I have read NEC 230.2, which states that a structure can only be served by one electrical service.
Would this situation possibly be an infraction of that code? The attached garage had a single 220 volt receptacle being powered directly from the meter. I was not able to open the meter pan due to the seal being currently intact, lol.
I don’t know about the code, but that doesn’t look good, not to mention that feed to the garage lacks overcurrent protection, that is unless there’s a disconnect for that circuit outside somewhere.
That is true too I guess. My mind went right to the double service and I didn’t even consider upstream protection. And it would be too far of a run for feeder tap rules to apply I believe.
Not sure what that is but no matter what it is it is not code complaint. If those are service conductors then the feeder tap rules wouldn’t apply but the disconnect would be a service disconnect which has to be grouped with the other service disconnect. It almost looks like some sort of illegal generator hook up.
My assumption was that it was used to power an air compressor or welder.
It would have been interesting to see!
The Crown Royal Viking football sign would be a great addition to your store!
If the conductors in question are tapped off of the SEC’s that feed the main panel in the house, would these then be “feeders?”
It very well could be. They went through a lot of trouble to make a non code compliant installation.
Not unless the service disconnect were ahead of the tap in the meter which doesn’t seem like it’s there. Ahead of the service disconnect all conductors are service conductors or service entrance conductors. After the service disconnect a tap would be a feeder tap. Great question BTW.
So as it is, I have this in the report as:
Do you think this is a good way to report on this situation?
Just for comparison. What is different here? The main disconnects at the meter? Could an electrician just install a main or sub etc. disconnect? (there are two disconnects at the meter and two panels)
Maybe because they are grouped together? I am not quite sure. I’m still a bit fuzzy on the whole “one structure, one service entrance” deal.
Which probably explains why these AC disconnects are also included in my photo with the main disconnects.
I would suspect in your case, the main panel where the disconnect resides was full (or he wanted a shorter route) but the owner needed the extra 240 v outlet. It was a shortcut.
I would keep it simple:
Building appears to have a second service disconnect in the garage which is not grouped with the other service disconnect in the service panel as required. * Recommendation: Consult with a qualified electrical contractor to remove the extra set of service entrance conductors or group the two service disconnects.
I prefer the word appears because you were unable to open the meter cover to confirm this is actually set up as an additional service disconnect. It probably is but you cannot know for sure without removing the cover. Also depending on how the GEC is connected to the system an additional GEC or bonding jumper may be required for the second service disconnect.
Thank you Robert.
Your electrical insight and advice on this forum is truly appreciated. Thank you for everything you do to help us out!
This looks like a 240V line side tap for an EV…see it quite often when PV Solar is installed.
The seal on the meter pan was intact. And I am not a snitch anyway, lol. 
But if the house burns down from that work, it’s OK!
Wouldn’t it be prudent to change this to something like: “Consult with a qualified electrical contractor for further evaluation, and correction if recommended.”
My point is…I am always advised not to make any recommendations. It sounds like you’re making a recommendation when you state: “to remove the extra set of service entrance conductors.”
I would stay away from adding that portion to the narrative. We are generalists. We note that something is amiss and refer it to an appropriate trade to make the specific recommendations, yeah?
