Correct way for second "Off Peak" meter

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



icon_lol.gif


Don't take things so seriously Bob!

The point I am trying to make is that the installation is illegal, so you should not be upset, and who mentioned your name anyway?

You are always full of insults and they were directed at me here, you are a very Rude Person and you should be ashamed of yourself. !

So you would allow this if you were an AHJ? or have you already had this type of work inspected and passed?

Line and Load only!


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: dvalley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Every time I see you two posting on the same thread, it turns into Cat & Mouse game.


Both of you are extremely knowledgeable and I enjoy reading both of your answers and opinions. I know there are many answers to specific electrical questions, just as there are many answers to HI questions, but you two need to stop the grudge match.

It?s not very professional in the eyes of the public.![](upload://5lDfgkELdtbMK3gSQV8VqcXvIfm.gif)


--
David Valley
MAB Member

Massachusetts Certified Home Inspections
http://www.masscertified.com

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Joe you can take your veiled insults and stuff them where the sun don't shine.


I certainly was not questioning your sincerity, experience or integrity, I was just pointing out here in PA, the POCO is only responsible from the pole to the drip loop. The home owner is responsible from the drip loop and beyond. The electrician that does the installation has to have it inspected by a company other than his own.

As you could imagine, most electrical work here in PA, never gets inspected by anyone.

My point was more to the fact that if you fight this type of installation, you are only doing the insurance company a favor.

If I hit a nerve with you somewhere along the line, I apologize, I certainly did not mean to. I was just looking some reasons, other than my own, as to what would make this installation illegal.

Quote:
You know the address of this installation and you have a phone, if it is that bad why not call the inspector or the power company and discuss your concerns with them?

Is it because they would tell you to mind your own business?


Bob, I am a lowly home inspector and as such, I always like to discuss my concerns with others. Other inspectors, other electricians, agents, homeowners and buyers because I want everyone to make informed decisions. I do understand that this installation is a generally acceptable practice, not only in our area, but other area's as well.

Can you help me clarify what you thoughts are? Are you saying that it is ok to install multiple wires under lugs which are only rated for one wire in certain circumstances?


--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



The POCO may not “own” the conductors or raceways beyond the service point but they certainly own the meter and the intergrity of the meter base wiring to faithfully record usage. They will defend this all the way to criminal court if necessary.


Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Search for “Meter Mounting Equipment” see PJSR.GuideInfo


http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/ccnsrch.html

I found the answer to my question, just as I suspected!

Quote:
Wire connectors in Listed meter mounting equipment are intended to accommodate one conductor only unless use with more than one conductor is clearly indicated on the wiring diagram or other readily visible location.


![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)

The point I am trying to make is that the installation is illegal,


The point I am making is that this is only an opinion, it is not a fact.

It is imposable to tell from the posted photo alone.

Along with myself other knowledgeable electricians and electrical inspectors have pointed out this may be a compliant installation.

Go here to see other opinions.

http://www.mikeholt.com/codeforum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000138

And here

http://forums.jlconline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4e3e680bd38c974239f118c891ffae4c&t=25658

I am sorry that this has become unprofessional, I have only presented a different view then Joe T's.


--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN

Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jmyers wrote:
Bob,

Sorry, I did not see where in my post that I did this. I am not sure whether you meant Joe T. or myself.


I meant Joe T. and I am sorry if you felt it was aimed at you.

jmyers wrote:
Can you help me clarify what you thoughts are? Are you saying that it is ok to install multiple wires under lugs which are only rated for one wire in certain circumstances?


No, what I am saying is you can get meters with double conductor lugs.

You can also make a legal tap inside the meter socket with the proper wire tap connectors if there is enough space.

That meter socket looks large enough.

And finally it may not be an NEC issue at all, anymore than the wires strung between poles are not an NEC issue. 90.2(B)(5)(a).

The main point is from the posted picture alone there is no way to give a definitive answer.


--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob,


I can certainly agree that we can not tell it is illegal from the picture. At the same time, do you agree that two wires should not be placed under the lug if it is rated for 1 wire?


--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jmyers wrote:
Bob,

At the same time, do you agree that two wires should not be placed under the lug if it is rated for 1 wire?


Of course I do ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

I look at my electrical licenses as an agreement between myself and the States that I will follow the codes.


--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Not Enough Room!


This is the best I can do and it shows a 200 ampere rated meter socket enclosure.

Wire bending space is limited and these lugs were designed for only one wire, if there are double rated lugs they may be for conductors run in parallel.

![](upload://77nIW82Pr39ExIShe0R3juUyyWa.jpeg)




--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Joey D’Adamo
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ok so admittedly I’m not as wise as most of you with respect to these things, but I have been watching this thread for a while and I have a question… what evedence is there that the conductors there actually are double lugged? Could they not be joined with a split bolt? Or could the connectors be rated for two wires? Have you actually seen inside there to know exactly how it is wired and configured?


