NEC or NESC

[dnem]

Do you also apply the NEC conductor ampacity requirements?

Why not, 240 says it applies to 'all conductors'?

The reason why you don't is simple, those conductors are not covered by the NEC.

Now if the service point was at the pole than yes, the NEC would apply.

?those conductors are not covered by the NEC?
That answers your question.

But that does explain why you don?t think 230.26 applies to this thread.

David

 

[allenwayne]

Bryon Holland,
what good is a NEC code and inspector approved installation if the POCO refuses to connect to it?? Your attitude is showing.
Joe

Even though the AHJ passes a code compliant service it is the POCO that decides if it meets the standards they set.The AHJ,building dept. have no jurisdiction over them, they simply tell the POCO the install meets thier codes and has passed.POCO`S have a manual that gives the requirements for a hook up if the actual install meets the NEC code and it is passed by the AHJ,but it doesn`t meet the standards of the POCO they simply walk off until the install meets the standards they have.

Been there tried to fight it and lost every time.

 

[iwire]

But that does explain why you don’t think 230.26 applies to this thread.

David

The question in this thread was this

Hi, the local utility (Denver) here owns to the "point of attachment", ment to be where the overhead drop is connected to the mast conductors. My question is the 2005 NEC requires 8 ft clearance over patio roofs with less than 4/12 slope. Is this situation dictated by NEC or NESC?

Clearly the person is asking about utility owned and controlled conductors.

That being the case the NEC does not apply to those conductors.

90.2(B)(5)(a) tells us that the NEC does not apply to utility owned service drops or service lats.

I also posted CMP comments backing that up but I realize you don't feel the CMPs understand the intent of the NEC.

If the utility service point was back at the pole than you could apply 230.26 to the conductors.

You seem to be very selective in the sections of code you are willing to accept.

 

[George Stolz]

I was agreeing with Bob until I read your last post.

Look closely, and by the "invisible to the NEC" concept, there is a mast visible to the NEC with conductors at it's tip at an illegal altitude.

I think a modified version of Proposal 4-37 or 4-39 should be accepted, after seeing this.

 

[iwire]

I was agreeing with Bob until I read your last post.

Look closely, and by the "invisible to the NEC" concept, there is a mast visible to the NEC with conductors at it's tip at an illegal altitude.

I think a modified version of Proposal 4-37 or 4-39 should be accepted, after seeing this.

George, once again in plain english?

 

[George Stolz]

The question in this thread was this

Hi, the local utility (Denver) here owns to the "point of attachment", ment to be where the overhead drop is connected to the mast conductors. My question is the 2005 NEC requires 8 ft clearance over patio roofs with less than 4/12 slope. Is this situation dictated by NEC or NESC?

Clearly the person is asking about utility owned and controlled conductors.

That being the case the NEC does not apply to those conductors.

According to the OP, the POCO owns the overhead, but not the mast.

So the overhead is invisible to the NEC, but the mast and conductors at the top of the mast (after the connection to the overhead) are visible to the NEC.

If the POCO owned to the meter (which I had thought is always the case) then it would all be invisible to the NEC. In the case described, there seems to be a conflict between the NEC and NESC.

 

[iwire]

George where is the service point?

Here it is the connection between the utility overhead and the customers riser.

That being the case the point of attachment is the on the utility side of things.

Here we see very few masts and when we do install one it has to meet the utility's requirements or they will just keep driving.

Sure would be easier to comment on this POA issue if we had a picture of the installation.

 

[dnem]

The question in this thread was this

Hi, the local utility (Denver) here owns to the "point of attachment", ment to be where the overhead drop is connected to the mast conductors. My question is the 2005 NEC requires 8 ft clearance over patio roofs with less than 4/12 slope. Is this situation dictated by NEC or NESC?

I also posted CMP comments backing that up but I realize you don't feel the CMPs understand the intent of the NEC.

?I realize you don't feel the CMPs understand the intent of the NEC.?
Have you been talking to my wife ? . She ?realizes? everything I?m thinking without asking me what I?m thinking. . Both of you have some amazing abilities !

I myself haven?t made any progress on that mind reading thing.

It might have been better for you to post:
Since the utility owns the overhead service lateral conductors, 90.2(B)(5)a says that 230.24 doesn?t apply.
And since the utility owns the lag bolt insulator, 90.2(B)(5)a says that 230.26 doesn?t apply.

If you had posted that, I would have said:
I can?t reply until I first ask Joesparky a question. And the question is, where did you get the lag bolt insulator ?
If he answers, I got it from my supply house, then I haven?t changed my mind about what I?ve posted so far.
If he answers, I got it from the power company, then I?ll agree with your conclusion. . And if I was the inspector I would pass the service regardless of the clearance, but I would note his answer to my question on the permit card and confirm it with the power company later on.

