service laterall question

[HNS]

Hello i am new here but looking for a little insight from peers. I am currently upgrading a service from 200a to 400a (320). The existing UG service was installed in 2008 4/0-4/0-2/0 Al URD. i am proposing to dig along side of existing adding another 4/0 URD to utility pole to supply the new 400a meter base with parallel 4/0. My inspector says he has never seen it done like this and would have to research. Does anyone see a problem with this?

 

[Smart $]

Hello i am new here but looking for a little insight from peers. I am currently upgrading a service from 200a to 400a (320). The existing UG service was installed in 2008 4/0-4/0-2/0 Al URD. i am proposing to dig along side of existing adding another 4/0 URD to utility pole to supply the new 400a meter base with parallel 4/0. My inspector says he has never seen it done like this and would have to research. Does anyone see a problem with this?

Welcome :thumbsup:

Have to assume we are talking dwelling unit(s) service, right?

If so, no problem at all. Ohio adopted the 2014 NEC as of 1/1/15, and the requirements of 310.25(B)(7) have changed from 2011... so should be easy for inspector to research. However, being so close to the transition, the project may still be under 2011. Inspector may have to resort to looking up Panel Comments on Proposals, as that is the only place I know of that the CMP has stated parallel service conductors can be interpreted per Table 310.15(B)(7), i.e. two (2) 200A service-sized conductors qualify as 400A total.

 

[HNS]

That's what I was thinking. His jurisdiction is mostly dpl ( they install service lateral) however the corner of his jurisdiction is duke energy they require customer to install. That being said he is not accustomed to lookin at UG services

 

[Smart $]

That's what I was thinking. His jurisdiction is mostly dpl ( they install service lateral) however the corner of his jurisdiction is duke energy they require customer to install. That being said he is not accustomed to lookin at UG services

Understand...

Check back in if he gives you a hard time. We'll try to give you some ammunition for a rebuttal.

 

[HNS]

Ok thank you

 

[HNS]

so the inspector finally approved the wiring method after submitting a load calc to him. the load calc came to 359amps and 125 on the neutral. He is now telling me to install a meter rated at or above 359 he specifically said not the 320 common meter. A "400" amp meter base is not manufactured. The base a submitted is rated at 320 continuous/ 400 max although we know the load calc is not continuous will this suffice.

 

[Smart $]

so the inspector finally approved the wiring method after submitting a load calc to him. the load calc came to 359amps and 125 on the neutral. He is now telling me to install a meter rated at or above 359 he specifically said not the 320 common meter. A "400" amp meter base is not manufactured. The base a submitted is rated at 320 continuous/ 400 max although we know the load calc is not continuous will this suffice.

How much of your 359A is continuous load? Typical residential has no continuous loads, at least not at feeder or service level... but there is the rare occasion residential continuous load exist.

 

[Iron_Ben]

so the inspector finally approved the wiring method after submitting a load calc to him. the load calc came to 359amps and 125 on the neutral. He is now telling me to install a meter rated at or above 359 he specifically said not the 320 common meter. A "400" amp meter base is not manufactured. The base a submitted is rated at 320 continuous/ 400 max although we know the load calc is not continuous will this suffice.

Could your inspector be overstepping his area of jurisdiction? He is basically saying you need CT metering on this house. Working for the POCO, I once did a 10,000+ sq ft house with CT metering. But we did quite a few million dollar houses with 400 and 600 amp services, always with your basic self contained 320 amp meter enclosure (rated, as you rightly note, 320 continuous and 400 peak).

Hell, you could likely have left the existing 4/0 aluminum alone and that would have fed the upgraded service fine. Admittedly I don't know all the particulars so maybe not but it wouldn't surprise me.

I might speak with the POCO and get their take. I can just about guarantee you that have no interest in putting CT metering on a house whose load will never justify it.

 

[HNS]

The POCO has approved the 320/400 meter , and yes there is no continuous load. I think he's trying to cover his butt because this agency is not used to dealing with services. And I agree if it was the POCO installing it they would run one set of 4/0 al and call it good.

 

[kwired]

My first question is where is the service point?

If the lateral and or the meter are considered to be before the service point - NEC doesn't apply to them - POCO rules/specifications do.

This is for 2011 or 2014 NEC without any amendments to this area, before then it was more questionable where NEC ends and POCO begins on such matters.

IMO if POCO requires a particular meter socket - then it is on their side of service point - even if owner pays for it and contractor installs it. Their specifications need to end at service point and NEC takes over from there - again JMO.

 

[Smart $]

...

IMO if POCO requires a particular meter socket - then it is on their side of service point - even if owner pays for it and contractor installs it. Their specifications need to end at service point and NEC takes over from there - again JMO.

In most places that I'm familiar with, POCO specifies the service metering equipment... regardless of which side of service point it is on.

I don't now if they still do, but in the past the POCO for my home area actually furnished a meter socket, free of charge to customer, for residential not greater than 320/400.

 

[kwired]

In most places that I'm familiar with, POCO specifies the service metering equipment... regardless of which side of service point it is on.

I think that is fairly common in a lot of places, but should they specify something not NEC compliant there is a conflict if it is on the load side of service point, leaving the contractor and/or owner in limbo as to what to do to satisfy both POCO and EC before they can get energized.