RV Pedestal Bonding

[jap]

No, the NEC is not concerned about metering, but, unless it's power company owned or installed they wouldn't have allowed all that work to be done without it.

A power company is not going to set 3 unmetered padmounts and let whoever have free reign on them.

JAP>

 

[kwired]

No, the NEC is not concerned about metering, but, unless it's power company owned or installed they wouldn't have allowed all that work to be done without it.

A power company is not going to set 3 unmetered padmounts and let whoever have free reign on them.

JAP>

Municipal owned POCO is what could be the exception when the service is for municipal owned properties but most still would meter it to apply expenses to the correct department.

POCO's do have unmetered services at times to fixed loads that they can reasonably predict what energy usage will be. Often is the case for street/area lighting, particularly if dusk to dawn and 365 days a year.

 

[horses]

Municipal owned POCO is what could be the exception when the service is for municipal owned properties but most still would meter it to apply expenses to the correct department.

POCO's do have unmetered services at times to fixed loads that they can reasonably predict what energy usage will be. Often is the case for street/area lighting, particularly if dusk to dawn and 365 days a year.

Turns out the individual that told me that the park owned the meters was incorrect and the utility actually owns then and sends itemized bill per lit each month, but park doesn't bill the campsites a monthly utility bill each month at this time, it's included in the monthly rental. So with that being said I guess they are treating each pedestal as the main service disconnect for each lot?

 

[jap]

Municipal owned POCO is what could be the exception when the service is for municipal owned properties but most still would meter it to apply expenses to the correct department.

POCO's do have unmetered services at times to fixed loads that they can reasonably predict what energy usage will be. Often is the case for street/area lighting, particularly if dusk to dawn and 365 days a year.

I understand all that.
Just saying that if it is a POCO install it will not be the same as if an Electrician installs it under inspection, and, you can generally spot those types of installs very easily.

We had a ball field in our city where the lighting was installed and maintained by the power company years ago.
You literally went over activated a spring load toggle switch which energized a motorized HV switch to energize the transformer at the top of the pole with not metering at all.

The 6 poles with (10) fixtures on each pole were fed overhead directly off the lugs of the transformer with no protection whatsoever.

Not something that would have been allowed if installed by an electrical contractor under inspection.

Yes a utility meter is a "wide spot in the road", but, I can tell a lot about an install by where the meter is and how the electrical is installed beyond it.

If you've been around long enough, You can tell what took place just by looking at it.

JAP>

 

[horses]

Does each pedestal have an individual run to the transformer or did they daisy chain conductors between pedestals?

Individual run to each pedestal would comply with 230.2 and 230.40

Daisy chaining them would need to be arranged so that the first one contains the service disconnecting means and the rest would be feeder supplied.

NEC isn't concerned about if there is any metering, though can step in with some rules when metering is present, but for most part a meter is just a "wide point" in the conductors to NEC.

Is certainly possible POCO in this case either has metering on primary supply or maybe CT metering on each transformer secondary.

If this is in say a city park and city operates the POCO there maybe isn't any metering, though most those situations I still see metering as they still want to track expenses to the proper city sub department for budgeting reasons.

This unconventional set up kind of sounds like what you might find when there is a small town municipal POCO and the city has their electric guys who are usually linemen and not commercial installations type electricians install the power in the RV park. They don't know NEC rules for the most part, and because they are a utility seem to think they are exempt from following NEC or getting permits and inspections. City council isn't hiring an EC to do this when they already have an "electrical crew" even though they don't understand differences in qualifications, licensing, etc. I see this in parks and other city owned facilities all the time when the city has it's own municipal POCO.

They did not run individual runs from each pedestal back to transformers. They came off the transformers and ran around the park underground setting quality boxes randomly and came out of quality boxes to feed meters on pedestals. The previous electrician would install the run from meter on pedestals to quality box and utility would make tie ins.

 

[horses]

They did not run individual runs from each pedestal back to transformers. They came off the transformers and ran around the park underground setting quality boxes randomly and came out of quality boxes to feed meters on pedestals. The previous electrician would install the run from meter on pedestals to quality box and utility would make tie ins.

Oh and they were inspected I was told.

 

[jap]

Now we're saying these are metered pedestals.

