2nd scoop

Status
Not open for further replies.
wyreman

wyreman

Senior Member
Location
SF CA USA
Occupation
electrical contractor
Utility is OK to deliver a 2nd dedicated meter for electric vehicle, in fact they suggested.

I was planning to change those lugs on the mounting bracket to double lugs.
But the manufacturer doesn’t offer anything and
the lugs are pressed onto that mounting board.
So now the only thing I’m left with is using piercing connectors, but I’m not a fan.
Does anyone have any suggestions of how to split that utility lateral into a pair of feeder?

Happy Christmas to you
?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Tgbhu1gFnV7c5fjs1
 
Does added load still leave load calculation at/below ampacity of the supply conductors? If not you need to run larger or additional conductor anyway.

Is that box supposed to be a CT cabinet? I'd probably remove the lugs and board they are mounted on altogether and use some Polaris or similar type connectors in there, if I determine I can make such a tap to those conductors.
 
?thanks for reply

That is where the service lateral enters the Bldg
A pull box
From there it traverses about 8’ to the meter/main - inside the garage
It is what it is and no one is condemning it.

Now poco says I can split their service lateral feed
And feed two meters
The old existing #4 for the house and
A new feed, off their same wires to serve
A new meter dedicated for a Tesla.

The service lateral feed terminates on the bottom lugs
The other wire on the butt lugs go to house meter

Poco & ahj both say I can run pipe to that pull box
And supply a 2nd dedicated ev meter.

I thought I could just get some split lugs, usually for parallel feeds
But I have no way to land them on that bracket
The existing lugs are pressed in

Polaris connectors would be great
I was focusing on getting lugs
Failing to find appropriate lugs, I would keep it as is and use piercing connectors.

But Polaris would be most honest

No objections here because of not listed or other reason?
I’ll suggest Polaris and be prepared with piercing connectors
 
My main objection to what was existing is the box should be bonded to the grounded conductor if those are service conductors - same if you tap another set of conductors to it.

POCO's here wouldn't want meter(s) inside a building, but that could be different there.

State Electrical Division here says service conductors can't enter building more then 5 feet, that also is interpreted differently in different places - NEC just says service disconnect be "nearest point of entry" but doesn't say if that means as near as possible/practical, 2 feet , 3 feet, 6 feet, 10 feet, 25 feet, 100 feet.... kind of leaves it up to AHJ if they want to be more specific.
 
Yeah it’s a pull box for service conductors.
No factory provision for bonding the zero wire

I can of course thread some provision for that
10’ of rigid pipe away it is bonded to the ev meter
8’ away it’s bonded to the house meter

Funny with this 2 meter
new style setup for evs

Meters can be inside now since they are all on the internet
They shut them off remotely without a troubleman visit these days
 
electrofelon said:
Polaris type connectors are nice. They are kinda spendy though. For that, I might even use a good old split bolt.
Click to expand...
Most split bolts are only rated for two conductors though, or were you intending to leave everything as is and tap into one of the existing conductors?
 
wyreman said:
Yeah it’s a pull box for service conductors.
No factory provision for bonding the zero wire

I can of course thread some provision for that
10’ of rigid pipe away it is bonded to the ev meter
8’ away it’s bonded to the house meter

Funny with this 2 meter
new style setup for evs

Meters can be inside now since they are all on the internet
They shut them off remotely without a troubleman visit these days
Click to expand...
I was thinking you had to have a bonding jumper in that "pull box", but after further reading maybe you do not. But you still must have something other then standard locknuts to assure bonding via raceways - 250.92(B).


Is there different rate for services supplying EV charging? If so how do they ensure you don't connect other loads to it, or connect the EV to the other meter if that were the lower rate?
 
kwired said:
I was thinking you had to have a bonding jumper in that "pull box", but after further reading maybe you do not. But you still must have something other then standard locknuts to assure bonding via raceways - 250.92(B).


Is there different rate for services supplying EV charging? If so how do they ensure you don't connect other loads to it, or connect the EV to the other meter if that were the lower rate?
Click to expand...

I guess the ev can only use so much.
Prob mandated to encourage ev use
Now I remember why I couldn’t use Polaris .
In this jurisdiction you’re not allowed to make spices in enclosures.
But they let you use the piercing connectors in the panel.
But like you
said I think it’s going to be OK in the service equipment because
Thr utilities allowed lab to splice
They do it all the time in any vault
City doesn’t have jurisdiction in the utility cabinet
in the termination can
great idea thanks for opening my eyes.
And by the way it’s Christmas Sunday
unbelievable that i’m always thinking about work !
Thanks again

Glory to God
 
wyreman said:
I guess the ev can only use so much.
Prob mandated to encourage ev use
Now I remember why I couldn’t use Polaris .
In this jurisdiction you’re not allowed to make spices in enclosures.
But they let you use the piercing connectors in the panel.
But like you
said I think it’s going to be OK in the service equipment because
Thr utilities allowed lab to splice
They do it all the time in any vault
City doesn’t have jurisdiction in the utility cabinet
in the termination can
great idea thanks for opening my eyes.
And by the way it’s Christmas Sunday
unbelievable that i’m always thinking about work !
Thanks again

Glory to God
Click to expand...
Where are you supposed to make them besides in open air for connections to a service drop??

