Utility Contractor Installing Parking Lot Lighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
mgookin said:
Most utilities call them "Lease Lights" and you can read their tariff where they spell out "energy only" or "energy + lamping". In the former, the customer owns the luminaire and the utility supplies energy only. In the later the utility supplies energy plus owns and performs all maintenance on the luminaire.

Utilities are exempt when working on their equipment & systems. While the service drop to your home does not have an easement which you can find on a recorded plat, it is an easement "by consent".

They are doing the same with lease lights. If grandma wants a security light in her back yard, the utility will put one there. Same if a commercial property owner wants lease lights. It's all in an "easement by consent".

But that does not mean the utility can sub-contract work without that subcontractor getting a permit. The exemption covers utilities only when their personnel do the work. We make Mastech get permits for traffic signal systems and all work where AHJ has to do an inspection as a prerequisite to getting power turned on.
Click to expand...
I think that will be the way it generally is in most places, but it really depends on the laws in an area, as well as how well they are enforced.
 
I see NESC 011 and read that it does cover street and area lighting. I also read the NEC 90.2, and see what it does not cover. Now go back to the 1999 or the 2002 NEC and see what 90.2 states. Then read the newer versions of 90.2.
 
mgookin said:
But that does not mean the utility can sub-contract work without that subcontractor getting a permit. The exemption covers utilities only when their personnel do the work. We make Mastech get permits for traffic signal systems and all work where AHJ has to do an inspection as a prerequisite to getting power turned on.
Click to expand...
A subcontractor doing work for a utility is exempt.
Traffic signal systems aren't controlled by the utility, and therefore should require an inspection. Not the same thing...
 
mivey said:
And what does that have to do with what is being discussed? The utility is not relying on an earth return alone.
Click to expand...

San -Brooke said:
Yes they are and that is the problem the only ground is the driven ground at each light pole on these installations.
Click to expand...
That's grounding, not earth return. If it were earth return it would be one-wire supplying current which returns to its source through earth. That's where the SWER acronym comes from: single-wire earth return.
 
San -Brooke said:
Yes they are and that is the problem the only ground is the driven ground at each light pole on these installations.
Click to expand...
+1

Utilities are used to dealing with high voltage primaries, in which a 25 ohm earth ground is a low enough resistance to carry enough fault current to trip a protective device.
At low voltages, that will not happen. Hence the need for a metal EGC to carry the fault current.
All that the electrodes at each pole will do it drain off static electricity and maybe help in case of a nearby lightning strike.
 
Smart $ said:
That's grounding, not earth return. If it were earth return it would be one-wire supplying current which returns to its source through earth. That's where the SWER acronym comes from: single-wire earth return.
Click to expand...

I think his concern is that the rod is the only path for fault current, which in most of the cases I have seen it is not, here the utility uses the grounded conductor of the circuit feeding the lights to bond each pole and ballast, most are done up at the ballast, the problem of doing this is voltage drop of the grounded circuit conductor and or the loss of the grounded conductor causing the pole to become energized, we have seen many reports of the results when it happens of people and pets being killed, and I agree the practice should be stopped.

I don't see a problem where the fixture is up on a wooden pole but when a metal pole is used this method needs to change, also the fact that many utilities do not use OCPD's so if a fault was to happen there would be something to open the circuit, many times the grounded conductor can fail under a fault which will cause all the poles connected to the grounded conductor to be energized, not a very good design.

We have a few subdivisions with utility supplied street lighting, these are decorative metal poles with HID acorn head lighting on top, they are wired just like this, some kind of UF that I have never seen before as the outer covering doesn't enclose all the conductors, it just a gray outer sheath with two insulated stranded #8 conductors, one white and one black, one of the POA's wanted to take over the lights from the utility to eliminate the monthly cost until I pointed out the liability of how they are fed and the fact they would all have to be re-fed with new conductors and a meter pedestal with OCPD's, that changed their mind real quick.
 
I generally feed ours with 12/2 uf and a fuse assembly at the pot, and sometimes a fuse assembly at the head for isolation on several lights.
 
mivey said:
That is a different case. I am talking about utility owned and maintained lighting.
Click to expand...

