Is this enclosure being used as a raceway?

[steve66]

Since were talking service conductors, I would think the POCO may have some say in this. Even if the inspector allows it, the POCO can refuse to connect.

I'm not going to take a side on if this coplies with the code or not, but in my opinion, it would definitely be a bad design for a permenent service to have service conductors running through the same wireway as feeders or branch circuits.

Steve

 

[ryan_618]

"All service raceways containing service laterals need to go directly from the utility supply source to the meter enclosure. The NEC does not allow unprotected condutors to be run through a breaker panel where protected conductors are located" Jim

I disagree with this statement.

 

[ryan_618]

If you pull the meter on one of the millions, you kill power to the BC panel. If you pull the meter on the illustration, the BC panel is still hot.

How are the branch circuits hot without a meter? Don't you think the power company would have something to say about that?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

John,

Is it possible that the manufacturer spec's line conductors to only enter through top of enclosure?

If the can does not have a provision for a threaded hub on the top, it is not intended for top entry. I can't tell from the picture if this is the case or not.
Don

 

[Jljohnson]

I disagree with this statement.

I disagre as well Ryan, But the POCO wrote it in their standards book so, if I'm right about the town George is working in, he must do as the book says(not the NEC, the local standards book). These units do have provisions for a hub/top entry on them also.
jim

 

[stew]

so tell me how is this different than bringing these dangerous unfused conductors into the bottom of a service panel all the way up to the lugs on the main breaker with the branch service conductors resting against them all over in the panel ?????

 

[rcarroll]

I don't see a violation either. POCO in my area supplies temp power to most residential sites. My office inspects temp poles for commercial jobs. The usual violation I come across is, the GEC is run to a lug bolted to the can & not terminated to the neut bus. Ron

 

[Jljohnson]

so tell me how is this different than bringing these dangerous unfused conductors into the bottom of a service panel all the way up to the lugs on the main breaker with the branch service conductors resting against them all over in the panel ?????

In this particular situation, the difference is with the liability of the POCO (IMO). After the meter, they don't care, ahead of the meter, they are responsible.

 

[charlie b]

I disagree, but I'm not saying who I am disagreeing with!


OK, I'll confess. This is not my area of expertise. But I have a general feeling (let me see someone try to enforce that!) that conduits exist to bring wires into boxes, and boxes exist to contain the stuff to which wires are attached. Once you have brought the wire to the box, then the conduit's job, the "raceway's" job, is done. The box is not a raceway, but rather the place to which the raceway is bringing the wires.

I guess that means I am agreeing with Ryan. But never fear, I'll not let it happen again.

 

[dlhoule]

Charlie,

But I have a general feeling (let me see someone try to enforce that!) that conduits exist to bring wires into boxes, and boxes exist to contain the stuff to which wires are attached. Once you have brought the wire to the box, then the conduit's job, the "raceway's" job, is done. The box is not a raceway, but rather the place to which the raceway is bringing the wires.

Sounds to me like you're trying to use some common sense, which frequently doesn't work when dealing with the NEC.

 

[RB1]

This has come up in our area as well. It amazes me that an equipment enclosure can be considered within the domain of a rule that applies to raceways or cables(230.7 ???). There are 50 million load centers with branch circuit conductors laying in the same gutter space with service conductors.

What does the meter have to do with it? Does the metering equipment provide some type of current limitation? No! (OK maybe a few uH)

I also hate the use of the terms protected and unprotected. Our local code uses some of the same language. What does this mean? Protected from what? Do I need a fuse or Schedule 80 RNC? This is a poor substitute for the proper terms of "service conductors" or "feeder conductors."

Now, the listing and labeling of the equipment is another issue.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Trump Card - The PoCo Rules

Trump Card - The PoCo Rules

George,

I am assuming this is in Xcel's turf. Please correct my assumption if wrong.

From Xcel's Standard for Installation and Use Pg 42.

