230.24 (B) Clearances & 2015 MRC E3604.2.2

[MGD Electric]

I came across an inspector that violated a 200a service upgrade for

" 2015 MRC E3604.2.2 12' vertical clearance residential property "



I've always went 10' minimum clearance for the service lateral from the lowest point of the droop to grade of a residential backyard if there is no driveway. This inspector is saying it needs to be 12' over residential property even if the area under the wire is not subject to a person driving a vehicle under it. I can see where in 2015 MRC R3604.2.2 it states 12' clearance above residential property and garage driveways. I found a drawing from the utility company showing how they interpret the code or at the very least what they deem a sufficient clearance over a residential property. I've attached a link to the drawing below, any opinions on if the inspector is correct in requiring 12' clearance?

Screenshot 20231018 155312 Samsung Notes — Postimages

postimg.cc

 

[infinity]

Is this for a service? Drops from the pole are not covered under the NEC. You would need to comply with the requirements of the utility company.

 

[MGD Electric]

Yes, it's a 200a residential service 120/240v

 

[infinity]

Here's the relevant NEC section related to service drop from the POCO:

90.2 Scope.
(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:

(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or

 

[MGD Electric]

Thank you for the reference.

 

[MGD Electric]

Just got off the phone with the electrical inspector, his response is article 90.2 is irrelevant because he is using
2015 michigan residential code E3604.2.2. Which is the exact same vertical Clearances as NEC 230.24 (B). Which he is isn't wrong, the MRC supersedes the NEC for michigan residential. Just seems like in this situation to require more clearance than the utility company requires is alittle overstep.

 

[wwhitney]

Just got off the phone with the electrical inspector, his response is article 90.2 is irrelevant because he is using
2015 michigan residential code E3604.2.2. Which is the exact same vertical Clearances as NEC 230.24 (B).

The Michigan Residential Code equivalent of NEC 90.2 is E3401.3, which excludes "Installations under the exclusive control of communications utilities and electric utilities." So if the conductors in question are on the utility side of the service point, I would think that E3401.3 means that E3604.2.2 does not apply to them.

Chapter 34: General Requirements, Michigan Residential Code 2015 | UpCodes

UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdiction

up.codes

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It doesn't matter that 90.2 says the rule does not apply to service drops, as the rule in the National Electrical Safety Code that applies to the utilities requires the same clearances as the NEC. Some utilities will not connect a service if the clearances are not met, and others don't care.

 

[wwhitney]

It doesn't matter that 90.2 says the rule does not apply to service drops, as the rule in the National Electrical Safety Code that applies to the utilities requires the same clearances as the NEC.

But if the utility is out of compliance with the NESC, is it appropriate for the electrical inspector to fail the electrical work done under the NEC?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

But if the utility is out of compliance with the NESC, is it appropriate for the electrical inspector to fail the electrical work done under the NEC?

That was my point. The NEC stops at the service point where the SEC's connect to the drop. It's not the job of an inspector inspecting for NEC compliance to be inspecting the height of the drop above the ground.

 

[MGD Electric]

Thanks Wayne, I've talked to multiple other contractors and they are all saying it's not his call if the clearance is up to the utility companies requirements.