But ?..

You never posted those statements.

David

 

[iwire]

David the person who installs it or supplies it is not the issue, it is who ultimately controls it, as in which side of the service point the specific item is located.

An example.

In many areas the EC installs the service lateral even though the service point is typically at the meter.

Even though the EC installs this service lateral it is under the exclusive control of the utility and is not at all subject to the NEC.

I will admit trying to pin down which side of the service point the POA is located is tricky.

IMO it secures the utility controlled conductors and has nothing to do with the customer owned riser.

That said I can certainly see other may feel differently.

 

[joesparky]

The point of service here was the connection between the loop and the mast conductors. I provided the insulator per POCO. The point was there was and still is a direct conflict between the NEC requirements and NESC. When this service was installed to comply with one code, it was in direct conflict with the other.

This situation should not be a problem for anyone, it should be corrected in the NEC, which is also in violation of OSHA. NESC is in compliance with OSHA.
Joesparky

 

[dnem]

The point of service here was the connection between the loop and the mast conductors. I provided the insulator per POCO.

Can you be a little more specific about what you mean by the term "per POCO" ?
Did they tell you what to buy and where to install it or did they give you the insulator ?

David

 

[dnem]

David the person who installs it or supplies it is not the issue, it is who ultimately controls it, as in which side of the service point the specific item is located.

Defining "control" is more than just tricky, it's nearly impossible to get a definition that all parties agree upon.

We have a power company in our county that has no involvement with the service past the drip loop and yet if the meter on the building is installed outside of a highth range of 3 to 5 feet, they refuse to power the meter. . Does that mean they "control" the meter ? . They also require a "heart" loop installation in the meterbase. . That is a controlling requirement.

How can you possibly define "control" ? . At least the code is a little more specific by saying "exclusive control". . But even exclusive control isn't completely clear. . The overhead conductors that the power company themselves install are definitely "exclusive control". . But how about the insulator that the contractor buys and installs himself ? . How about the mast and meterbase, contractor bought and installed ? . How about the main disconnect ? . Where does "exclusive control" end ?

In many areas the EC installs the service lateral even though the service point is typically at the meter.

If the contractor is buying and installing the mast, what determines that the service point is at the meter ? . Are you referring to a statement by the power company ?

IMO it secures the utility controlled conductors and has nothing to do with the customer owned riser.

What is the difference between a "customer owned riser" and a "service point is typically at the meter" which would extend the power company control all the way to the meter ?

If the customer bought and paid a contractor to install the riser isn't it a "customer owed riser" ? . And yet you said:

David the person who installs it or supplies it is not the issue, it is who ultimately controls it, as in which side of the service point the specific item is located.

I'm sticking with my question to joesparky:
Where did you get the lag bolt insulator ?
If he answers, I got it from my supply house, then I haven?t changed my mind about what I?ve posted so far.
If he answers, I got it from the power company, then I?ll agree with your conclusion.

David

 

[iwire]

Defining "control" is more than just tricky, it's nearly impossible to get a definition that all parties agree upon.

How can you possibly define "control" ? .

If the contractor is buying and installing the mast, what determines that the service point is at the meter ? .

David it is all about the location of the service point.

The service point is the boarder between the NEC and the NESC.

Who defines that particular location?

The part of the State or Local Govt. that oversees the utilities.

In most areas that would be the 'Utility Commission'

In Ohio it is The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

I poked around the site trying to find the Service point but it's a big site and I don't have the patients. I respectfully suggest you put in an inquire to them for clarification of the location of the service point.

Most areas that is the POA for overhead or the meter for underground buy they can certainly have other ways of doing it there.

The power company can also make rules that effect things on the customer side of the service point.

The height of the meter is a great example, it is usually well into the customer side of the service point but as a condition of receiving power from the power company the customer has to follow the rules of the power company.

I'm sticking with my question to joesparky:
Where did you get the lag bolt insulator ?
If he answers, I got it from my supply house, then I haven?t changed my mind about what I?ve posted so far.
If he answers, I got it from the power company, then I?ll agree with your conclusion.

I am not insulating you here but there are no words in the NEC that support you view point. The NEC tells us the item that makes a difference is the service point not who buys it or installs it.

 

[dnem]

Thanks for the link. . I searched it for about a half hour and I'll have to go back and look some more.

I am not insulating you here but there are no words in the NEC that support you view point. The NEC tells us the item that makes a difference is the service point not who buys it or installs it.

I disagree. . You've posted a reference where the NEC tells us the item that makes a difference is "exclusive control". . I don't see the words "exclusive control", 90.2(B)(5)a, as applying to a contractor purchased and installed insulator.

But I'm open to change my mind if I find reason in the definition of "service point".

