I don't follow any code other than NEC, california code would simply be a local requirement, some cities have their own upgrades as well which go over and beyond other state or national guidelines.
You won't necessarily see a meter, but that doesn't mean it's not the service, this is just an illustration. If you notice, there are only three SE conductors, not four. You can see it's just a 2-pole breaker so it is a single phase. Some people use a separate ground bus, maybe if a ATS was added, the neutrals and grounds would already be separated. Also, it appears they used the ground bus to attach the MBJ.
Where does the NEC require a ufer instead of 2 ground rods? I beleive you may be thinking of the IBC or local requirements to put one in if pouring new foundation. For an existing structure without a ufer the NEC does not require one. NEC even permits ignoring a ufer if it's inaccessible.
yeah Seattle has a similar thing, although no specific wording just an interpretion, that if a GEC is exposed then it is likely to get "damaged" by someone stealing it.
Not required if existing
Yup that section definitely does not say that a ufer is required, only that it must be used if it exists. Not sure what you're trying to say here. As far as the NEC says, I can build a new house and use the water pipe and two rods for the GES. (Or just two rods if there's no water service or the water pipe is plastic, say.) Any requirement to install a ufer must come from some other code or local enforcement, not the NEC.
It's a WAC rule that we deal with here. They will alow a ground ring in lieu of a uffer if it's forgotten but no one does that it's cheaper to start chiping the foundation and get at it that way. This is also only applicable to new buildings here. On things like pole buildings which might not have any rebar or even a poured floor I have only been required to have 2 rods.
Presence of a meter has little bearing on whether it is a service or not. Pretty common there is an in line meter on 320 amp and less though.
That should be designer issue not a code. JMO. Only justifiable reason for it to be code is for physical protection reasons.
Back when they changed things they changed it to say when present instead of where accessible (or something very similar to that wording).
Okay but if there is rebar in the footing and no plastic or vapor barrier under it then it exists and you have to use it as an ufer
Not if it's inaccessible, there's a exception for that.
I'll have to check the wording, but didn't they change that several cycles ago from accessible to present or something like that? Meaning if it's there you have to use it?
Oh ok, yeah for existing. I thought we were talking about new.
Either way it still isn't the NEC that requires the ufer to be installed. For new construction it will almost certainly exist, but only because some other code(s) require(s) it.
