Service Drop Within Reach???

[360Youth]

I am wondering how this install made it past both EI and POCO? As a side note, it has always made me laugh what size conductors POCO can use to feed any particular service. I did not go for a closer inspection, but my guess is about a #4 or #3 at best feeding the 200 amp service on the house.

 

[jjseabra]

When was the deck built? Before or after the service upgrade? As for the size of the service drops, seems like sheer lazieness on the part of the utility not to have changed them. LOL But in their defence - it does not look like they made it out there to even make the connections yet. Still look like temporary connections to me.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Sometimes it is difficult to tell from a picture, but this may be a violation of 230.9.

 

[360Youth]

When was the deck built?

Good point.

 

[Chenley]

Bet that porch was built after the meter was connected. We have two mobile home parks here that we do service for and there are two that porches have been built around the service pole.

 

[resistance]

I am wondering how this install made it past both EI and POCO? As a side note, it has always made me laugh what size conductors POCO can use to feed any particular service. I did not go for a closer inspection, but my guess is about a #4 or #3 at best feeding the 200 amp service on the house.

It seems obvious the deck was built afterwards.

it has always made me laugh what size conductors POCO can use to feed any particular service. I did not go for a closer inspection, but my guess is about a #4 or #3 at best feeding the 200 amp service on the house.

Hope this doesn't scare you! If you look at the primary side of a transformer, then you will see that the wire may be smaller. It's all calculated to work. The POCO knows what their wire can handle. They are normally involved to make sure that the existing secondary can handle any new loads being added--based on a number of factors.
Giving thanks to Nikola Tesla!

 

[Jomaul]

How do you know the deck was built afterwards?

 

[LarryFine]

How do you know the deck was built afterwards?

Because the service drop would be non-compliant otherwise.

 

[resistance]

Because the service drop would be non-compliant otherwise.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[growler]

How do you know the deck was built afterwards?

Look at those old insulators on the house connecting the three cables seperately. I don't know of any power company that's uses that method in years. Most have required an eye bolt for years and years.

I would "Guess" that the deck was built without a permit or the inspector would have caught that one. Or they may not even require a permit for a deck in that area, some areas don't.

 

[ultramegabob]

Deck or not, I dont believe it would pass in my area due to the fact that at least one of the service wires is within 3' of the window.

 

[roger3829]

Look at those old insulators on the house connecting the three cables seperately. I don't know of any power company that's uses that method in years. Most have required an eye bolt for years and years.

QUOTE]

We still use the insulators around here.

 

[LarryFine]

Deck or not, I dont believe it would pass in my area due to the fact that at least one of the service wires is within 3' of the window.

Above the window opening is exempted.

 

[Sierrasparky]

either case the POCO should replace with a triplex and Game over.

 

[ultramegabob]

Above the window opening is exempted.

its not directly above the window, the drip loop is off to the side.

 

[jaylectricity]

Because the service drop would be non-compliant otherwise.

It's non-compliant without the deck. The weatherhead is below the points of attachment.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

It's non-compliant without the deck. The weatherhead is below the points of attachment.

I think the point of attachment is above the weatherhead.

 

[LarryFine]

It's non-compliant without the deck. The weatherhead is below the points of attachment.

See 230.54(C), Exception

 

[jaylectricity]

See 230.54(C), Exception

How is it impracticable to get that weatherhead above the point of attachment? I can think of two ways to do it right now.

 

[benaround]

IMO, There is no NEC violation , 90.2(B)(5)