David

 

[bphgravity]

Let me give you an example of two situations that relates this original question.

Let’s say a service drop to a home is only 7' above grade at its lowest point. This is a result of the POCO installation and not an effect of the permitted work by the electrical contractor. In this example, I would notify the POCO of the situation and that is as far as my responsibility would go.

Now let’s say the contractor of the permitted work installs the service mast which will result in the service drop being located within 3' of an opening window. At this point, I would reject the installation due to the lack of clearance requirements mandated by the NEC.

This is what is expected by me from both my building official and the local POCO.

In the event the POCO makes the connection on the second example, energizes the premises, and someone is injured from contact with the service drop out the window, I and the POCO would bare some responsibility. Though I would likely be immune from lawsuit, it would not be enough of a defense to state the NEC does not cover the requirements for utility owned service drops. If I am aware of a possible hazard that could danger a life or property, my oath of employment to the city I work requires me to do whatever I can to prevent the event, even if it is outside the scope of my license and responsibilities.

 

[dnem]

Bryan,

You would red tag the one 3 feet from the window but pass the one 7 feet from the ground ?

How is a service drop within 3 feet of a window opening any different than a service drop 7 feet from the ground ?
Both can be touched while on a conductive surface by simply raising your hand.

Actually the one 7 feet from the ground is more dangerous because the possiblity of conducting thru your body is greater when standing on the grounbd rather than standing in a building.

David

 

[iwire]

I disagree. . You've posted a reference where the NEC tells us the item that makes a difference is "exclusive control". . I don't see the words "exclusive control", 90.2(B)(5)a, as applying to a contractor purchased and installed insulator.

David I have all but given up.


Perhaps after a good nights sleep I will be refreshed.

 

[iwire]

How is a service drop within 3 feet of a window opening any different than a service drop 7 feet from the ground ?
Both can be touched while on a conductive surface by simply raising your hand.

You should not be asking questions like that.

It is not a question of it being dangerous or not (I believe both are dangerous)

It is a question of where your legal authority applies or does not apply.

Just because there is an electrical hazard does not mean it's within your authority to do something about.

Go back and read Byran's post, IMO he is describing how it should be handled.

Notify the poco that there is a potential problem, do not issue a red tag to the EC that has nothing to do with it.

JMO, Still need sleep.

 

[dnem]

It is a question of where your legal authority applies or does not apply.

Just because there is an electrical hazard does not mean it's within your authority to do something about.

Go back and read Byran's post, IMO he is describing how it should be handled.

Notify the poco that there is a potential problem, do not issue a red tag to the EC that has nothing to do with it.

But that's not what Bryan said. . He didn't say he wouldn't red tag either because it's not within his authority to do so. . He said he would red tag one but not the other.

If the service overhead lateral conductors are under the exclusive control of the electric utility, then they are under the exclusive control of the electric utility period. . 3 feet from a window or 7 feet from the ground is the same answer.

If the conductors and their attachment point are under the exclusive control of the utility:
3 feet from a window = no red tag, (+ notify the poco)
7 feet from the ground = no red tag, (+ notify the poco)

If the conductors and their attachment point are not under the exclusive control of the utility:
3 feet from a window = red tag
7 feet from the ground = red tag

So when I'm asking why he is treating them differently,

You should not be asking questions like that.

Yes I should be asking questions like that because I'm highlighting an inconsistancy.

David

 

[tbonse]

Isn't it the utilities job to make the connection? Don't they own bucket trucks? There are other ways besides ladders to get up 8'. Scaffolds, for example.

Sorry to be so harsh. I'm sure you have had enough frustration after dealing with the AHJ and the utility for weeks on end, but I don't think the 8' clearance should be eliminated.

The NEC is worried about someone walking the roof and touching the service conductors with something like a pole or other tool. If the conductors are 8' above the roof, someone really has to try hard to reach them.

If the roof has a slope of higher than 4/12, then it is unlikely anyone will be walking on it.

Who decided that the service mast should go in the middle of a slopped roof anyway? If the connection can't be safely made 8' above the roof, the mast should have gone somewhere else.


Steve

I'm going to pick up from where Steve left off on this. From your description of the distances present, I can only assume that you are working with a 1 story structure. That being said, the utility company should own at least one bucket truck capable of reaching not only the connection point for your house, but also the connection point at the transformer (a much higher point). They may charge you for the use of the truck to make the connection (much like the additional cost for underground service), but there should not be any reason for them to need the connection point lowered past the requirements of the NEC in order to make their connection. The only exception might be if the terrain would not permit access with that truck, in which case a different location for the meter should've probably been selected, or underground service delivered instead. I really don't see a compelling argument from the utility based upon what you have said earlier in this post, but evidently your AHJ did.