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe T,


I agree with you that the wire bending space in the meter pan is limited. However, I don't really see much difference between bending one set of wires in that space vs. two sets of wires.

It would certainly make it a little more difficult for the installer but certainly not impossible.


--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jmyers wrote:
Joe T,

I agree with you that the wire bending space in the meter pan is limited. However, I don't really see much difference between bending one set of wires in that space vs. two sets of wires.

It would certainly make it a little more difficult for the installer but certainly not impossible.


JM: I sent the 2002 NECH Article 312 to you so that you could look it over and read the commentary associated with the type of terminations and wire bending space that is required.

This is a code discussion, and I only want to make it clear that the initial wiring inside of this equipment is subject to inspection by the electrical inspector when first installed, I am not concerned with the meter, I am concerned with the possible non compliance related to the NEC rules.

Please comment!


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe, is your concern wire bending space or fill? The rules are different


Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



See the 2002 NECH image here:


![](upload://5fWEsJF36VOfZNgjOvdlWy8LhGc.jpeg)

Courtesy: www.nfpa.org


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: John Steinke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe, I will post on tne electrical forum, www,licensedelectrician.com, a pic of a typical such arrangement here in Reno.


With only there being a different shape to the meter pan, the arrancement is essentially the same as in your example. And, unlike your example, these older round meter pans are rated only for 60-amp services.

I believe that you are using the term "illegal" incorrectly. First of all, it is the poco who is the AHJ, not the NEC. I do not believe you have shown where this install violates the local utilities' rules. Remember- a service install, or change, is inspected by the poco as well as the locality.

Secondly, the rule that is enforced is the rule at the time of the install- not whatever changes there may have been since. While someone recently bemoaned the inability to "grandfather" changes.....that would violate our Constitutions prohibition on "ex poste facto" legislation. Applying today's rules to yesterday isn't just illogical, it's Un-American!

BTW, when there is a service change, the ne installation looks a lot like the artwork you posted. I just can't accept that an entire city "violated the law" or that an entire trade did it "wrong."

Inspectors have enough challenges without emulating Don Quiote, and "tilt at windmills" (or, in this case, mistake a flock of sheep for an invading horde!) ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Secondly, the rule that is enforced is the rule at the time of the install- not whatever changes there may have been since. While someone recently bemoaned the inability to "grandfather" changes.....that would violate our Constitutions prohibition on "ex poste facto" legislation. Applying today's rules to yesterday isn't just illogical, it's Un-American!


John:

So then you are saying that an owner or electrician or DIY'er can do anything they want after the job is inspected?

OK, the first meter was inspected once and was acceptable and the cutover was sent to the electrical utility, so be done with it.

I will be sure to bring lots of film when I pass through the Reno area so that I can find some pictures like the one you mention.

Send that picture to me and I will post it here, or you can use the upload process here and do that yourself.

![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: John Steinke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe…thanks for your quick reply…I was not able to post the pic on this forum, but I will send it to you.


I said that the code that applies is the one at the time of installation....so the code that would apply would be the one in effect at the time those meter pans were hung. You are deliberately mis-construing my statement whae you say 'anything else be done later.' That 'else' done 'later' would have the 'later' code apply.

Another example might be the bathroom in an old house. It is perfectly OK for such a home to have no receptacle, an ungrounded receptacle, or a non-gfi receptacle. Should the original break, you can replace with a like item. Now, should you remodel.....simply move the recepatcle....well, then the newer GFI requirement applies.
This is the difference between "maintenance" and "construction." Now, will there be some who cheat, who twist words with no intent of complying, etc...sure.....but lying is lying, dishonesty is dishonesty, and that is another issue.


Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



John Steinke wrote:
Joe...thanks for your quick reply.....I was not able to post the pic on this forum, but I will send it to you.........


![](upload://zmHfLJhVbYuX1i4i7b9awyZwTXD.jpeg)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Secondly, the rule that is enforced is the rule at the time of the install- not whatever changes there may have been since. While someone recently bemoaned the inability to "grandfather" changes.....that would violate our Constitutions prohibition on "ex poste facto" legislation. Applying today's rules to yesterday isn't just illogical, it's Un-American!


I for one am quite amazed that anyone could even think about correlating the safety of people to being illogical or un-American. I believe that you can hide behind your grandfathering all that you want, but when it comes time to tell a mother and a father why their child is dead because we can't apply yesterdays codes to todays buildings, I want you to be the one to have to explain it to every single one of them.

John, what you said was so utterly stupid, I am left bewildered why anyone would try to defend the safety of people for a grandfathering clause.

I would never dream of performing an inspection and leaving without telling the potential buyers of new requirements which could save their life or the lives of their loved ones someday.

As a father of five children, I could not possibly live with myself if one, or several, of my children died because I was too darn cheap to replace a bathroom receptacle with a $12 GFCI receptacle.

Guess the question is, could you?


--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz