POCO are terrible at writing requirements that are supposed to comply with the NEC. Here is a perfect example. They first say comply with the NEC then they ask for something that is not required by the NEC.
That's putting it lightly.
NOT 'arguing' The point by any stretch.
I think we are in agreement that it's just another clueless POCO.
I always follow the utility guide. They're the Boss in the overall scheme of things, agreed?
Not much time to spare tonight, but i will be back this week. I OWE this place place AND the people here much gratitude !Providing that we are discussing the US National Electric Code (NEC) an impedance of 25 ohms or less is required for a supplemental driven rod electrode or a second driven rod must be installed at least 6 feet away without any maximum impedance for the 2 bonded driven rods.
If a concrete encased electrode is available then it must be used as part of the Grounding Electrode System.
The language is clear. If a Concrete Encased Electrode is present it must be used as part of the Grounding Electrode system. No one except you have broached the idea that the US NEC limits Auxiliary electrodes to a particular type or types because it doesn't. I see that question as a straw man argument. All though the NEC is not clear on this next point I cannot see any problem with installing an additional Concrete Encased Electrode to serve as an auxiliary electrode although I do admit that the section could be read perversely to require the second CEE to be used as part of the Grounding Electrode System. Please don't even start about the rest of the rebar being a parallel path because that is obviously intended in the nature of a Grounding Electrode System.
The NEC says that all electrodes present must be part of the GES except for an auxiliary electrode. Where does it say that the CEE cannot be used as an auxiliary electrode?
I don't see that wording for more than one. The basic rule is that any type of electrode can be used as an auxiliary electrode and that auxiliary electrode is not required to be connected to the GES. If someone uses a ground rod as an auxiliary electrode then are more ground rods required?
250.52(a)(3) says if there’s more than one cee available ar a building only one shall be required to connect to the buildings GES. So 250.50 tells me if there’s only one it means that it’s available and the only one of them available so it has to be part of the GES and 250.52(a)(3) tells me only one of them must be part of the GES if there’s multiple so . The second could be an auxiliary that’s not tied into the GES . I guess if there’s was only one you could say that you’re using it as an auxiliary electrode that’s connected to the GES . Because 250.54 says an auxiliary electrode doesn’t have to connect to a buildings GES it can connect to the equipment ground but 250.54 doesn’t say it’s prohibited from being a part of the GES. So applying that logic i guess you a sole CEE could be called auxiliary grounding electrode but it would have to be an auxiliary grounding electrode that was connected to the building’s GES to satisfy 250.50.
That language is appealable to the State's Utility regulating agency as not a legitimate need of the utility. All service standards of Stock, that means investor owned, Utilities must be approved by the State's Utility regulating authority. Even an informal appeal to the Utility regulators staff will sometimes bring about an order to connect. It seems to me that the service standards of the utilities you are referring to are just behind the clarification that is now written into the code. It is the official position of Code Making Panel #5 that the US National Electric Code (NEC) never required the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC) to be continuous from the furthest electrode to the next closest and to the connection point to the Grounded Conductor of the Service Entry Conductors. CMP 5s position is that such a requirement was never a part of the NEC and the demand for it to be done that way was just a misinterpretation of the NEC as written.
No why would there be. The only time you really need a rod type ejectrode is when it’s being used to supplement another electrode or if there are no electrodes permitted for grounding present at a building so you add the rods to provide the GES for the building. If you didn’t need the rods for a code compliant GES then why would the addition of a rod type auxiliary grounding electrode that may or may not be connected to the buildings GES require us to add additional rods and connect those rods to the GES ? Doesn’t make sense . 250.54 tells us the nec requirement for auxiliary grounding electrodes is that there aren’t any requirements to comply with because they are never required to be there
That’s exactly how I read that as well . Multiple cee’s available only one of them is required to be connected to the GES , so if theres multiple only one is required to be a part of the GES, you can call/use the other ones as auxiliary grounding electrodes whether they tie to the GES or simply connect to a egc . But if there’s only one present it must be a grinding electrode that is bonded into the building’s GES , that’s how it reads to me
