Economics of "no live work" in residential service work

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DPMin

Member
Location
Pennsylvania
Is any one aware of a residential service focused electrical contracting company that has successfully an implemented a strict “no live work” policy? I’m curious to hear about how such a policy has impacted the business’ ability to win jobs when the perceived “hassle” is high, relative to industry norms.

A simple example: A customer needs a malfunctioning single-pole breaker replaced in their panel. The main breaker of this panel is also the service disconnect, so the only way to completely de-energize the panel would be for the power company to temporarily disconnect the home’s electric service. (The same constraints would apply to any work that requires removing the panel cover.)

For the “no live work” contractor, the lead-time for such a job might be days or weeks depending on the power company. Additionally, the customer would lose power for some portion of the day.

Meanwhile - there are likely many competitors that are willing to do the job “live”, and can offer same-day service, with no power-outage, for a presumably lower price (they don’t need to account for the additional coordination with the power company).

Bottom line - setting aside the merits of such a policy - are there any real world examples of a company proving it is economically viable to run a residential service business that prohibits live work?

Thanks!
 
DPMin said:
A simple example: A customer needs a malfunctioning single-pole breaker replaced in their panel. The main breaker of this panel is also the service disconnect, so the only way to completely de-energize the panel would be for the power company to temporarily disconnect the home’s electric service. (The same constraints would apply to any work that requires removing the panel cover.)



Thanks!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that a company doing something like this would stay in business. My guess is that for every one company doing this there are 9999 that will change the SP breaker without having the utility disconnect the power first.
 
Is that how, no live work is defined? I thought you were going to say, turn off the main breaker thus de-energizing the whole house for one sp breaker. If that truly is the definition then why the push to cover exposed energized parts in the panel. For example the panels now come with those yellow covers on the main lugs. Don't need them if you pull the meter.

Personally I would not deenergize the panel for a SP-breaker in a residential panel, and I am sure most wouldn't. Especially for a breaker swap. If I were bringing in a new circuit, I would just be extra careful of the bare ground flopping around. I do turn circuits off when I can. Changing a recep, or switch. If I can find the breaker I will.

No company could function, and no customer would be happy if we had to call the utility two weeks in advance to do a breaker swap. Electricity is inherently dangerous, that's why we are qualified and licensed. We don't take silly needless risks, but swapping a SP breaker in a live residential panel does not quality as silly or needless in my book.
 
There are many times you can't effectively and efficiently troubleshoot with everything dead.

Suppose you have an instance where a GFCI receptacle isn't working. You don't know if it's a defective device or if the whole circuit is dead. You have no idea what circuit is on because the panel isn't labeled.

So now you have a decision to make. Do you roll the dice that it's only a bad device, and you forgo having the power company shut down the whole house? Then you can just turn off the main breaker and change the device.

Or do you go ahead and have the power company shut down the whole house just in case you have to take the panel cover off to change out a breaker?

Aside from the troubleshooting Fiasco, just think about how you pitch that to the customer...

Well, I need to coordinate with the power company to have a temporary shutdown. The time I spend on the phone, waiting for them, etc will cost you $500. Then after they turn off the power, I can go through the rigorous task of checking the continuity on every circuit so that I can ensure I have found the proper one. That will probably cost $300. I don't have any way of knowing If the GFCI is bad because there won't be any power to it, so I will install a new one for $50. I don't have any way of knowing whether or not the breaker is bad because there's no power, so I will install a new one for $180. After I finished these tests, I will wait for the power company to come back and turn on the power. That will cost you another $250. After they turn the power back on, then I need to test the receptacle. Let's hope it works because if it doesn't, they will need to turn the power back off and you might need to rent an emergency generator for the night so your refrigerator has power because now it's been off all day and it might be a long evening for me. Add $350 for the generator and the time it takes for me to go get one, bring it back and get it running. Now it's going to be a late night troubleshooting because the GFCI is on a circuit with a new breaker and new device, but apparently it's not working because of a bad connection somewhere else. I really can't say how long this might take. You may be on a generator for several days. Have you thought about checking into a hotel? You can get a nice place for about $120 per night
 
Total non live work is impractical for most jobs, exposure limitations is the key. Putting a plug in breaker on a live buss is definitely live work, thus prohibited, turning the main off, and installing the breaker on a dead buss, has only limited exposure to the utility side breaker terminals. Proper PPE is still required due to that exposure. Testing and troubleshooting is exempted, but still requires proper PPE.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Total non live work is impractical for most jobs, exposure limitations is the key. Putting a plug in breaker on a live buss is definitely live work, thus prohibited, turning the main off, and installing the breaker on a dead buss, has only limited exposure to the utility side breaker terminals. Proper PPE is still required due to that exposure. Testing and troubleshooting is exempted, but still requires proper PPE.
Click to expand...
I agree but if turning off the main is still exposure, then isnt plugging in a dryer? I know I always keep my fingers clear when plugging in or unplugging those. Fingers come close to those blades and as soon as they contact..... zing
 
mikeames said:
I agree but if turning off the main is still exposure, then isnt plugging in a dryer? I know I always keep my fingers clear when plugging in or unplugging those. Fingers come close to those blades and as soon as they contact..... zing
Click to expand...
Don’t be giving them any ideas! We will be wearing hot gloves when plugging stuff in! LOL!
 
