Bonding meter can

[peter d]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by jwelectric:

This is not a violation therefore we should be telling Robbie that he has complied with the letter of the code instead of, well what has been said.

Ahhh.....but it is a violation. Our utility here does not allow any such connections in the meter socket. Read the opening post.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by roger:

Originally posted by Robbie Romex:
IWIRE, no if we think of it in terms of "first and last" I went from ground rods to meter can to first means of disconnect with a continuous #4 THHN.

Robbie, now you have a parallel neutral.

 

[peter d]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The power company is another matter. If the customer owns the meter can I don?t see how a power company can mandate anything that has to do with what I own.

JW,

We have to play by the poco's rule book when installing a service. It's their tag on the meter socket, and they have exclusive control over it. Even though I think it's a foolish restriction not to allow the GEC to be connected there, we have to play by the rules.

They also spec 3" conduit for residential underground services. If we install 2", guess what? They won't be pulling the wire in.

 

[iwire]

Re: Bonding meter can

JW, I don't know what you think I said.

Here are my main points.

A conduit is not a conductor covered by 310.4.

That being the case you can run a conduit in parallel with the neutral.

You can not run a 310.13 type conductor in parallel with the neutral unless you made it comply with 310.4.

 

[roger]

Re: Bonding meter can

JW, read the post you quoted and look closely at my graphic you used, do you see anything in that post saying you can not bond the "Grounded Conductor" at more than one location.

Now let's look at this,

The diagram that you posted here is not a paralleled neutral. 200.6 tells us that the grounded conductor must be white while 250.119 tells us that the equipment grounding conductor can be green.

You may have a future in comedy,

Roger

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

I see what you are saying about the parallel paths between the two and with the same breath I am saying that 250.92 (A)(1) requires that the two be bonded.

250.92 Services.
(A) Bonding of Services. The non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment indicated in 250.92(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) shall be effectively bonded together.
(1) The service raceways, cable trays, cablebus framework, auxiliary gutters, or service cable armor or sheath except as permitted in 250.84.
(2) All service enclosures containing service conductors, including meter fittings, boxes, or the like, interposed in the service raceway or armor.

Read #2 can you see the requirement? This is what the NEC says it is there in black and white. I didn?t make it up.
Now 250.142 give us relief of this but it is permission and not a requirement. Being it is permissive I do not have to do it that way.

250.142 Use of Grounded Circuit Conductor for Grounding Equipment.
(A) Supply-Side Equipment. A grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted to ground non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment, raceways, and other enclosures at any of the following locations:
(1) On the supply side or within the enclosure of the ac service-disconnecting means

250.92 is a requirement and no matter weather me you or anyone else likes it or not it is there. It will be there until a proposal is made to remove it.

As to the requirements of the utility I am not in argument about. I am only stating the requirements of the NEC.

 

[iwire]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by roger:
I can see it now, the "current" police stop these guys (electrons), and ask them if they are associated with a load somewhere,

Neutral Current Cop

 

[peter d]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by roger:
I can see it now, the "current" police stop these guys (electrons), and ask them if they are associated with a load somewhere, they reply, what color is our insulation you silly cop.

 

[iwire]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I see what you are saying about the parallel paths between the two and with the same breath I am saying that 250.92 (A)(1) requires that the two be bonded.

No one has said the meter can not or should not be bonded to the neutral.

Of course the meter must be bonded, any metering equipment I have installed has been 'self bonding' the neutral terminations are bolted without an insulator to the enclosure.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I see what you are saying about the parallel paths between the two and with the same breath I am saying that 250.92 (A)(1) requires that the two be bonded.

No one has said the meter can not or should not be bonded to the neutral.

Of course the meter must be bonded, any metering equipment I have installed has been 'self bonding' the neutral terminations are bolted without an insulator to the enclosure.

And I agree that this is allowed by 250.142 but it still does not take 250.92 out of the code

 

[peter d]

Re: Bonding meter can

JW, you've totally lost me. What are you getting at?

In this area, the bonding of the meter can is accomplished by 250.142 100% of the time. I suppose if we didn't bond the neutral to the meter can with its internal bond, then we could run a separate wire back to the service equipment or GEC and not have a parallel path. But I've never seen it done that way.

 

[iwire]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by jwelectric:
[And I agree that this is allowed by 250.142 but it still does not take 250.92 out of the code

250.92 requires the meter enclosure to be bonded, if the meter enclosure is factory bonded to the neutral 250.92 is satisfied.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
[And I agree that this is allowed by 250.142 but it still does not take 250.92 out of the code

250.92 requires the meter enclosure to be bonded, if the meter enclosure is factory bonded to the neutral 250.92 is satisfied.

I do not disagree with this.
What I am saying is that I am also allowed to bond the meter can and the service panel with a conductor sized by table 250.66 as outlined by 250.92 and still be code compliant.

I do understand that this gives a parallel path and that we will need Rogers?s electron police to direct traffic just as we would for a metal raceway that could be installed between the two.

I also agree that this is an area that needs to be addressed for clarity of the paralleling effects of the metal raceway.

 

[iwire]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by jwelectric:
What I am saying is that I am also allowed to bond the meter can and the service panel with a conductor sized by table 250.66 as outlined by 250.92 and still be code compliant [/QB]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

Well I guess that I will have to be the one to prove Bob right. He couldn't

edited to bold number 1, this is what Bob was talking about. I was wrong in the statement of the EGC

[ August 01, 2005, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[volt101]

Re: Bonding meter can

The bonding jumpers that 250.92 B (4) is talking about are sized to what chart?

Jim

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

Originally posted by volt101:
The bonding jumpers that 250.92 B (4) is talking about are sized to what chart?

Jim

250.66

 

[volt101]

Re: Bonding meter can

As you can see no conductor is mentioned in the Method of Bonding at the Service.

250.66

Now you got me confused JW

Jim

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Bonding meter can

I was confused until I read all of 250.92.

I stopped reading in part (A) and searched elsewhere instead of reading all of the section. The way I was reading part (A) of 250.92 and 250.142 I took a stand and was WRONG!!!

Please, I beg forgiveness for my mistake. I am so sorry that I didn?t read it all. I promise not to do it again.

 

[volt102]

Re: Bonding meter can

OK JW, just don't let it happen again!

Jim