Or are you saying they won't allow splicing of service conductors- but the splice box in question is considered under control of POCO?
NEC certainly permits this - you could come into a splice box or maybe an aux gutter with a heavy conductor and split into six smaller conductors to supply six service disconnecting means in several situations (can even hit meter sockets first) , no real restrictions on how to make such splices as long as it is a listed method.
 
kwired said:
Most split bolts are only rated for two conductors though, or were you intending to leave everything as is and tap into one of the existing conductors?
Click to expand...

Yeah the latter.

kwired said:
I was thinking you had to have a bonding jumper in that "pull box", but after further reading maybe you do not. But you still must have something other then standard locknuts to assure bonding via raceways - 250.92(B).
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the bonding too. Looks like a bonding locknut on the top. Looks like a bonding bushing on the bottom but I dont see a jumper - maybe its tucked back in there out of view.
 
kwired said:
Where are you supposed to make them besides in open air for connections to a service drop??

Or are you saying they won't allow splicing of service conductors- but the splice box in question is considered under control of POCO?
NEC certainly permits this - you could come into a splice box or maybe an aux gutter with a heavy conductor and split into six smaller conductors to supply six service disconnecting means in several situations (can even hit meter sockets first) , no real restrictions on how to make such splices as long as it is a listed method.
Click to expand...

I was not clear about enclosures.
I didn't mean junction or pull boxes or gutters.
AHJ doesn't allow any splices in panels, ever.
By that I have inferred panels to be enclosures with disconnecting means.
But they will allow me to use the piercing conductors.

I think you are right.
I will propose to use the Polaris here to split the service conductors to supply the original meter main and my new meter main.

The piercing connector I will use to tap a 15a circuit to supply my shunt trip for this new main
 
wyreman said:
I was not clear about enclosures.
I didn't mean junction or pull boxes or gutters.
AHJ doesn't allow any splices in panels, ever.
By that I have inferred panels to be enclosures with disconnecting means.
But they will allow me to use the piercing conductors.

I think you are right.
I will propose to use the Polaris here to split the service conductors to supply the original meter main and my new meter main.

The piercing connector I will use to tap a 15a circuit to supply my shunt trip for this new main
Click to expand...
Veering off topic some, but you have any idea what their justification for such a rule is?

Seems to be a lot of people that post on this site that don't think you can do that but as written (no amendments) NEC does allow it.

Some maybe understand it is allowed but think it is poor workmanship to make even one splice in a panel (cabinet), and would rather re-pull hundreds of feet of conductor then to add on 4 or 6 inches at the panel.
 
I understand it to be a local amendment, but I never looked it up.
They will disallow a splice here.

All they want in that case is to chase / close nipple a little jbox.
They would rather see more boxes than one splice.
 
wyreman said:
I understand it to be a local amendment, but I never looked it up.
They will disallow a splice here.

All they want in that case is to chase / close nipple a little jbox.
They would rather see more boxes than one splice.
Click to expand...
Totally pointless, unless the supply houses are who pushed the rules in order to sell more products.
 
wyreman said:
I don't agree.
You let the guy have one splice and all of a sudden it looks like this
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ieaYllKgPGuXXLhh1

can't upload photos here, I wonder why
Click to expand...
I've seen much worse rat's nest of wiring then that.

What is there that introduces a hazard to life or property that doesn't also exist if you spliced it in a separate box? Have to consider the intent of having a code when making rules for that code.
 
wyreman said:
I understand it to be a local amendment, but I never looked it up.
They will disallow a splice here.

All they want in that case is to chase / close nipple a little jbox.
They would rather see more boxes than one splice.
Click to expand...

I dont understand then what they would call a splice and what they would consider not a splice. Im confused. Maybe a "splice" is just one conductor spliced to another single one, where a "tap" would be allowed which would be splitting a single conductor into two or more? According to the NEC, service conductors may be "spliced or tapped" 230.33

What is going on with this shunt trip?
 
electrofelon said:
I dont understand then what they would call a splice and what they would consider not a splice. Im confused. Maybe a "splice" is just one conductor spliced to another single one, where a "tap" would be allowed which would be splitting a single conductor into two or more? According to the NEC, service conductors may be "spliced or tapped" 230.33

What is going on with this shunt trip?
Click to expand...


Need a disco within sight
Of the Hardwire Tesla

I think the splice is like a wire nut
Where tap is when the supply conductor is not interrupted
 
kwired said:
I've seen much worse rat's nest of wiring then that.

What is there that introduces a hazard to life or property that doesn't also exist if you spliced it in a separate box? Have to consider the intent of having a code when making rules for that code.
Click to expand...

hasn't everybody? just wanted to get a photo out quick, this was on top of stack

there is no hazard except...
the guys work in the panel is probably the best example of his work
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top