article 230 Overhead clearances 12' residential

Status
Not open for further replies.
TOOL_5150

TOOL_5150

Senior Member
Location
bay area, ca
There is a pole at the back of a customers house, the drop crosses over the back yard and terminates to the weatherhead. Customer wants to put a shed under the drop. as of right now, the drop will not clear. What is the clearance required for a drop over other buildings in a residential situation? All I can get from the NEC is 12' from ground to drop. if it passes over the roof of a seperate building, is the minimum clearance 8'?

~Matt
 
Unless the customer owns and controls that overhead drop there is nothing in the NEC that applies to it.

Assuming the utility service point is at the point of attachment to the house only the NESC rules apply to the drops clearances.
 
The NESC generally requires 3' of vertical clearance unless the roof is accessible. Also, the serving electric utility may have additional requirements. :)
 
iwire said:
Unless the customer owns and controls that overhead drop there is nothing in the NEC that applies to it.

Assuming the utility service point is at the point of attachment to the house only the NESC rules apply to the drops clearances.
Click to expand...

Bob, I'm going to have to disagree with you, regardless of who owns the
overhead service drop 230.24(A) would be violated if the clearance was not
maintained. If the POA to the house needs to go higher or the drop rerouted
or the new building relocated, IMO, that's what the book says.
230.29 might be a better choice.

NEC 2005
 
benaround said:
Bob, I'm going to have to disagree with you, regardless of who owns the
overhead service drop 230.24(A) would be violated if the clearance was not
maintained. If the POA to the house needs to go higher or the drop rerouted
or the new building relocated, IMO, that's what the book says.
230.29 might be a better choice.

NEC 2005
Click to expand...

The utility is not bound by the NEC. If they pass a wire over a roof and it is 6' then that is there decision. Who would turn it down. They answer to no one. ;)
 
benaround said:
Bob, I'm going to have to disagree with you, regardless of who owns the
overhead service drop 230.24(A) would be violated if the clearance was not
maintained.
Click to expand...

Nope, absolutely not.:)

The conductors owned by the utility are pretty much invisible to the NEC.

See 90.2(B)(5)(a)
 
Dennis Alwon said:
The utility is not bound by the NEC. If they pass a wire over a roof and it is 6' then that is there decision. Who would turn it down. They answer to no one. ;)
Click to expand...

The utility is not but we are, would you tell a customer, who's building has
the roof 2' from the service drop conductors, that the drop should be raised
to 8' above the roof per 230.24(A), or would you tell them the utility answers
to no one. Would the EI have a say in the matter? All I'm saying is it's our
responsablity to handle the situation.
 
benaround said:
The utility is not but we are, would you tell a customer, who's building has
the roof 2' from the service drop conductors, that the drop should be raised
to 8' above the roof per 230.24(A), or would you tell them the utility answers
to no one. Would the EI have a say in the matter? All I'm saying is it's our
responsablity to handle the situation.
Click to expand...

So if the power company passes a wire over my roof and less than 8' to feed another building are you saying I am responsible for that.

I do indeed set my overhead risers so that issue does not happen. If it is my control I would avoid the situation. But the utility can do what they want.
 
iwire said:
Nope, absolutely not.:)

The conductors owned by the utility are pretty much invisible to the NEC.

See 90.2(B)(5)(a)
Click to expand...

Your saying that Part II of 230, Overhead Service-Drop Conductors, has no
reason for being in the book?
'Service Drop' would have to be from the utility, if not they would be feeder
drop conductors, right?
They may be invisible but I see something. Why is Part II in the book ?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
So if the power company passes a wire over my roof and less than 8' to feed another building are you saying I am responsible for that.

I do indeed set my overhead risers so that issue does not happen. If it is my control I would avoid the situation. But the utility can do what they want.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying you are responsible for that. I'm trying to stick with the OP
who wants to put a new building under the drop, and the roof will be closer
than 8', I'm saying we are responsible, if we are the EC on the job, to not let
that happen and 230.24(A) is the reason.
 
benaround said:
No, I'm not saying you are responsible for that. I'm trying to stick with the OP
who wants to put a new building under the drop, and the roof will be closer
than 8', I'm saying we are responsible, if we are the EC on the job, to not let
that happen and 230.24(A) is the reason.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fight between the utility and the builder. If they want me to move it fine but if the utility owns that line and they are okay with it then we have no power in the situation.
 
Hmmm

Hmmm

benaround said:
. . . 'Service Drop' would have to be from the utility, if not they would be feeder drop conductors, right? . . .
Click to expand...
There are some areas where the customer and not the serving electric utility is required to install, own, and maintain the service drop. 230.24 is in the NEC for that purpose. At the point of interface, we (the serving electric utilities and electrical contractors) have to work together. We (the serving electric utilities) will publish service manuals (most are on-line) that give our requirements. You will notice that the requirements in 230.24 are nearly the same as the requirements in the NESC, including the 3' of clearance over a roof. :)
 
benaround said:
Your saying that Part II of 230, Overhead Service-Drop Conductors, has no
reason for being in the book?
Click to expand...

No, I am not saying that at all. :smile:

I am saying that if the service drop is owned by the utility that section would not apply and if the service drop is customer owned and a maintained then the NEC applies.


'Service Drop' would have to be from the utility, if not they would be feeder
Click to expand...

No, does not have to be a feeder, you can run service conductors outside as far as you want before you get to the service disconnecting means.

They may be invisible but I see something. Why is Part II in the book ?
Click to expand...

For the times when it does apply. :smile:

Look at it another way.

Does 310.16 apply to a utility owned drop?
 
POCO's here want 8' above walkable surface.

One POCO wont attach to POA higher than 6' above roof unless accessible via bucket which makes underground the only options in some cases.
 
OK, I'll consider myself schooled on the service drop conductors are only in the book for customer owned situations.

So in the OP, there is no concern from his point of view, how close the roof is

to the utility service drop conductors, within reason.

Just to be a PITA the rules of 680.8(A) would only apply to customer owned

service drop conductors, right ?
 
benaround said:
So in the OP, there is no concern from his point of view, how close the roof is

to the utility service drop conductors, within reason.
Click to expand...

Code answer: No not his problem if he does not want it to be.

Real world answer: I can see an EI making waves.

Just to be a PITA the rules of 680.8(A) would only apply to customer owned

service drop conductors, right ?
Click to expand...


Not a PITA, a good question.

IMO 680.8(A) could prevent a new pool from passing inspection.

But, the NEC could not prohibit the POCO from running over the pool later.
 
I did a service change today, and when I got to the house the poco line was lying on top of the garage roof! Homeowner said it was that way for the last twenty years. Long story short, I raised the meter as high as I could and moved the meter can over trying to get a better angle, even with the added height at the top of my riser I could only get about a 2' clearance on the garage roof. To me the poco owns the line its their problem, I did all I could do and you could play the line like a guitar, so I felt pretty decent. The line was old and starting to become a little brittle, they need a new one anyway. Their transformer is down the block so they can tap the secondary lines anywhere they want. I see drops tapped in between poles quiet a bit.
 
Who is responsible for the overhead drop to a building the POCO or the contractor? Contractor installs attachment bolt or 1 point insulator and POCO attaches to and makes taps and overhead drop is touching overhang.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top