Residential Electric Meter Enclosure & Clearance

[curt swartz]

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

PG&E require the service disconnect with the meter so you would never have a meter socket only with remote disconnect.

 

[iwire]

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?

Then they need to make amendment to allow it but I dislike the idea of just ignoring the rules out of tradition. This allows EIs to make rules up and leave them out by choice not law.

 

[iwire]

PG&E require the service disconnect with the meter so you would never have a meter socket only with remote disconnect.

So the NEC always applies to it.

 

[wwhitney]

PG&E require the service disconnect with the meter so you would never have a meter socket only with remote disconnect.

The Greenbook says otherwise:

Except for transformer-rated metering equipment, applicants do not have to place the main service disconnect switch adjacent to the meter. The switch may be located inside or outside of the building being served, as described in the applicable electrical codes.

Bolding in the original.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[curt swartz]

So the NEC always applies to it.

Exposed SE cable secured to the outside of the building is clearly exposed to physical damage but in may parts of the country this is ignored.

I'm not arguing that the installation meets NEC requirements. I'm simply stating that this has been an accepted installation for many years.

 

[curt swartz]

The Greenbook says otherwise:



Bolding in the original.

Cheers, Wayne

All PG&E inspectors I have worked with over the past 33+ years have told me otherwise. I have also never seen a meter socket installed with a remote disconnect anywhere in the bay area.

 

[wwhitney]

All PG&E inspectors I have worked with over the past 33+ years have told me otherwise. I have also never seen a meter socket installed with a remote disconnect anywhere in the bay area.

Yeah, tradition perpetuates itself, even when the rule book has other options.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ramsy]

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..

Same with townhouses in Orange County, CA. Los Angeles area. However, in Newport Beach last month, a HO-Association is removing all solid doors to equipment access for gas meter, or fuse box cabinets. All equip. access doors are being changed to louvered type. No explanation given to home owner.

Perhaps gas leaks, smoke, and noise is more detectable through the louvered type doors, perhaps its more accessible to firemen, or its just another association jerk forcing their design whims on everyone else.

 

[david]

Same with townhouses in Orange County, CA. Los Angeles area. However, in Newport Beach last month, a HO-Association is removing all solid doors to equipment access for gas meter, or fuse box cabinets. All equip. access doors are being changed to louvered type. No explanation given to home owner.

Perhaps gas leaks, smoke, and noise is more detectable through the louvered type doors, perhaps its more accessible to firemen, or its just another association jerk forcing their design whims on everyone else.

Maybe there thought is that the louvered type door will allow gas to dissipate into the atmosphere in the event gas does leak into that space

 

[George Stolz]

Section 110.26 is a mess, basically switches and receptacles above counters could be a violation

Not really; the parent 110.26 doesn't imply that the requirements of 110.26(A) and beyond apply to everything. They just give a little something to use to prevent the receptacle mounted up near the deck 15' above a 12x12 access panel in a hard lid. It gives the inspector something to enforce when saying, incredulously, "You're joking, right? How do you expect anyone to work on that?"

As uncomfortable as it can be, even laying on a countertop to install plugmold or an undercabinet light, it can hardly be argued that there isn't enough working space to work on it dead.

 

[iwire]

Not really; .

Yes, really.



For instance many claim a simple unfused disconnect requires work space at the same time ignoring wall switches.

 

[George Stolz]

Yes, really.



For instance many claim a simple unfused disconnect requires work space at the same time ignoring wall switches.

I don't see that adding fuses into the mix changes all that much, either, but that's just me.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not really; the parent 110.26 doesn't imply that the requirements of 110.26(A) and beyond apply to everything. ...

It doesn't imply that it applies to all electrical equipment...it comes right out and says it does.

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment
Access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.

 

[George Stolz]

It doesn't imply that it applies to all electrical equipment...it comes right out and says it does.

Don, you're missing my point; 110.26 applies to everything, (A) and beyond apply to equipment requiring servicing while energized.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, you're missing my point; 110.26 applies to everything, (A) and beyond apply to equipment requiring servicing while energized.

Which, in my opinion is also everything for 110.26(A).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

red = text to be deleted blue = new text
1-196 Log #3642 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
110.26(A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to require examination, adjustment,
servicing, or maintenance be examined, adjusted, serviced or maintained while energized shall comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.

Substantiation: The use of the word “required” in the existing code language makes this section very hard to enforce as there is no code rule or other rule
that “requires” equipment to be worked on while energized. If the work is not required the current code rule does not require workspace. The proposed
change will require the work space if the equipment is likely to be worked on while energized.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The recommendation does not enhance clarity or usability.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
_______________________________________________________________

1-128 Log #1981 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(110.26(A))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 1-196
Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted.

Substantiation: The issue is the use of the word “require” in the existing text. This word limits the enforcement of the working space rules as there is nothing that “requires” someone to “examine, adjust, service, or maintain” electrical equipment while it is energized. In fact there are standards and safety rules that prohibit doing most types of work on energized electrical equipment. The elimination of the word “require” will improve the enforceability of this very important code rule.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter misunderstands use of the word “require” as it is used in 110.26(A). In this context, “require” means “need”. If it is
probable that examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance will need to be performed on energized equipment, then 110.26 applies.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

 

[iwire]

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter misunderstands use of the word “require” as it is used in 110.26(A). In this context, “require” means “need”. If it is
probable that examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance will need to be performed on energized equipment, then 110.26 applies.

In other words don't use the word as defined, use the word as we say to use it. :lol:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In other words don't use the word as defined, use the word as we say to use it. :lol:

If you don't there is no enforceable work spaces, because, as you have pointed out, energized work is never "required" is you use the normal definition of required.