ishium 80439
Senior Member
So about a month ago I posted a thread in the NEC forum regarding a residential service upgrade I did. This was a situation where the utility service drop came in over a covered porch. The inspector did not leave a correction notice but told he wanted the drop raised to 5'.
I spoke with him asking where this number came from. He responded that they did not require 8' because the local utility would not connect when it was terminated that high above the roof (this is a through the roof mast situation). My response was that he was correct and since the POCO owned the drop he didn't have jurisdiction as to how high or low it was (90.2). He responded that yes he did because of 230.24. This went back and forth with noone convincing the other.
I asked him why 5' as seemed pretty random. His response was that a lot of the distances in the code were random "Why 18"? Why 3'? [for other conditions]" I asked if there was any written documentation requiring this 5' and he sort of chuckled and said no. His entire logic in this is "I've been here for 13 years and that is the way we've been doing it".
I called the state electrical board and spoke with someone there. Before I could even get all of the details out about the situation he brought up 90.2 and told me the pervasive interpretation was that the local AHJ did not have jurisdiction over the height of the drop. He called the inspector and tried to convince him that his interpretation was flying in the face of what they (the state) had put out a policy paper on and of the interpretation of every other jurisdiction in the area. Unfortunately the way things are structured here the state has no real authority to supercede the local AHJ.
So the punch line is I need to rebuild half a service because this guy is unwilling to listen to logic. I guess I could go so far to fight this legally but that would cost me far more than rebuilding this. Chalk up one more for lazy thinking and bureaucracy.
I spoke with him asking where this number came from. He responded that they did not require 8' because the local utility would not connect when it was terminated that high above the roof (this is a through the roof mast situation). My response was that he was correct and since the POCO owned the drop he didn't have jurisdiction as to how high or low it was (90.2). He responded that yes he did because of 230.24. This went back and forth with noone convincing the other.
I asked him why 5' as seemed pretty random. His response was that a lot of the distances in the code were random "Why 18"? Why 3'? [for other conditions]" I asked if there was any written documentation requiring this 5' and he sort of chuckled and said no. His entire logic in this is "I've been here for 13 years and that is the way we've been doing it".
I called the state electrical board and spoke with someone there. Before I could even get all of the details out about the situation he brought up 90.2 and told me the pervasive interpretation was that the local AHJ did not have jurisdiction over the height of the drop. He called the inspector and tried to convince him that his interpretation was flying in the face of what they (the state) had put out a policy paper on and of the interpretation of every other jurisdiction in the area. Unfortunately the way things are structured here the state has no real authority to supercede the local AHJ.
So the punch line is I need to rebuild half a service because this guy is unwilling to listen to logic. I guess I could go so far to fight this legally but that would cost me far more than rebuilding this. Chalk up one more for lazy thinking and bureaucracy.