Here is a report on proposals from the NEC that show the fight is still being fought by utilities to have area lighting on private property covered under the NESC. It seems there is a lot of discrepancy between the codes on this point. Search by "lighting"

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/rop/70-a2010-rop.pdf
 
mgookin said:
...and all work where AHJ has to do an inspection as a prerequisite to getting power turned on.
Click to expand...
That's just it, the utility is the one determining if the installation meets NESC (or applicable) code requirements and they are the ones who decide if they are going to energize it.
 
kwired said:
I think that will be the way it generally is in most places, but it really depends on the laws in an area, as well as how well they are enforced.
Click to expand...
It is like that in the minority of cases. I have a survey somewhere and I think it was like 70-80% the other way.
 
San -Brooke said:
Yes they are and that is the problem the only ground is the driven ground at each light pole on these installations.
Click to expand...

Smart $ said:
That's grounding, not earth return. If it were earth return it would be one-wire supplying current which returns to its source through earth. That's where the SWER acronym comes from: single-wire earth return.
Click to expand...
Smart$ is correct.

The protection method is a whole different approach and that is why they are not going to mix the two methods.
 
hurk27 said:
and I agree the practice should be stopped.
Click to expand...
The utility is also faced with dealing with transferred potentials not addressed by the NEC. The NESC uses local bonding and it is not quite as simple as just jumping over to the NEC method.
 
Hv&Lv said:
Here is a report on proposals from the NEC that show the fight is still being fought by utilities to have area lighting on private property covered under the NESC. It seems there is a lot of discrepancy between the codes on this point. Search by "lighting"

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/rop/70-a2010-rop.pdf
Click to expand...
The NEC can claim whatever they want, but you and I both know what the utility is going to do if the NESC and NEC are at odds.
 
mivey said:
The NEC can claim whatever they want, but you and I both know what the utility is going to do if the NESC and NEC are at odds.
Click to expand...
If the install is on a typical wood pole, that is not really a problem, but it becomes a big safety problem when metal poles are installed without a fault return path. There have been a number or cases where the utility or municipality has had to pay big settlements from cases like this. The fact that an unsafe installation is permitted or required by the NESC is not a valid defense.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the install is on a typical wood pole, that is not really a problem, but it becomes a big safety problem when metal poles are installed without a fault return path. There have been a number or cases where the utility or municipality has had to pay big settlements from cases like this. The fact that an unsafe installation is permitted or required by the NESC is not a valid defense.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If someone was electrocuted, it is a little hard to claim it was a safe installation.
 
Another problem is just like I posted above, while the utility installed the lights originally many times the property owners and even cities a few years later decide to purchase the light system so they are no longer renting them, they do this to try to cut cost (or they think so) the utility doesn't tell them they have to re-feed the lights to bring them into compliance with the NEC, and they unknowingly go through with it without seeking any advice from a competent electrician who would point out the dangers of doing this, I had two such subdivisions that did this, the one I mentioned above consulted with me before they purchased the lights the other one wanted me to take over the repairs on the lights after they had already purchased them from the utility, at first before I knew that they were installed by the utility I just went and changed a few lamps that had failed, but then we lost a string on one street and when I went to trouble shoot it out I could not find any OCPD's, I traced them with my locater to a pedestal transformer own by the utility which told me this was a utility installed system, checking at the bottom of one of the poles, they were fed with a two conductor 12/2 with out an EGC, I found that the neutral was open and burned, every pole on that string had 120 volts to earth, I went to the first pole fed off the transformer and disconnected the hots and capped them off, I told the POA manager that all the lights in the subdivision would have to be rewired to bring them up to the NEC and I would not do nothing more without doing this because of the danger of the shock hazard and liability, and the fact they were lucky with this string that no children had touched any of these poles as they could have been killed, this guy told me I was nuts as they had been that way for 12 years, never heard from them again.

Later I went and had coffee with the inspector for that area and told him what I found and that we need to get the state involved to have the utility commission the make the utility tell these people if they purchase the lights then they have to be brought up to the NEC before they would be allowed to be energized, as in the above case someone could have been killed and sadly it could have been a child, as I said before and Don also repeated it, its one thing to use the circuit neutral to ground the fixtures up on a wooden pole, or even a metal pole that also supports the main electrical lines including the MGN which the pole would be bonded to which would be less likely to be energized, but a stand alone metal decorative street lighting pole that the only fault path is the neutral of the circuit feeding the pole, then this should not be allowed, as the loss of this neutral will energize every pole it is connected to, and if they don't properly protect the circuit with an OCPD in the hot then this makes loosing the neutral that much more likely because ballast do fail and short out which can cause the failure of the neutral.

We have seen news reports over the years of people and pets being killed because of this method of wiring, how many people must die before someone gets the NESC to change the way the stand alone metal poles are wired, even a fuse would help but it will not stop the pole from being energized if the neutral is lost, or having a voltage drop on the neutral being imposed on the pole.
 
Last edited:
hurk27 said:
Another problem is just like I posted above, while the utility installed the lights originally many times the property owners and even cities a few years later decide to purchase the light system so they are no longer renting them, they do this to try to cut cost (or they think so) the utility doesn't tell them they have to re-feed the lights to bring them into compliance with the NEC, and they unknowingly go through with it without seeking any advice from a competent electrician who would point out the dangers of doing this, I had two such subdivisions that did this, the one I mentioned above consulted with me before they purchased the lights the other one wanted me to take over the repairs on the lights after they had already purchased them from the utility, at first before I knew that they were installed by the utility I just went and changed a few lamps that had failed, but then we lost a string on one street and when I went to trouble shoot it out I could not find any OCPD's, I traced them with my locater to a pedestal transformer own by the utility which told me this was a utility installed system, checking at the bottom of one of the poles, they were fed with a two conductor 12/2 with out an EGC, I found that the neutral was open and burned, every pole on that string had 120 volts to earth, I went to the first pole fed off the transformer and disconnected the hots and capped them off, I told the POA manager that all the lights in the subdivision would have to be rewired to bring them up to the NEC and I would not do nothing more without doing this because of the danger of the shock hazard and liability, and the fact they were lucky with this string that no children had touched any of these poles as they could have been killed, this guy told me I was nuts as they had been that way for 12 years, never heard from them again.

Later I went and had coffee with the inspector for that area and told him what I found and that we need to get the state involved to have the utility commission the make the utility tell these people if they purchase the lights then they have to be brought up to the NEC before they would be allowed to be energized, as in the above case someone could have been killed and sadly it could have been a child, as I said before and Don also repeated it, its one thing to use the circuit neutral to ground the fixtures up on a wooden pole, or even a metal pole that also supports the main electrical lines including the MGN which the pole would be bonded to which would be less likely to be energized, but a stand alone metal decorative street lighting pole that the only fault path is the neutral of the circuit feeding the pole, then this should not be allowed, as the loss of this neutral will energize every pole it is connected to, and if they don't properly protect the circuit with an OCPD in the hot then this makes loosing the neutral that much more likely because ballast do fail and short out which can cause the failure of the neutral.

We have seen news reports over the years of people and pets being killed because of this method of wiring, how many people must die before someone gets the NESC to change the way the stand alone metal poles are wired, even a fuse would help but it will not stop the pole from being energized if the neutral is lost, or having a voltage drop on the neutral being imposed on the pole.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on there being less risk with a fixture up on a wood pole vs an isolated metal pole.

I don't see why there is any more or less risk just because something is owned or maintained by a utility company, and if the utility company sells/transfers ownership or whatever why it is any more or less safe than it was before.

I understand the utility doesn't have to necessarily follow NEC, that doesn't make their install safer just because they don't have to follow NEC.
 
kwired said:
I agree with you on there being less risk with a fixture up on a wood pole vs an isolated metal pole.

I don't see why there is any more or less risk just because something is owned or maintained by a utility company, and if the utility company sells/transfers ownership or whatever why it is any more or less safe than it was before.

I understand the utility doesn't have to necessarily follow NEC, that doesn't make their install safer just because they don't have to follow NEC.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to say it is any safer because it is own and maintained by the utility, I was just pointing out that these POA's are not told of the difference in the two code requirements and that because of the dangers of this type of wiring the added liability of taking owner ship of such an installation without bringing it up to the NEC requirements, they don't even know that the way the utilities wire these street lights don't meet the NEC much less that they are very dangerous and could possibly cause a high liability risk as well as possibly of having their home owners, children, as well as their pets at risk if the wiring is not brought up to the NEC requirements.

The problem is most not in the electrical trade would have no idea of this difference and these property owners as well as the POA's are choosing to purchase these systems from the utility's to lower the monthly cost of leasing/renting the lights and poles from the utility, but they are not being told that in doing so the wiring of them needs to be changed.

I clearly stated in my post how dangerous these systems are no matter who own them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top