• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

An average day

The job is a residential solar array. The contractor has removed Edison's seal, removed a cover and installed a device that monitors the current. The installer (a national corp.) claims that this is a common practice. I turned it down.

I also determined that the service panel was installed without a permit. That was not done recently.


15 - main panel (2).jpeg



14 - consumption cts.jpeg
 
Ok, I've seen something similar pop up on advertisements before (see https://sense.com/). I've always been suspicious because I figured that they would be measuring at either the feeders coming into the meter or the back side of the panel. Both seem to be big no-no's, and I don't see that it has a UL or equiv. listing.

https://sense.com/installation
 
This is a service panel upgrade. The conduits are packed with the old cable. Because there are no knockouts and the installer didn't want to punch a bunch he opted for conduit. And yes I noticed that the hub is screwed.....or not as it were.


IMG_0083.jpeg



I haven't gotten to the bottom of what's up with the service entrance conductors. The first guy that I was dealing with said, "I can tell that you are a little frustrated with me."

IMG_0081.jpeg

"Licensed Contractor" used to mean something. I know the difference. I see what the trade has become and shake my head in disgust.
 
Last edited:
What was proposed to take care of the undersized and too short conductors? With the parallel conductors used by panel manufacturers between the load side of the meter & the main breaker, in the 3rd photo from the bottom the PoCo UG feed seems to be the only place the that CT's could be placed, still wrong IMO. What does SCE do about if when they find out about it?
 
Norcal said:
What was proposed to take care of the undersized and too short conductors? With the parallel conductors used by panel manufacturers between the load side of the meter & the main breaker, in the 3rd photo from the bottom the PoCo UG feed seems to be the only place the that CT's could be placed, still wrong IMO. What does SCE do about if when they find out about it?
Click to expand...
The short conductors have not been explained. I am still waiting to hear what Edison has to say.
 
ICE said:
Picture from Beniah Naylor

View attachment 7175



View attachment 7176
Click to expand...
R311.5.1 Attachment. Exterior landings, decks, balconies,
stairs and similar facilities shall be positively
anchored to the primary structure to resist both vertical
and lateral forces or shall be designed to be self-supporting.
Attachment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails
or nails subject to withdrawal.
 
So, two problems with this (in my opinion) - the top of the stringers are bearing only on the 3/4" piece of plywood, with no hangers, and that piece of plywood is nailed to the side of the truss above the top of the stair stringers, causing a hinging effect and a nail pulling effect. At the bottom, the stringers are notched to fit over the landing, and the way they are notched will cause the wood to split along the grain and the stairs will fail at the bottom. Between the nail pulling out problems, and the use of this "structural cabinet material" at the top, and the stairs being notched incorrectly at the bottom, he had to get an engineer.

I envisioned these stairs 10 or 20 years down the road, someone walking on them - and the bottom fails, they fall through to the ground below, the stairs hinge at the top, break off or pull out, and fall on top of the person who just fell through. A young man would probably walk away from such an incident, other people, perhaps not.

Or maybe not - it's a small span. I just wasn't real comfortable with it.
 
Beniah Naylor said:
- the top of the stringers are bearing only on the 3/4" piece of plywood,
Click to expand...
I disagree. It looks like 2x12 dimensional lumber, might be spf rather than syp. No hangers ... agree with that. But it looks like the top end of the stringers are high enough that they would be bearing on the floor joist if the advantech was not there. The middle stringer appears yo have a full size advantech doubler, and all have a 2x4 doubler on the bottom edge.

I‘m thinking the advantech at the top is there to keep the stringers from twisting. It is unconventional construction.
 
I've seen it done that way with a piece of 3/4-inch sheeting but in my case more of the stringer is against the double floor joist.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
I've seen it done that way with a piece of 3/4-inch sheeting but in my case more of the stringer is against the double floor joist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if they had more of the stringer against the joist I probably wouldn't have worried. They got an engineer, who had them add some hangers and some brackets and called it good. Works for me...
 
This is on a manufactured home. It's not my job to inspect. Another inspector sent the pictures because of the locking hardware.

GetAttachmentThumbnail-8 2.jpeg



GetAttachmentThumbnail-8.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top