Residential Electric Meter Enclosure & Clearance

[Lcg]

We've designed a cabinet for the electric meter on a residence. We've adhered to all of the dimensional requirements set forth by the 2014 PG&E Greenbook, the building is under construction, and the County Building Inspector is telling us that we do not meet the requirements of California Electric Code (CEC) Article 110.26 (based off NEC). Reciting that our "working clearance" must begin from the Metal enclosure of the panel, vs, our interpretation of the face of the wall, which meets the diagram drawn in the PG&E manual. My argument is that the "working clearance" is for a human to be able to stand and work in, and we have that, just outside the wall (Enclosure) per CEC 110.26 (A)(1), "distances shall be measured from...the enclosure or OPENING if the live parts are enlcosed".
Building inspector insists that the "enclosure" is the metal box, not the cabinet we have built for it.
The meter height meets all requirements, and we are providing a 36" x 30" x 72" clear area for a human to stand in and work on the meter. A HUMAN could easily reach all parts of the meter by reaching less than 12" beyond the face of the outer wall. See attached images and PGE diagram.
I believe we are meeting the INTENT of the code, and are providing a MIN. working space for a human to REASONABLY access and work on the equipment, that has been installed in a cabinet / enclosure.

 

[ActionDave]

Since you are asking for opinions about an installation and not how to do it I am approving this thread.

I don't know about California code but NEC wise it looks like a workspace violation to me.

 

[darkov]

To me, this is code violation per NEC. 110.26 (A) and 110.26 (F)
states " No architectural appurtenance or other equipment shall be located in this zone."

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[brantmacga]

The NEC does include "fence or walls" in the definition of "enclosure", but this does seem to be an architectural appurtenance, not an equipment room, and a violation of 110.26(E)(1).

My advice would be that in the future, if you question an install enough to get a utility green book, it would also be a good idea to run it through plan review with the electrical inspector.

Is putting a full height door in an option ? They may be more willing to let it go if you do.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iwire]

To me, this is code violation per NEC. 110.26 (A) and 110.26 (F)
states " No architectural appurtenance or other equipment shall be located in this zone."

I agree.

 

[iwire]

I believe we are meeting the INTENT of the code, and are providing a MIN. working space for a human to REASONABLY access and work on the equipment, that has been installed in a cabinet / enclosure.

I don't believe you are meeting the intent or the requirements of the NEC.

 

[david]

"Also, the enclosure and service equipment
must comply with local code requirements. Detailed dimensional
requirements are shown in Figure 5-2, “Meter Cabinet Enclosure
Clearances,” and Table 5-1, “Meter Cabinet Enclosure Clearance
Dimensions,” both located below."


One thing i think you need to consider is the power company i think you said PG & E. is only addressing a cabinet for meter equipment alone. They state in the PDF you provided the cabinet and service equipment must comply with local codes. In other words your picture seems to indicated your cabinet is also housing the service disconnect for this dwelling. PG & E. wording does not address clearances for service equipment just what the power company will except to enclose a meter can.

Ether way they state local codes

 

[mivey]

I see it the same way David.

 

[infinity]

My argument is that the "working clearance" is for a human to be able to stand and work in, and we have that, just outside the wall (Enclosure) per CEC 110.26 (A)(1), "distances shall be measured from...the enclosure or OPENING if the live parts are enlcosed".
Building inspector insists that the "enclosure" is the metal box, not the cabinet we have built for it.
The meter height meets all requirements, and we are providing a 36" x 30" x 72" clear area for a human to stand in and work on the meter. A HUMAN could easily reach all parts of the meter by reaching less than 12" beyond the face of the outer wall. See attached images and PGE diagram.
I believe we are meeting the INTENT of the code, and are providing a MIN. working space for a human to REASONABLY access and work on the equipment, that has been installed in a cabinet / enclosure.

I agree with the building inspector. The 2014 also NEC requires that there be dedicated equipment space above and below the metering equipment which is violated in the photos.

 

[iwire]

Building inspector insists that the "enclosure" is the metal box, not the cabinet we have built for it.

I agree with infinity, the building inspector is absolutely correct about that.

 

[GerryB]

I had a similar situation with a basement panel in a finished room. The inspector required a full door be put in for access. It actually is harder to remove covers and work in an area like that. You need some elbow room.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The measurements set forth in 100.26 start from the equipment not the wall. I agree with the others. This cabinet is a clear violation of the NEC . Whether we think it is safe or not is really not pertinent since the NEC is clear on this

 

[Carultch]

I agree with the building inspector. The 2014 also NEC requires that there be dedicated equipment space above and below the metering equipment which is violated in the photos.

Does that mean that if you have a recessed panelboard in wood framing with thermal insulation filling the void above it between the studs, that the thermal insulation violates the "dedicated space"?

Or if you have a cross-member in the wood framing, above or below the panelboard?

The dedicated space rule seems like it could be interpreted to make all recessed panelboards a violation, because even the drywall is "foreign to the electrical installation".

 

[iwire]

Does that mean that if you have a recessed panelboard in wood framing with thermal insulation filling the void above it between the studs, that the thermal insulation violates the "dedicated space"?

Or if you have a cross-member in the wood framing, above or below the panelboard?

Yes

The dedicated space rule seems like it could be interpreted to make all recessed panelboards a violation, because even the drywall is "foreign to the electrical installation".

Yes, it could be.

Section 100.26 is a mess, basically switches and receptacles above counters could be a violation

 

[curt swartz]

While I agree that this doesn't meet NEC requirements it has been a standard construction/installation method in the bay area for over 40 years. Virtually every townhouse built since the 70's has a similar cabinet next to the garage door with gas meter on the bottom and electric meter on the top.

I'm not sure how you can fight this other than hope a supervising inspector is familiar with this design and lets it go.

 

[iwire]

I'm not sure how you can fight this other than hope a supervising inspector is familiar with this design and lets it go.

In my opinion unless there is a code change this should not be let go.

 

[Carultch]

Section 100.26 is a mess, basically switches and receptacles above counters could be a violation

I suppose that is why they include the obscure "like to require examination or service while energized" clause, when identifying equipment where 110.26 is applicable. It is very rare that branch circuit switches and receptacles require this.

 

[user 100]

The measurements set forth in 100.26 start from the equipment not the wall. I agree with the others. This cabinet is a clear violation of the NEC . Whether we think it is safe or not is really not pertinent since the NEC is clear on this

In my opinion unless there is a code change this should not be let go.

The funny thing about this is that on top of the code violation, they spent all that money and likely had that partition built to begin with to hide those unattractive boxes and conduit....and there are some things that may have to done in the future to that equipment in which that little add on would have to be damaged/removed if left as is.:happyno:

But over just to the left it appears they have a nice garage (thats what it looks like and who cares about aesthetics in a garage??) they could have put that panel in and simply put the meter anywhere nearby (or whatever ahj allowed as far as length to disco means) on the outside of the house for less $$$.

 

[curt swartz]

In my opinion unless there is a code change this should not be let go.

I don't really agree. If something has been done a certain way for many years and hasn't shown to create any real hazard why start rejecting it now? The state needs to have the utilities remove this design from their "Green Book's" if they want this method of installing services to go away.

In CA we install flush service panel's with concealed risers in the wall. Should that be stopped?

We have never been allowed to install exposed SE cable on the outside of a building do to it being exposed to physical damage. If a CA inspector moved to the east coast and started rejecting all services installed with exposed SE cable do you think that would be ok?

 

[wwhitney]

The state needs to have the utilities remove this design from their "Green Book's" if they want this method of installing services to go away.

PG&E's detail on enclosures (Green Book 5.4.2) only concerns the meter itself. If the OP's enclosure contained only the meter itself, and not any OCPD, then there would be no NEC problem. The main panel always has to meet NEC clearances, regardless of what PG&E has to say on the matter. So when you are using a meter main, you have to comply with both.

In the OP, if the raised door were replaced with a regular 80" x 32" wide door, that would satisfy the NEC clearances, yes? Assuming there are no obstacles below the panel that we can't see, or that they are relocated.

Cheers, Wayne