New weatherhead tilted

[tortuga]

I would pull it all off and go back with an underground service.

Most of the time I see nice strut like that on a residence installed with cheap deck screws and fender washers into old split siding, all it takes is a small ice coated tree branch to knock it sideways so the jack leaks or rips it thru the soffit. With all the storms and wind more and more people with old overhead pony up and just convert to underground.

 

[LarryFine]

Most of the time I see nice strut like that on a residence installed with cheap deck screws and washers into old split siding, all it takes is a small ice coated tree branch to knock it sideways so the jack leaks or rip it thru the soffit.

I recently replaced a badly-rusted-out meter base, and the POCO is to replace the damaged service cable.

The house had been re-sided in vinyl, and the siders re-attached the SE with roofing nails in the siding only!

 

[hillbilly1]

I think you guys are all mostly off the mark. I don't know how you all think you can tell it that it's EMT and not rigid from here with that low res photo. The tilt is essentially a purely aesthetic issue. Most concerning is whether that cantilevered strut is effectively securing anything. Otherwise not the prettiest work to be sure, but show me the code violation that you can confirm without a better photo.

It looks to be threaded on the 90 with compression on the other end. Regardless, it would still be legal whether it’s emt or rigid, as long as the 90 and riser is rigid. Most are saying it’s just bad workmanship, which it is.

 

[Little Bill]

. Instead, the riser is clearly leaning *inward* toward the middle of the house,

You must be looking at the old mast because the new mast is leaning towards the outside, in the direction of the incoming service conductors.
If you look at that vent stack, you will see a larger gap at the bottom than at the top from the mast running up beside it.

 

[jaggedben]

You must be looking at the old mast because the new mast is leaning towards the outside, in the direction of the incoming service conductors.
If you look at that vent stack, you will see a larger gap at the bottom than at the top from the mast running up beside it.

No I'm looking at the new mast. It's leaning to the right in the photo, meaning it's leaning toward the street or toward the middle of the front of the house or both. But if anything it should be leaning toward the left, which is what I meant by 'outward'.

 

[acrwc10]

You guys are a bunch of Hippocrates, I posted a picture of a mast that was way worse than that and everyone here was commenting, "it passes code". What changed your minds???????

 

[jaggedben]

You guys are a bunch of Hippocrates, I posted a picture of a mast that was way worse than that and everyone here was commenting, "it passes code". What changed your minds???????

We are ancient Greek doctors? Nevermind, I think I know what you meant...

 

[acrwc10]

We are ancient Greek doctors? Nevermind, I think I know what you meant...

Bad spelling and spell check

 

[gene6]

You guys are a bunch of Hippocrates, I posted a picture of a mast that was way worse than that and everyone here was commenting, "it passes code". What changed your minds???????

this thread?
https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/it’s-all-about-the-little-details.2570685/

 

[rambojoe]

I didnt think pg&e would allow emt, especially on a overhead.
If they got the hole in the eave drilled in the right spot (and the correct sized hole)
It wouldnt move...

 

[Elect117]

The issue here is that the tension in the neutral through the single point (which should be 18" above the roof) is carrying the full tension. It looks like PGE ran #4 triplex and depending on how far the run is and the rise/drop, you have a decent amount of tension for that conductor size.

I would suggest guying it or other means of support. It will get worse overtime. If you are in an area where snow accumulates or high winds are normal than it can become an issue.

I do believe it to be more of a workmanship issue than an issue of strength. If they do not want to fix it, then you can file a complaint to the California state license board. They have a special complaint system for solar because there are so many issues. The most common complaint is workmanship.

this thread?
https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/it’s-all-about-the-little-details.2570685/

The service conductors in the other thread are not being supported by the conduit. They are attached to the building.

 

[Brian Krieger]

I'm a homeowner. My solar company just installed a new main panel with 200 amp service to overhead electrical power (PG&E.) They put in a new weatherhead on the roof and ran new conduit down the side of the house (exterior.) The weatherhead is slightly titled. I've asked them why it's not straight, and they said it's due to the pressure of the wires and it's perfectly safe. It passed PG&E inspection but not is not finaled by the city yet. I think it should not be tilted, and that they have a workmanship issue. Would an experienced electrician say it's OK and normal for a brand new weatherhead to be tilted due to wire pressure, or is this BS and I should demand they fix it? Am attaching a pic. The old weatherhead is visible in this pic and it was definitely tilted, so don't let your eye be distracted.

https://imgur.com/a/PmKl7Pz

No reason the mast riser should not be plumb. Mast risers are highly visible and should look plumb from all angles

 

[acrwc10]

Solar companies are the worst about doing this, usually it is just miss aliening the hole and they forget the unistrut is going to kick it off.

 

[mtnelect]

Is the service conductors rated for the water heater gas vent ?

 

[tom baker]

I agree. That was dumb of them to say. Just say 'it's fine'.



I think PG&E has told their linemen not to do it any other way. Too many insulators coming off houses due to dry rot. So they ask you to check off a bunch of paperwork stating you've secured the riser with 3/8" lag screws, and then if your riser falls off the building it's on you and not them. (It's really a joke because they don't check what the 3/8" lags are screwed *into* and a 3/8" lag is considered too big to screw into 2x considering seismic. But that's how they do.)

Or POCO does not allow an insulator on a wall, we use what is called a snuggle plate, ie a plate that uses 6 lags and the insulator has a metal clevis thru the middle

 

[electrofelon]

we use what is called a snuggle plate

Awww sounds cute!

 

[jaggedben]

Or POCO does not allow an insulator on a wall, we use what is called a snuggle plate, ie a plate that uses 6 lags and the insulator has a metal clevis thru the middle

PG&E has apparently never heard of 'em. (I mean, they have very little incentive to try anything new.)

 

[acrwc10]

PG&E has apparently never heard of 'em. (I mean, they have very little incentive to try anything new.)

PG&E has no concept of their own rules. They enforce things that are not in their standards (the Green Book) I have seen them turn down an installation and send the customer to engineering because the service (like for like) was moved 5'. they said it caused voltage drop, there was enough slack in the drop to pull it to the new location too. They frequently delay 200 amp upgrades saying "the XFMR is too small and needs to be changed", this takes 9 months to a year to happen.

 

[wwhitney]

I'm thinking the photo in the OP shows a coupling just above the strut at the top of the elbow. The conduit appears to get darker and a little larger in diameter there. Hard to tell because of the shadows from the eave. But the elbow itself looks less shiny than the straight sections, which would be consistent with a factory elbow, which would imply a coupling at each end of the elbow.

PG&E Greenbook 4.6.1 says "Applicants must ensure that unbraced periscopes projecting above roofs or eaves are continuous without couplings from the point where the utility service drop is attached to the periscope to 30 inches below the roof or eave." So a coupling there would violate the above requirement. [Which requirement, BTW, has the side effect of requiring that the horizontal run on the building be at least 30" below the roof or eave.]

Also, that section requires an unbraced periscope to be a minimum size of 1-1/4" GRC or IMC, or 2" Aluminum Rigid. It further says that if the periscope requires bracing, guys are not permitted, rigid braces are required.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

Am attaching a pic.

@jwhite518 Can you post a few more close ups of where the mast goes thru the roof, and a zoom in on the couplings?