That's a completely different scenario than what was originally described.

I see nothing wrong with how this is installed.

JAP>

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

ls. Also all have their own meter that I'm told the park owns. Thanks again for you feedback

From post 3

Sounds like customer owned equipment to me.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

I would think if utility owned each would require a separate address.
I could see them using primary metering to customer and than each site being billed by owner.

Depending on code year six handle rule one way or the other could apply. Being fed from a service laterals and taps on the utility side.
Then the meter would be customer owned and installed in utility meter enclosure. Any utility seals on meter enclosures?

Just a few thoughts on the install.

 

[jap]

From post 3

Sounds like customer owned equipment to me.

If this was in post #1 we could have stopped this at post #2.

Oh well.

JAP>

 

[horses]

If this was in post #1 we could have stopped this at post #2.

Oh well.

JAP>

Sorry! I was given the wrong information initially. Thanks for all the feedback.

 

[jap]

Sorry! I was given the wrong information initially. Thanks for all the feedback.

We're electricians.
We generally never get the full story first go round.

Jap>

 

[david]

If this was in post #1 we could have stopped this at post #2.

Oh well.

JAP>

551.76 (B) In some cases, the equipment ground would originate in the transformer.

There would be no parallel path if the neutral is unbounded @ the pedestal



Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[jap]

551.76 (B) In some cases, the equipment ground would originate in the transformer.

There would be no parallel path if the neutral is unbounded @ the pedestal



Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Are you considering a Utility Transformer a "Secondary" distribution Transformer?

Never in my career have I pulled an Equipment Grounding Conductor in with my Service Conductors from a Power Company's Utility Transformer.

A co-worker of mine did one time and the POCO cut it off.


JAP>

 

[horses]

So knowing that each pedestal has it own meter and is fed from the secondary of a utility transformer, I'm assuming each if the pedestals are considered their own main service disc and so that's the reason that the EGC and the Grounded "Neutral " conductor are bonded at each pedestal. I never would have designed it without the secondary hiting a main panel and then installing 4 conductors to the pedestals where I would isolate the EGC and Grounded "Neutral " conductor. It sure would have been easier to service the pedestals IMO.

 

[david]

Are you considering a Utility Transformer a "Secondary" distribution Transformer?

Never in my career have I pulled an Equipment Grounding Conductor in with my Service Conductors from a Power Company's Utility Transformer.

A co-worker of mine did one time and the POCO cut it off.


JAP>

No, the NEC as you know requires the neutral bond at the service

However if the premise owns the transformer that would be differant

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

They did not run individual runs from each pedestal back to transformers. They came off the transformers and ran around the park underground setting quality boxes randomly and came out of quality boxes to feed meters on pedestals. The previous electrician would install the run from meter on pedestals to quality box and utility would make tie ins.

POCO's can run distribution conductors then tap off them to individual services. They do this with overhead distribution quite often, but also do run underground to distribution pedestals at times.

NEC doesn't really let us do this if it is on customer side of the "service point" it would be a violation of 230.40. If on POCO side of service point, NEC doesn't apply to it.

 

[jap]

No, the NEC as you know requires the neutral bond at the service

However if the premise owns the transformer that would be differant

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Im not sure what you're getting at here.

The Neutral to Ground bond would not take place in the Power Co's utility transformer.

Jap>

 

[horses]

POCO's can run distribution conductors then tap off them to individual services. They do this with overhead distribution quite often, but also do run underground to distribution pedestals at times.

NEC doesn't really let us do this if it is on customer side of the "service point" it would be a violation of 230.40. If on POCO side of service point, NEC doesn't apply to it.

View attachment 2571681

So with that said is it your opinion that the way the pedestals were installed in my above response, with each pedestal being treated as a main service disconnect ok.

 

[kwired]

So with that said is it your opinion that the way the pedestals were installed in my above response, with each pedestal being treated as a main service disconnect ok.

Possibly so. Are they suitable for use as service equipment?

I do think they would have needed an individual feed from each one to a point ahead of the "service point" though. Though if there is some age to them NEC did not have the term "service point" but still think if they are "daisy chain" fed that still would been inappropriate NEC wise for service conductors. Daisy chaining them with feeder conductors would been fine, but would have required an EGC.