Post defined by Oregon Chief as a "Structure"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who requires the disconnects at the pole? Where is the service point? Why would Oregon State by enforcing Poco rules? Does Oregon have there own rule modifying the code? Even if it a structure, as long as the service conductors don't enter a building, it is okay by code to do exactly as explained. I've seen it many times across the river in Washington State. In fact as long as the meter base is not recessed into a building, you could mount the thing on the side of that building.
 
mistermudd said:
In fact as long as the meter base is not recessed into a building, you could mount the thing on the side of that building.
Click to expand...


Great point. What is the difference if the meter is on a remote post versus the meter being on the side of the structure? Please be sure to ask the inspector this question.
 
Mudd, sometimes inspectors around here enforce POCO rules when they are aware of them to help us out. I've fallen "victim" to that before too. In Loveland, the inspectors and the POCO are not always on the best of terms; so if the inspector passes something the POCO takes issue with, then the inspector gets an earful. To avoid the earful, the inspector tries to correct the problem before the POCO sees it.

It may be odd, but that happens on occasion too. It's kind of nice, but it can be confusing in the midst of it.
 
How about a pole supporting overhead conductors, with no tap or anything serving any outlet on the pole? Just an intermediate support pole of an overhead span. It is a structure.

Or underground conductors that emerge from the ground are spliced or tapped in an enclosure on a post or other structure but go directly back into the ground and serve no outlets on the post or other structure?
 
kwired said:
How about a pole supporting overhead conductors, with no tap or anything serving any outlet on the pole? Just an intermediate support pole of an overhead span. It is a structure.

Or underground conductors that emerge from the ground are spliced or tapped in an enclosure on a post or other structure but go directly back into the ground and serve no outlets on the post or other structure?
Click to expand...

Well, I guess if you use the inspector's theory in the OP's case you're going to put a disconnect there and turn it in to a feeder with an EGC from that point on. I don't think so.:happyno:
 
kwired said:
How about a pole supporting overhead conductors, with no tap or anything serving any outlet on the pole? Just an intermediate support pole of an overhead span. It is a structure.

Or underground conductors that emerge from the ground are spliced or tapped in an enclosure on a post or other structure but go directly back into the ground and serve no outlets on the post or other structure?
Click to expand...


Are you referring to conductors before or after the meter?
 
mjf said:
I would assume the respective weatherproof box would be located downsteam from OCP and whether or not it is a structure would become a mute point.

That is a neat product.....I've never seen them before.
Click to expand...

My point was that the 1/2" pipe was merely holding up the box, AKA a support. I see the word structure being stretched to mean things that should be outside of the definition.
 
texie said:
Well, I guess if you use the inspector's theory in the OP's case you're going to put a disconnect there and turn it in to a feeder with an EGC from that point on. I don't think so.:happyno:
Click to expand...

I wondered about that in the early posts... Are we talking about putting a fused disconnect there or just a switch? And do they make some sort of manufactured unit that would do what the inspector wants, rather than assembling separate stuff on a post?

Also, seems to me that a structure should be served, which in the OP it is not being served.
And as infinity said, seems to me that the structure definition is being stretched to include things it should not include..... like the post in the OP IMO.
 
mjf said:
Are you referring to conductors before or after the meter?
Click to expand...

Either, but before the meter is usually also before service point and is POCO problem and not ours.

Say you have an installation with multiple buildings or structures. You are supplying an outbuilding with overhead conductors, but the run was long enough it required multiple poles to support the conductors. There is no load at these support poles, just an attachment point to support the overhead conductors. Does each pole need a (service rated) disconnect? I sure hope not. Now if there is a load(s) at a particular pole, then you need a disconnect, but only need to disconnect that load(s), and not the continuation portion of the overhead feeder. Same thing applies if the feeder is underground. If this is incorrect then I have been doing it wrong for years, and so have many others from what I have seen. If there is no load at the separate structure (the pole) then the separate structure is not being served by electric power, it is simply a support for electrical distribution equipment.
 
kwired said:
Either, but before the meter is usually also before service point and is POCO problem and not ours.

Say you have an installation with multiple buildings or structures. You are supplying an outbuilding with overhead conductors, but the run was long enough it required multiple poles to support the conductors. There is no load at these support poles, just an attachment point to support the overhead conductors. Does each pole need a (service rated) disconnect? I sure hope not. Now if there is a load(s) at a particular pole, then you need a disconnect, but only need to disconnect that load(s), and not the continuation portion of the overhead feeder. Same thing applies if the feeder is underground. If this is incorrect then I have been doing it wrong for years, and so have many others from what I have seen. If there is no load at the separate structure (the pole) then the separate structure is not being served by electric power, it is simply a support for electrical distribution equipment.
Click to expand...
That seems to me to be the correct, sensible approach. Is that not NEC compliant?
 
realolman said:
That seems to me to be the correct, sensible approach. Is that not NEC compliant?
Click to expand...

Yes, now go back to OP and tell us if anything is wrong with that installation, I say no based on what information is in post #1. The inspector wants a disconnect on the post that the meter enclosure is mounted on. There is no load served on that post, the post is nothing more than a support for the meter equipment, no disconnect required. If POCO wants one for cold sequence purposes that is different, but also is not anything required by NEC.
 
G._S._Ohm said:
And, in a way, while the NEC is "the law", threads like this are "the caselaw", what people actually did or should have done in the real world.
Click to expand...

The NEC is not "The Law"

The NEC is a model code to be edited and adopted as law as states or local authorities are so allowed by the laws of their state, this will be different in each and every state as to how and what they can adopt, some states like Indiana, only the state legislation can adopt codes into law at state level, this means local enforcement has to use what is adopted by the state no more no less, back many years age we got tired of having to deal with what an inspector wishes in each and every town, city, and county, and we pushed these state laws through to stop this kind of abuse.

Here even the utilities have very little say so in how you install the conductors after a meter, if they wish a cold sequence disconnect before the meter then they either supply it or settle for what we install, this happened when our local utility stopped supplying meter bases and tried to dictate what we were allowed to install but out state utility commission got involved and told them if they want a certain type of meter then they have to supply it, as they do not have the right to tell a customer on how they spend their money, as long as it will meet code they have the right to buy a meter base from Menards or where ever they wish.

Here as per 230.70 we are not required to install a disconnect if the service conductors do not enter a structure, we use this many times when doing a 230.40 exception #3 install, we put a 320 meter base on the house and from the second set of lugs run right back into the ground and to the out building into a main breaker panel, there is no disconnect on the house for these conductors as they do not "enter" the house.
From what I understand the state confirmed that this was and is the intent of the 230.70 from NFPA.

I think Charlie Eldridge posted about this a while back, I'll see if I can find it.

Also one point I would like to make is the meter including its base is nothing but a wide point in the service conductors, this means that it has nothing to do with how we apply 230.70 NEC rule to this situation, if service conductors enter a meter then it is service conductors that exit the meter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top