Is a service conductor not part of the service?

[00crashtest]

Perhaps in common usage, but not per the NEC definitions excerpted in the OP. Per those definitions, there is no overlap between service drop and service conductors.

Cheers, Wayne

Thank you so much for your confirmation! Everything is now totally settled besides one thing, which is why the NEC used "wiring system of the premises served" instead of "premises wiring".

 

[jap]

I'm a very common guy.

What are you going to call the conductors from a utility transformer to the first overcurrent protection device if they aren't called service conductors?

JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

To ask about the definition of service, really.

Yeah, it's a bad definition. The definition of "Premises Wiring (System)" explicitly includes everything starting at the service point. Given that, the definition of "service" as written is maybe just the connector the POCO applies to connect the service drop to the overhead service conductors. Or else it's null.

The definition of service should be something like "Conductors and equipment from the service point up to and including the service equipment." Time for a 2026 NEC PI.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[00crashtest]

One other comment I would like to add is regarding "overhead service conductors". These are actually quite rare around here. Most serving overhead conductors are service drops and are on the utility side of the service point. Where you would actually have overhead service conductors is say a customer owned Pole that is between the utility pole and the house, with the overhead service conductor is being the conductors between the house and the customer owned Pole.

Thank you so much for confirming my thoughts! Except your post is now inaccurate in that you classified service drop as a service conductor.

 

[electrofelon]

I'm a very common guy.

What are you going to call the conductors from a utility transformer to the first overcurrent protection device if they aren't called service conductors?

JAP>

It depends. If it is a pad mounted transformer and underground, around here usually those would be service conductors as the service point would be at the transformer spades. For overhead, typically it would be a service drop with the service conductors starting at the weatherhead.

 

[electrofelon]

Thank you so much for confirming my thoughts! Except your post is now inaccurate in that you classified service drop as a service conductor.

Can you tell me where I said that? I am not seeing it

 

[00crashtest]

I'm a very common guy.

What are you going to call the conductors from a utility transformer to the first overcurrent protection device if they aren't called service conductors?

JAP>

The NEC already made it clear for this one for its own purposes: They are called service drops if upstream of the service point, and overhead service conductors if downstream of the service point and upstream of the service-entrance conductors. For underground installations, they are called service laterals if upstream of the service point, and underground service conductors if downstream of the service point. Since underground installations may or may not have a service-entrance conductor, the underground service conductor ends at either the service-entrance conductors or directly at the service equipment. For purposes outside of the NEC, you can call them whatever you want, but this question asked about the NEC only.

 

[00crashtest]

The definition of service should be something like "Conductors and equipment from the service point up to and including the service equipment." Time for a 2026 NEC PI.

Cheers, Wayne

I will definitely comment to the NFPA when it opens suggestions to the NEC 2026, presumably in 2024 and possibly as early as Fall 2023.

 

[00crashtest]

Can you tell me where I said that? I am not seeing it

Never mind, I misread "serving overhead conductors" as "overhead service conductors". My apology.

 

[jap]

The NEC already made it clear for this one for its own purposes: They are called service drops if upstream of the service point, and overhead service conductors if downstream of the service point and upstream of the service-entrance conductors. For underground installations, they are called service laterals if upstream of the service point, and underground service conductors if downstream of the service point. Since underground installations may or may not have a service-entrance conductor, the underground service conductor ends at either the service-entrance conductors or directly at the service equipment. For purposes outside of the NEC, you can call them whatever you want, but this question asked about the NEC only.

So what did we learn from all of this?

JAP>

 

[jap]

It depends. If it is a pad mounted transformer and underground, around here usually those would be service conductors as the service point would be at the transformer spades. For overhead, typically it would be a service drop with the service conductors starting at the weatherhead.

A service drop describes nothing if it doesn't incorporate some type of conductor.

JAP>

 

[00crashtest]

So what did we learn from all of this?

JAP>

That the service does not necessarily end at the service point, and that the service conductors and service equipment may or may not be part of the service in addition to the premises wiring. That is because of the ambiguity of the wording "wiring system of the premises served". Not much was learned, but a lot of confirmation was made.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

So what did we learn from all of this?

JAP>

Pretty sure it has to do with definitions and there application.
I have to re read again to get a good understanding of the post.

 

[electrofelon]

A service drop describes nothing if it doesn't incorporate some type of conductor.

JAP>

Huh?

 

[00crashtest]

A service drop describes nothing if it doesn't incorporate some type of conductor.

JAP>

A service drop is defined as a conductor specifically overhead and

between the serving utility and the service point.

So, if a line that looks like service drop does not incorporate any conductor, then it is not a service drop at all.

 

[jap]

Pretty sure it has to do with definitions and there application.
I have to re read again to get a good understanding of the post.

Good luck.

A service drop is defined as a conductor specifically between the utility wiring and the service point. So, if a line that looks like service drop does not incorporate any conductor, then it is not a service drop at all.

I completely agree with you,

JAP>

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

A service drop is defined as a conductor specifically overhead and

So, if a line that looks like service drop does not incorporate any conductor, then it is not a service drop at all.

Then how does it look like a service drop and why use that definition. Maybe poor choice of words?
Maybe use something like it's a drop of some sort. After all there is no conductors.
How would you think it should read if it applicable to the NEC.
I'm interested.

 

[00crashtest]

Then how does it look like a service drop and why use that definition. Maybe poor choice of words?
Maybe use something like it's a drop of some sort. After all there is no conductors.
How would you think it should read if it applicable to the NEC.
I'm interested.

If it is a line only for telecommunications. Theoretically, it could also just contain dummy wire (non-metallic) that is only part of a decorative (but ugly) installation to visually accurately recreate a historic theme.

 

[augie47]

As with many Sections of the Code, there can be improvements in the wording and recommendations for doing so should be presented to the NFPA and/or the Code making process. In general, through experience, those working in the field seem to navigate through the service definitions without difficulty.
While your questions may have merit, i don't think they are that relevant to folks dependent on this Forum for input to their daily activity and would be better directed to the Code Making Panels..