Meter base to main panel board. Egc or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
Have one utility here that wants a ground rod connected to meter socket whether there is other grounding electrodes present or not on the same building/structure.
Click to expand...
One of ours is that way. Establish your GE system as you wish to NEC but they want a GEC from meter base to ground rod regardless.
 
My 2 cents from Florida, GEC should be landed at the meter base. If it is a meter can, or if a combination meter and main panel then land the GEC in the power provider side at the meter base lug per the manufacturer location and not on the premises side neutral bar/additional grounding bar. Approved MEG and FMG service panels are required for use in jurisdictions by certain power providers here in Florida and I believe in 6 other states.
My question to consider is why would you bring GEC into a structure to land in the Main disconnect location?
 
Mt61 said:
My question to consider is why would you bring GEC into a structure to land in the Main disconnect location?
Click to expand...
Many POCO's do not allow the GEC connection in the meter enclosure. The two that we have here do not allow it so it gets connected downstream of the meter.
 
Mt61 said:
My question to consider is why would you bring GEC into a structure to land in the Main disconnect location?
Click to expand...
It's as Infinity said, a number of POCO's are clueless.

Roger
 
SceneryDriver said:
Where does your N-G bond occur? If the bond occurs in the meter base, you must run L-L-N-G from the meter pan to the main panel. If the bond occurs in the main panel, you do not have to run the ground conductor; the meter base will be bonded to the neutral. Keep in mind that depending on the wiring method, the conduit may serve as the grounding conductor, so you may not have a green wire in the conduit even of the bond occurs in the meter base.

If the meter base contains overcurrent protection, you must separate the neutral and ground conductors; you now have a feeder and not service conductors.


SceneryDriver
Click to expand...
You do not have to run a EGC from a meterbase only just because the GEC lands there!
I do not know of any meterbase that gives you more than one auxiliary terminal for you to land anything more than just a GEC.
 
kwired said:
Have one utility here that wants a ground rod connected to meter socket whether there is other grounding electrodes present or not on the same building/structure.
Click to expand...
That is what our utility requires....two ground rods and a GEC connected in the meter can no matter what other electrodes are being used.
 
Ok, Here are some scenarios along these lines that I have encountered;
1.) Meter can on exterior of structure with GEC on Neutral lug in meter can, 3 wires in metal conduit to main panel.

2.) Meter can on exterior of structure with GEC on Neutral lug in meter can, 4 wires in metal conduit to main panel, (#4 green insulated conductor from neutral lug shared with GEC to an added grounding bar mounted inside main panel).

3.) Meter can on exterior of structure with GEC on Neutral lug in main panel, 3 wires in PVC conduit to main panel.

IMO scenario #2 is not compliant.
 
Mt61 said:
Ok, Here are some scenarios along these lines that I have encountered;
1.) Meter can on exterior of structure with GEC on Neutral lug in meter can, 3 wires in metal conduit to main panel.

2.) Meter can on exterior of structure with GEC on Neutral lug in meter can, 4 wires in metal conduit to main panel, (#4 green insulated conductor from neutral lug shared with GEC to an added grounding bar mounted inside main panel).

3.) Meter can on exterior of structure with GEC on Neutral lug in main panel, 3 wires in PVC conduit to main panel.

IMO scenario #2 is not compliant.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum. I agree with your assessment, to wit:

1. Compliant as long as power co. allows GEC to be terminated in meter enclosure; ours and many others don't.

2. Not compliant, because of required bonding in main disconnect enclosure; parallel neutral-current pathway.

3. Also compliant. EMT vs PVC is not an issue; conduit is considered part of neutral ahead of main disconnect.
 
On the idea that #2 is not compliant, what section prohibits a bonus (unnecessary) Supply Side Bonding Jumper? And how is the 3rd parallel path (the wire type SSBJ) any worse than the 2nd parallel path (the metal conduit)?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
On the idea that #2 is not compliant, what section prohibits a bonus (unnecessary) Supply Side Bonding Jumper? And how is the 3rd parallel path (the wire type SSBJ) any worse than the 2nd parallel path (the metal conduit)?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Unless the meterbase has two lugs (not counting the SE lugs) sharing the EGC with the GEC in the same lug wouldn't be permitted unless the lug was rated for two conductors. I've only seen one lug in a meterbase for a GEC connection.
 
wwhitney said:
On the idea that #2 is not compliant, what section prohibits a bonus (unnecessary) Supply Side Bonding Jumper? And how is the 3rd parallel path (the wire type SSBJ) any worse than the 2nd parallel path (the metal conduit)?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
The metal raceway parallel path cannot be eliminated because it's conductive and metallic raceways are permitted to be used with service conductors. An extra conductor in parallel with the neutral can be removed and is required to be removed by 200.6.
 
wwhitney said:
On the idea that #2 is not compliant, what section prohibits a bonus (unnecessary) Supply Side Bonding Jumper? And how is the 3rd parallel path (the wire type SSBJ) any worse than the 2nd parallel path (the metal conduit)?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that for services, the NEC doesn't use the words "parallel path", but interestingly it DOES for SDS's. I guess for services the argument would be that the raceway parallel path is unavoidable while the ssbj is.
 
infinity said:
The metal raceway parallel path cannot be eliminated because it's conductive and metallic raceways are permitted to be used with service conductors. An extra conductor in parallel with the neutral can be removed and is required to be removed by 200.6.
Click to expand...
I see nothing in 200.6 that prohibits an extra SSBJ. Care to elaborate?

BTW, I'm not suggesting the extra SSBJ is a good idea or useful. Just asking what section prohibits it.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Little Bill said:
Unless the meterbase has two lugs (not counting the SE lugs) sharing the EGC with the GEC in the same lug wouldn't be permitted unless the lug was rated for two conductors. I've only seen one lug in a meterbase for a GEC connection.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the above, but I didn't read #2 to imply improper use of lugs in the meter base. Assume all lug use is proper, with perhaps an extra lug bolted to the meter can for the extra SSBJ.

Cheers, Wayne
 
infinity said:
The metal raceway parallel path cannot be eliminated because it's conductive and metallic raceways are permitted to be used with service conductors. An extra conductor in parallel with the neutral can be removed and is required to be removed by 200.6.
Click to expand...
Rob, I know I also said it was unavoidable, but to play devil's advocate here, isn't it avoidable using one of the methods in 250.6? Say using a non-metallic fitting in the raceway system or using a ssbj to bond say a pull box instead of bonding it directly to the neutral? I have never had or heard of any of these remediations being required by an inspector but nonetheless it does seem avoidable.....
 
This is what is required in Los Angeles County.
 

Attachments

  • Electrical Service Detail - Los Angeles County.pdf
    58.1 KB · Views: 14
There was a typo in my last post it should have read 250.6.

Yes you could use pvc to not have a parallel path for the neutral current but there is nothing in the nec that would require you to do so. You are required to remove the conductor that is parallel with the neutral.
 
infinity said:
There was a typo in my last post it should have read 250.6.

Yes you could use pvc to not have a parallel path for the neutral current but there is nothing in the nec that would require you to do so. You are required to remove the conductor that is parallel with the neutral.
Click to expand...
IMO, if current IS objectionable, then an inspector is within his rights to require one of the remediations in 250.6. the question is of course what is objectionable...... If they're not going to define objectionable they should just delete that whole section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top