Wow...
I’m trying to imagine what people’s reaction would be if utilities start working like that.
 
Most are going to do this type of work without even turning the main off.

I pushed for a few code cycles for a "separate compartment" rule for the service disconnect and service entrance conductors, like they require in Canada. That was not accepted for the NEC, but it triggered action by UL that resulted in the line side barriers that are now installed in service equipment. That does not give any where near the protection of a separate compartment, they do provide a substantial reduction in the risk when working in the enclosure that contains the service disconnect.
 
Thanks everyone for the the replies - responses were about what I was expecting so far. I know there are larger commercial/industrial contractors that prohibit live work - but never heard of a residential contractor. I've been reading through NFPA 70E, and my immediate reaction was "how would a residential contractor implement this?" - I guess I'll keep looking for real world examples!

@James L my understanding is that troubleshooting is an exception to the "no live work" in NFPA 70E - although PPE would be required.

@mikeames for what its worth, turning off a main breaker / disconnect isn't considered "live work", in my understanding, assuming the panel cover is in place.

@don_resqcapt19 I'm also curious why the NEC hasn't adopted the Canadian style "separate compartments" - seems like it would be a pretty inexpensive change - just a bit of sheet metal, especially when compared to something like requiring arc-fault breakers.
 
DPMin said:
@don_resqcapt19 I'm also curious why the NEC hasn't adopted the Canadian style "separate compartments" - seems like it would be a pretty inexpensive change - just a bit of sheet metal, especially when compared to something like requiring arc-fault breakers.
Click to expand...
The biggest reason is the rule in 404.7 that requires where a circuit breaker is operated vertically, the up position must be the "on" position. In the Canadian panelboards, the top section is for the service disconnect and the service conductors. As a result, the typical installation is horizontal to permit easy entry of the branch circuit cables, however, that results in all of the breakers operating vertically, but half of them will be "on" when the handle is in the down position.

There was a move in the 2020 code that requires where you have more than one service disconnect, that each of those must be in separate enclosures or compartments, but I don't think we will every see anything other than the voltage protection barrier that is required on the line side of service equipment by the code now within the enclosure or compartment.
 
With the new 2020 NEC requirement for an emergency disconnect on the outside of the dwelling this scenario could become moot. However for me I won't be turning off the entire service to add a circuit breaker.
 
I just put in a Square D Homeline main breaker panel. It came with covers for the utility side breaker connections. Once installed, if the main is turned off, there is no live metal exposed anywhere on that panel. I thought they were a good idea and actually used them.
 
K8MHZ said:
I just put in a Square D Homeline main breaker panel. It came with covers for the utility side breaker connections. Once installed, if the main is turned off, there is no live metal exposed anywhere on that panel. I thought they were a good idea and actually used them.
Click to expand...
Yeah it does seem like a no brainer and I find it quite amazing there was no code or product standard (until just recently) that required line side "stuff" to be covered. Although I am opposed to the elimination of service MLO's, I would have supported some sort of redesign that required more buss protection. I have used I-line MLO in cases where I am quite certain I will add more breakers later. I think the I-line design is safe enough to work in live even at 480, where I wouldn't work live in pretty much any other 480 panel board.
 
DPMin said:
@James L my understanding is that troubleshooting is an exception to the "no live work" in NFPA 70E - although PPE would be required.
Click to expand...
I'm curious 🤔

Why would you be changing a breaker if there were no trouble with it?
If you correct something is malfunctioning, you are troubleshooting.

Unless you're suggesting you get your hands all in the panel to find the problem, then you back away and let the power company turn the service off so that you can change one breaker?
 
I think the intent of “No live work” is to prevent arc flashes, with the main off, the hazard is still there, but minimal, changing a breaker on a live bus, the hazard is much greater, even though with the plug in breakers it’s done all the time. I denied a permit to one of my guys because the store was open, and he didn’t want to shut them down. The manager was ok with a couple of minute shutdown. The tech called me back a few minutes later thanking me for denying the permit. When he pulled the old breaker out, the buss was burnt and came out with it. Could have been a serious arc flash. Sure the store was down for a couple hours while he got a new interior, but if it had been left, it could have caught fire, and they would have been down a lot longer! We usually try to schedule after hours just in case something like that happens.
 
James L said:
I'm curious 🤔

Why would you be changing a breaker if there were no trouble with it?
If you correct something is malfunctioning, you are troubleshooting.

Unless you're suggesting you get your hands all in the panel to find the problem, then you back away and let the power company turn the service off so that you can change one breaker?
Click to expand...

In my opinion troubleshooting would be verifying voltage on the output of the breaker with of course panel on. After verifying the breaker to be bad replacing the breaker would be work and no longer troubleshooting.
 
mikeames said:
In my opinion troubleshooting would be verifying voltage on the output of the breaker with of course panel on. After verifying the breaker to be bad replacing the breaker would be work and no longer troubleshooting.
Click to expand...
So option number two. Open the panel cover and work in there for up to an hour, just to verify that you need to have the power company shut down the whole house so that you can get in the panel and work in there for the other 5 minutes it takes to change the breaker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top