All line-side unmetered conductors shall be in a continuous length of conduit from the point of delivery to the meter socket, cold sequence disconnect, or CT cabinet. No conductors other than line-side conductors shall be permitted in line-side conduits, troughs, or lug landings. Access to the line-side conductors shall be sealable. Junction boxes, conduit bodies (e.g. LB?s), or other devices are not allowed without specific approval from the local Electric Meter Department.​

 

[Jljohnson]

I think he is in the City of Loveland Colorado, not Exel Al. I live ad work there and George is a 10 minute drive from me. The section of local standards that applies here is "All service raceways containing service laterals need to go directly from the utility supply
source to the meter enclosure. The NEC does not allow unprotected conductors to be run
through the breaker panel where protected conductors are located. (Art. 230.7; Raceway
definition, Art. 100; Contractor Construction Standards, Electricians? Edition, City of
Loveland Water and Power Department, page 9)".
Either way, Exel or City of Loveland, Poco trumps NEC, it's just the way it is.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Jim,

Ah, my! What it must be like to bask in the rarified glow of His Countenance.

 

[celtic]

How are the branch circuits hot without a meter? Don't you think the power company would have something to say about that?

If they found out about it, they might have something to say about it

So how do you deal with the POCO's locks on their unmetered electricity in the lower portion?

Take a standard 200 amp service panel. We have millions of them, with BCs and service conductors crossing inside of them everywhere.

A standard 200A panel does not have the metered and unmetered in the same area.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I didn't say they had metered and unmetered in the same enclosure. I said service conductors and branch circuit conductors in the same enclosure.

Regardless if they are metered or not, they are service conductors.

 

[Jljohnson]

My train of thought on the Poco's requirement for metered/unmetered seperation is to keep unscrupulous people from having access to unmetered power. The requirement has nothing to do with "service conductors" but everything to do with access to unmetered power conductors.

 

[ryan_618]

So how do you deal with the POCO's locks on their unmetered electricity in the lower portion?

I don't deal with it at all. I sign off on it as well, since it is not a violation.

 

[George Stolz]

George, I think you are in MY town now and it is not an NEC thang (in my opinion), it is a City of Loveland thang.

Now, I was not going to pick on anybody, but since you brought it up, yes, it's Loveland.

They do, however, quote 230.7 in the city of Loveland Contractor Construction Standards book on page 7. Article 2.4 on that page clearly states that "All service raceways containing service laterals need to go directly from the utility supply source to the meter enclosure. The NEC does not allow unprotected condutors to be run through a breaker panel wjere protected conductors are located"

Are you talking about the LV L&P's book? I was waiting to get a current copy until July, they've got a revise on the way. For now, I have a green book, which is a couple years out of date. If this is in the POCO's regulations as their own rule, I have to abide by it. And given the peculiar relationship the Building Department and the L&P share, the inspectors are beholden to enforce it. So, on the "local rules" aspect of this, I am now informed.

Thank you!

I can promise you that you will lose this battle, should you choose to fight it.

Once I had (what I perceived to be) a semi-plausible answer, I immediately (if reluctantly) decided to yank the temp and throw in a more acceptable one. I saw no benefit to fighting this, I didn't see the need. I did see an interesting topic for discussion, however.

 

[George Stolz]

Cliffhanger Revealed: My Opinion

Cliffhanger Revealed: My Opinion

Not that it's going to take anyone by surprise, but here is my opinion: 230.7 does not apply to this installation.

For one, the temp is listed as a complete unit, meter and all, so the entire box is one enclosure. Therefore, an enclosure cannot be a raceway to itself, IMO.

The entire enclosure is listed as service equipment, so I cannot see how installing service conductors into this single service enclosure can possibly violate the NEC (which all but disregards that meters exist anyway).

Second: Let's say for a moment that we disregard the first item and consider them two independent enclosures. The principle that service conductors are not in the same box as the panelboard is not correct: There are service entrance conductors feeding the top of the panelboard. Therefore, if the conductors running to the top of the meter socket are in violation of 230.7, then so are the service entrance conductors.

Third: The principle that the meter can disconnect conductors is not supported by the NEC. So to consider the conductors at the bottom of the meter entering the panelboard area of the enclosure "safer" from a disconnecting standpoint is not enforceable, by the NEC.

Fourth: The principle that the protective guards installed in Overhead/Underground convertible metermains are to conform with 230.7 is not correct, IMO. It is not a safety imperative, IMO. It is simply to prevent tampering, to protect the POCO's unmetered conductors, and ensure that they are getting paid for all electricity consumed at the premises served.