

Tap Conductors. As used in this article, a tap conductor is defined as a conductor, other than a service conductor, that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4.

Pete

 

[al hildenbrand]

i noted that the original installation left in place is grandfathered.

That's fine. Nothing wrong with leaving the first (grandfathered) meter to service center (service disconnect and branch circuit overcurrent protection) assembly, that I can see, as you've described it.

But.

The added service disconnect, for pool or whatever, tapped off a larger mast. . . . the added service disconnect is now the second service disconnect, and, as a new install governed by the NEC in effect in your area, has to be installed by 230.72 whether you're under the '99, '02, '05 or '08, unless there's local ordinance to the contrary.