lighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: lighting

Where is this stated? It seems to me that art.90 is pretty clear about not covering utility controlled and owned installations, but we have a local inspector who now wants to make an issue of us wiring street lights. I work for a utility now, but I used to work in the electrical contracting business, and the local utility in this town has always installed and maintained the street lighting. Any references or interpretations would be appreciated. I think this may be a money case, because the local government has taken away some of the inspections that this agency did in the past.
 
Re: lighting

We just added a new building that houses 2 generators,that is attached to an existing generating plant, and the local inspectors required an inspection on the lighting in the building but nothing else. Why the lighting and not the important stuff? Our higher ups did not want to push the issue and let them inspect it, but I personally think it was wrong...but the inspection agency got paid.
 
Re: lighting

The division of what the utility does under the NESC and the NEC is up to the governing authority which is usually the public service commission in the state where it operates. There have also been some local laws and ordnances passed concerning this issue. The reason for stating it that way is the issue of parking lot lighting. 90.2 has had some strange things happening the last few cycles and some jurisdictions now claim all the parking lot lighting falls under the NEC even though it is on the NESC side of the service point. The NESC has picked up the gauntlet and makes a statement about the coverage also. :confused:
 
Re: lighting

We are located in Easton, Md. Talbot County A private inspection agency has always done all the inspections, but now the county has taken over some of it. If there is no written addendums to the NEC, and that is the adopted code, I do not see how they can enforce it if art 90 says it is not covered. I bet a judge would agree with that.
 
Re: lighting

So if this is ahead of the service point, it would not fall under NEC? These circuits are not metered, the utility just fuses the lines from a secondary transformer.
 
Re: lighting

In my opinion, the AHJ should have the final word, but it should be covered by either/or. I feel it should be covered by the NEC as long as it is served from the building service. If it is served by the utility, then NESC should take care of it. The problem I see is that if the lighting is owned by the buidling and the NESC does not cover it, something must be in place to regulate it. If it is unregulated, then anything can be done and/or built.

In our case, the AHJ sets the guidelines as to the design parameters, requirements, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top