Just sloppy, or also functional??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like they're just waiting for the POCO to come in and make the permanent connections, maybe even change the drop from the pole.
 
Usually when I see them do something like that, they put a porcelain insulator on the eave to keep it from rubbing. Seems to be popular up north where they use one transformer to feed several houses.
 
That would not have passed inspection here due to the triplex going over the roof so close.

I was on a job where the POCO had to center tap lines on the street side before the inspector would OK the new service because the original drop went right over a garage in the back. It wasn't touching, but was only a couple feet above the garage roof.
 
Around here that drop would not be covered by the NEC.

90.2(B)Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:
(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and as-
sociated metering,
Click to expand...
 
infinity said:
Around here that drop would not be covered by the NEC.
Click to expand...

This is also reaffirmed some by the change in Art 100 definitions in 2011 for the terms service drop, service lateral, service point.

If those conductors are on the POCO side of the service point, the NEC does not apply to them.
 
kwired said:
This is also reaffirmed some by the change in Art 100 definitions in 2011 for the terms service drop, service lateral, service point.

If those conductors are on the POCO side of the service point, the NEC does not apply to them.
Click to expand...

But the Michigan Residential, or Michigan Electrical code may. Both reference the NEC, but are not the same. For most residences, we use the MRC and MEC.

That may be source of the discrepancies.
 
In the photo, the white line appears to have a knot tied around a nail, after the service mast. One of several issues that likely violate the POCO ESR's
 
Ok let me see if I got what I can see in the photo:

Service damage by storm.

Upgraded from a 60 amp to a 100 amp

SE cable looks like a 2-2-2

old service drop looks like #4AL with a solid AL messenger wrapped around what looks like a horse shoe staple (which right next to it you can see where it looks like a screw in insulator used to be as the eave material was cut around it)

For what ever reason the drop was re-located maybe from a mid-span to the pole but now rubs the eave, also if you look the old WH was higher from the holes in the sideing.

So now you have an undersized service drop.

The WH not a foot below the atachment point.

The service drop rubs the eave.

The service drop if attached by a staple instead of a insulator that can liven up the eave if the neutral is lost.

The drop runs over the roof (not sure if it does for 6' or more) exception #2, #3 or #4 of 230.24(A) could apply but can't see the roof in the photo?
 
Last edited:
Curious, I have never seen an solid aluminum messenger wire before, as here it is a hard drawn copper or stranded aluminum with a harden stainless core wire, is the above common in Jersey?

I may be wrong but the way it is bent into a knot around that staple or nail looks to be aluminum?
 
KWH said:
I thought the weatherhead was supposed to be above the clevice.
Click to expand...

Only thing I find that comes close to addressing this is 230.54(C). But it only mentions service entrance cable, which is what is in the OP photo, but other service weatherheads would not apply to this section.

IMO 230.54(F) addresses the real problem, keeping moisture from entering the service raceway or cable by providing a drip loop, with connections to the service drop conductor being below the weatherhead so moisture will not find a way down the inside of individual conductor insulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top