Canopy above electrical services

[bcorbin]

Not your average cookie cutter installation.

I've got a client-owned storage building with electrical distribution gear inside, and three or four 480V services coming out of it to nearby smaller buildings and contractor trailers. The services are all routed overhead, with the section between poles in question running about 10-15 feet from all of the cables to ground level.

They want to install an attached canopy above the cables. Not under...above.

I have already checked that they will not be backing semi trailers up to the wires (about 12 feet from them, and the truck would hit the canopy before they came in contact with the wires).

I am obviously not used to building services running through another building...under, sure...but not through. Does it even matter that they would be running through the same building they are being fed from?

Or am I going to have to tell them all of the services must be raised higher on the poles, assuming that is even possible?

 

[bcorbin]

I may also need to add that the outgoing services jump on to a utility pole, then take a right turn for 30 feet or so, before they enter the area to be covered by a canopy. So the services would be inside the building, then outside the building, then under the canopy.

 

[jim dungar]

Are you sure the conductors to the other buildings are service entrances controlled by the utility? Or, are they simply customer owned overhead feeder circuits?

 

[bcorbin]

They are customer-owned, but I wasn't sure if that made the difference here. My ignorance is showing.

 

[petersonra]

They are customer-owned, but I wasn't sure if that made the difference here. My ignorance is showing.

It seems possible that they are feeders and not services. is there a CB or other disconnect inside the building they are fed from for each one?

I do not think a canopy is a building.

 

[GoldDigger]

Not ignorance, just lack of specialized knowledge. We can help with that!
The reason it makes a big difference is that the utility conductors do not have overcurrent protection so the rules are quite different.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[bcorbin]

It seems possible that they are feeders and not services. is there a CB or other disconnect inside the building they are fed from for each one?

I do not think a canopy is a building.

Yes, they each have their own OCPD's.

 

[mgookin]

Would you feel better if they were in pipe while under the canopy?

 

[greenspark1]

Great, if they have their own OCPDs then they are feeders, not services. Services come from a utility and end at the customer.
What sort of wire/conduit is used right now for the feeders? From what you describe, if they are protected from damage or contact it sounds like you may be fine as-is. It does sound a bit funky though.

 

[bcorbin]

Short of disconnecting them and re-routing them through conduit, any good ideas on the best way to protect them? I'm not sure a "j-hook" approach would be a good idea, what with the thermal expansion and contraction wearing the insulation off.

 

[bcorbin]

Okay...I've been looking over my NEC definitions again and the definition of service refers to "electrical energy" from the utility, not "utility-owned wiring". Please tell me again why these feeds to the other buildings are not services?

 

[mgookin]

Is it metered before it gets to the canopy?

 

[bcorbin]

The individual feeds are not separately metered.

 

[jim dungar]

Please tell me again why these feeds to the other buildings are not services?

Yes, they each have their own OCPD's.

They are not services because they have customer owned OCPDs in front of them.

It sounds like your application would be subject to Article 396 Messenger Supported wiring, which is allowed indoors.

 

[bcorbin]

I'm not really sure about Art. 396, though the existing feeders do have messenger wires.

However, Art. 225 only requires clearance above a roof (8') and 15' above grade in my application.

The lowest of the existing wires are probably only 11 feet above grade.

Am I thinking crazy that they can indeed build the canopy above the existing wires, or am I likely to get a frowny face from the local inspector?

 

[mgookin]

I'm not really sure about Art. 396, though the existing feeders do have messenger wires.

However, Art. 225 only requires clearance above a roof (8') and 15' above grade in my application.

The lowest of the existing wires are probably only 11 feet above grade.

Am I thinking crazy that they can indeed build the canopy above the existing wires, or am I likely to get a frowny face from the local inspector?

Whether you're running conductors under an existing canopy or building a canopy above existing conductors is moot; the conductors need to meet code for the installation. Sounds like you need to pipe them, provide a tray, etc. They have to be supported and protected, right?

And if you pipe them, they will no longer be in free air, right?