• 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.

Replacing Service Disconnect in Location Non-Compliant with NEC 110.26

jar546 said:
It was a learning curve for me when I first saw the EGC connected to all meters.
Click to expand...
There are no EGCs in the meter enclosure unless the meter is downstream of the service disconnect, which most POCOs wouldn't allow. The MBJ has to be in the service disconnect, and that is the origin of the EGC system.

But a GEC can be terminated in a meter enclosure if the POCO rules allow. Or any other location between the service point and the service disconnect.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
There are no EGCs in the meter enclosure unless the meter is downstream of the service disconnect, which most POCOs wouldn't allow. The MBJ has to be in the service disconnect, and that is the origin of the EGC system.

But a GEC can be terminated in a meter enclosure if the POCO rules allow. Or any other location between the service point and the service disconnect.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Correct, GEC. I corrected the post although I am sure everyone knew what I meant.
 
Even when there is no work done and they need a reconnect because they did not pay their electric bill the service is required to comply to the latest utility's standards and the latest state adopted IRC or NEC.
The most inspection failures are usually because of telephone or cable wires are supported by the mast and only one ground rod or ground wire goes to an unknown place in the ground (which could be to the rebar in the footing, but I don't know how they can prove it).
 
steveray said:
What???????? So move to exterior disco? Surge? Anything else? Because they didn't pay their bill?....WOW!
Click to expand...
If the service was shut off for a few months, PP&L requires an inspection. Typically 6 months or more depending on the supervisor. For those inspections we made them upgrade the grounding electrode system.
 
Edison will call the inspector to request an inspection of what Edison considers a dangerous condition. The goal is to have the inspector order the el. service cut off. I have told Edison that it is their electricity and if they think that it is dangerous they don't need me. But no, they will not shut of the power without an order from the building department...it's a liability thing. Now be late with the paying the bill and Edison has no problem shutting it off. And then will not turn it back on until BS clears a reconnect.
 
I similar scenario is when an HVAC contractor turns off a consumer's furnace during the winter to force a sale because the furnace has a crack in the heat exchanger. The gas company should be the one to terminate the service if a CO issue is present. 99% percent of the time the furnace will still perform properly and not produce CO provided the burner is clean.
 
Not quite yet.
jar546 said:
If the service was shut off for a few months, PP&L requires an inspection. Typically 6 months or more depending on the supervisor. For those inspections we made them upgrade the grounding electrode system.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone ever told me why the service was shut off. And how could I believe them if they did?
 
jar546 said:
Did we beat this up too much?
Click to expand...
I think we just sort of agreed to disagree.....There is a fairly clear code path using the IEBC to allow a like for like replacement as long as it was originally approved and compliant at that time....BUT....Some will argue that new equipment = new code....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top