After a electrical inspection requested by my insurance company on my 80year
home, the inspector reported that the service entrance cable was not up to
code. He stated that the cable was not in code due to not being protected by
conduit down to the meter. This has caused my insurance company to promptly
drop my coverage until the matter is resolved.
My problem is I'm getting multiple opinions from electricians and don't know
which way to go.
One electrician says the meter has to be directly beneath the point of
connection to the home, another says that conduit can be installed through
the attic and back outside to run down to the meter, and another says that
the cable only needs to have a protective covering installed from the meter
to under the eave.
No one seems to be in agreement.
Of course I like the idea of only having to add protection over the cable,
but I don't know if this will pass inspection.
My second preferred method would be to run conduit from the point of
connection, through the attic, and then run back outside and down to the
meter. Again, I'm not sure this is to code.
My least preferred method would be to install the meter on the front of the
house and install a feeder to the existing panel. I really don't want to
have the meter on the front of my home.
Here's the scenario for anyone nice enough to try to help me:
Service cable comes from pole to the front peak of my home. (This is the
only space on the house that is visible from the utility pole). From the
attactchment on the front of the house the cable is clamped to the house and
runs under the eaves and down to the meter. The cables are bound together
and enclosed in a single sheath. The run is about 50'. As stated in the
inspection the cable is not in conduit down to the meter. The meter has some
type of weather-proof connector on top that the cable enters the meter
through. From the meter the cable is in conduit and runs down to the panel.
The panel and all internal wiring has been updated.
Also, all local electrical codes are based on the 2002 NEC with no
variations.
Thanks in advance,
Joe M.
home, the inspector reported that the service entrance cable was not up to
code. He stated that the cable was not in code due to not being protected by
conduit down to the meter. This has caused my insurance company to promptly
drop my coverage until the matter is resolved.
My problem is I'm getting multiple opinions from electricians and don't know
which way to go.
One electrician says the meter has to be directly beneath the point of
connection to the home, another says that conduit can be installed through
the attic and back outside to run down to the meter, and another says that
the cable only needs to have a protective covering installed from the meter
to under the eave.
No one seems to be in agreement.
Of course I like the idea of only having to add protection over the cable,
but I don't know if this will pass inspection.
My second preferred method would be to run conduit from the point of
connection, through the attic, and then run back outside and down to the
meter. Again, I'm not sure this is to code.
My least preferred method would be to install the meter on the front of the
house and install a feeder to the existing panel. I really don't want to
have the meter on the front of my home.
Here's the scenario for anyone nice enough to try to help me:
Service cable comes from pole to the front peak of my home. (This is the
only space on the house that is visible from the utility pole). From the
attactchment on the front of the house the cable is clamped to the house and
runs under the eaves and down to the meter. The cables are bound together
and enclosed in a single sheath. The run is about 50'. As stated in the
inspection the cable is not in conduit down to the meter. The meter has some
type of weather-proof connector on top that the cable enters the meter
through. From the meter the cable is in conduit and runs down to the panel.
The panel and all internal wiring has been updated.
Also, all local electrical codes are based on the 2002 NEC with no
variations.
Thanks in advance,
Joe M.
