overhead service conductor clearance

[PetrosA]

Anyone ever think about running an underground service? It's not always possible but many times that is a solution.

It would have been a solution, and the best one. Still, it wasn't the homeowner who was looking for a fix. One of the newer borough inspectors (not an electrical inspector) made a stink about the drop and threatened the young couple who had just purchased the home with having their power shut off. A call to the head borough inspector and PECO got things cleared up. They really weren't prepared to spend a few thousand dollars fixing something that clearly wasn't broke and had an 85 year history to prove it

 

[480sparky]

Is it really all that hard for electricians to understand that a "home inspection" is not a "code inspection". ...............

Is it even more difficult for homeowners to understand that a "home inspection" is not a Stone Tablet carried by Moses. :roll:

 

[iwire]

Question is can somebody tell me what the Code was in 1953 for overhead clearances on residential settings?
I am believing that the service is original to house and is still enforces to the code the date the house was built.

From the 1953 NEC:

IT is very likely that the NEC did not, and does not apply to these conductors.

90.2 Scope.

(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 associated metering,

Service Drop. The overhead service conductors from the last pole or other aerial support to and including the splices, if any, connecting to the service-entrance conductors at the building or other structure.

If you say the NEC applies to these conductors than they also are undersized.

 

[growler]

I have run into older homes were the service conductors were only 8 foot off the ground.

Even if it was allowed at time of installation I would suggest changing it anyhow if the clearance is only 8 feet. That can be an accident waiting to happen. 8 feet, in many cases, can be contacted easily without the use of a ladder.

One of the reasons that low hanging service conductors are written up is that they a very noticeable ( they look out of place). Even if the power company and the AHJ will OK the existing installation of this low hanging service it may cause problems in the future when the present buyer starts to sell the house and a different home inspector notices it 5 years from now. It's one of those problems that won't go away or repair it's self.

Think of a small dent in the door of an automobile that's for sale. It doesn't really cause any problems with the functioning of said auto but it can effect the price of a sale now and in the future.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I received a call today form a Realtor that is selling a house she represents the seller

Buyer had Home inspector inspect property and sited the overhead service from the POCO Pole are to low. the house was built in 1953.
I have to go out and look at this job tomorrow . I have run into older homes were the service conductors were only 8 foot off the ground.

Question is can somebody tell me what the Code was in 1953 for overhead clearances on residential settings?
I am believing that the service is original to house and is still enforces to the code the date the house was built.
Thanks.
Cameron

Then the POCO should be consulted not an electrician or an electrical inspector.

IT is very likely that the NEC did not, and does not apply to these conductors.

I agree with Bob.

As stated before the Home Inspector is trying to protect his clients. Protecting ones clients does not mean taking todays code and applying it to old installations. Assuming that safety is not an issue.

This sound like many reports that I have read and have been asked to determine if there is a safety concern. Just like we have bad electricians we have bad HIs.

Most inspections reports that I read, PEs are the worst, are CYA reports.

Yes you should fix this 57 year old hazard. You know I am kidding.

 

[kwired]

IT is very likely that the NEC did not, and does not apply to these conductors.





If you say the NEC applies to these conductors than they also are undersized.

If the point of attachment is installed by the contractor then it is covered by the NEC. Whether or not placement of the POA should make clearance of middle of the overhead span comply with NEC could be debatable but clearances at the point of attachment should definately meet NEC if installed by the contractor.

I don't know what clearances are for this install in NESC but would bet that 8 feet would not be allowed.

 

[iwire]

If the point of attachment is installed by the contractor then it is covered by the NEC.

Regardless the sag in the conductors could hit the ground and it would not be an NEC issue.

Whether or not placement of the POA should make clearance of middle of the overhead span comply with NEC could be debatable but clearances at the point of

No debate, 90.2(B)(5)(a) is very clear.

I don't know what clearances are for this install in NESC but would bet that 8 feet would not be allowed.

I agree, but not all utilities followed the NESC in 1953.


No one should take this wrong, I am not saying service conductors at 8' above grade are a good thing.

IMO growler summed it up nicely, this has little to do with code and much to do with customer perceptions ........ and making money as well.

Is it really all that hard for electricians to understand that a "home inspection" is not a "code inspection".

Items listed on a "Home Inspection Report" are item of concern for the home inspector because he thinks they may have a negative effect on the home value or pose a problem for the buyer.

Even if you get the AHJ to agree to grandfather in the service height it still may not satisfy the home inspector or the buyer.

When you buy a house you may not be satisfied with code minimum and it all depends on how much you are willing to spend to get something better.

Why turn down down work when it's more profitable to see how much it will cost to raise that sucker.

 

[magoo66]

Assuming that your locality has adopted the NESC. There is a NESC grandfathering matrix that some POCO's in Oregon use (search:NESC grandfathering). For a structure built in 1953, it would allow 8' to the service drop IF the form of the building prohibited a taller attachment AND the 8' was measured at a pedestrian only surface.
As a POCO field inspector, I have used this more than once to grandfather a NESC clearance violation on a residential service drop.

 

[480sparky]

IT is very likely that the NEC did not, and does not apply to these conductors.

There is no Art. 90 in the '53. I can't find any reference in it that contains similar language concerning Utility-owned conductors.