Each panel is few by 3 wires (not four, but 3) from each meter. The row of meters are fed by one service line from the exterior - no disconnect outside.
The first panel on the left has neutrals and grounds combined and the bonding screw in place. OK that’s fine. Then there is a ground jumper running from the first to the second two boxes. The second two main panels have ground and neutral separated and no bonding screw. Each of this panels is a “first point of disconnect” so I’m a little flummoxed about this arrangement. Wouldn’t it have been “more correct” to have set these three up as normal main panels, since they are being fed with 3 wires and are each separately first points of disconnect?
Yes, you’re right, Tom.
It sounds as though the 2 panels that are wired as sub panels need the neutral bus bonding screws installed to make them right.
1 Like
But… But… There was a passed code inspection sticker! 
1 Like
I see what appears to be three meters and three service panels. Between the meter and the service disconnect there should be three conductors which it appears that there are in the photo of the first panel. Since each of the panels appears to have a separate service disconnect the neutral must be bonded to the enclosure.
The GEC (solid bare copper conductor) appears to terminate at the panel with no cover and then a bonding jumper connects the GEC to the other two panels. That is not the correct way to do it.
4 Likes
I thought that was allowed. @rmeier2
So does each service panel require a seperate GEC be attached to it’s own grounding electrode?
You can have a separate GEC for each panel or you can do the “tap method” which allows a single GEC to be tapped to each service disconnect. Although effectively the same you cannot jumper from one service disconnect to the other.
Some good info in this link:
This is an example of the tap method:
2 Likes
Thanks for all the illumination!
2 Likes
That would be an undesirable installation unless the made electrodes are connected together. A potential could develop between them under certain fault conditions if they were not connected together. That potential could be very high in the case of a lightning strike. It wouldn’t have to be a direct strike either. It could be a couple hundred feet away. Other types of faults can also cause there to be a potential between made electrodes.
Whenever asking whether something is allowed, it is important to also understand by whom it is allowed. Whether anyone likes it or not, if the local inspection authority approved it, it is allowed. That’s why the local inspection is called the “Authority”. The NEC is not the jurisdictional authority. The NEC isn’t even an actual code. It is a model code. There’s a difference. The actual code is whatever the local government and its representatives say it is.
There are other authorities involved too, none of whom are anyone from the NFPA. The local utility company has some authority over electrical installations and the fire marshal has authority over electrical installations. In most cases, however, the authority of the utility company and the fire marshal are delegated to the local building inspection authority.
If the building official approved an installation and affixed an approval sticker, that’s the end of the story. It’s allowed. Home inspectors have no authority whatsoever to determine what is or is not allowed. We can have an opinion about whether something should be allowed, but only an opinion and nothing more.
2 Likes
That’s the GEC for AIR electrode. In all seriousness no. Inspectors make mistakes too so a pass sticker should not be relied upon to indicate 100% code compliance. Not to mention who knows if someone came in after the inspection sticker was applied and did some other work.
1 Like
Is that opposed to a WIFI or Bluetooth electrode?
1 Like
Which is why I don’t subscribe to the notion that “if the inspector passed it, it’s allowed”. If the authority is wrong or they missed it, challenge the authority.
1 Like
I think maybe George is pointing out that we shouldn’t say something is “allowed” or not - if the sticker is on it, then it is/was “allowed.” Doesn’t mean it was great or right or optimal.
I’m curious, if an HI were inspecting a new home with a pass sticker on the electrical panel would they not bother to remove the cover? What if the home was 5 years old would the HI still not bother to inspect the electrical panel because had a pass sticker?
There are hundreds of panels shown on this forum that passed an electrical inspection and they still had all kinds of defects including in the photo Richard posted. Just wondering where you draw the line to take the pass sticker as good enough.
1 Like
It is never good enough for me. I ignore them. Then my experience and discernment kicks in. I am a generalist, therefore I am generally seeking safety and performance issues.
7 Likes
I agree. I also agree that it is just my opinion since I lack authority. I don’t agree that it’s the “end of the story”.
2 Likes
That’s right. Inspectors need to understand the concept of “Allowed”. Anyone can challenge what a building official allows or disallows, but that doesn’t change the fact there are no universal answers to the questions of what or when something was allowed or not allowed. I have worked in communities where different inspectors in the same department will allow or disallow different things. If the inspector allowed it, it was allowed. That doesn’t mean that anyone agrees with his decision.
I did work in one small town in Ohio where there was only one inspector. He had requirements that were different from any Ohio building codes or any model codes. If a contractor didn’t like something the inspector required, the only person to appeal to was the mayor. The mayor wouldn’t listen to anyone other than the inspector. His response was that what the inspector says is the law. Contractors had exactly two options. They could do things the inspector’s way or not work in the town.
I’ve had building officials contact me on a few occasions in recent years to ask me to help them understand some installations from the 70s and 80s because I am one of the few who are still around and were active at that time. The chief inspector for the city of Toledo asked me a few years ago about some things he was seeing on a regular basis but he couldn’t find anything official in the city’s archives that explained why certain things exist in the city. He knew that the best way to find out was to talk to the people who did the work back then. I was able to tell him which inspectors allowed or disallowed different things in the areas they covered.
We had a chief inspector for a long time who had some uncommon interpretations of the codes, but he also let every one of his inspectors interpret the codes their own way. There were ten area inspectors and the chief. We had to know what was allowed or not allowed down to an individual inspector and a neighborhood level. Whenever one of the inspectors took vacation time, we had to adjust for that inspector who covered for the vacationing inspector. It was constantly trying to hit a moving target.
A little knowledge is dangerous. Inspectors would do themselves a favor by learning how codes work. Maybe then they would then understand why the “When was this allowed” type questions cannot be answered in any online forum unless it is a forum specifically for the area in which they work and there are forum participants who have ample historical knowledge of requirements.
4 Likes
Never. As I’ve pointed out before here and on MH forum, electrical inspectors in my county are not allowed to remove the panel cover on the final.
2 Likes
Whether something ought to have been allowed or not allowed in anyone’s opinion is not the question at hand. What is at question is, what is the definition of “Allowed”? If the inspector approved it, he obviously allowed it and had the authority to allow it.
This is one of those rare occasions when I am compelled to refer to the NEC. Similar language can be found in most, probably all, state and local codes.
90.4 Enforcement . This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signal ing and communications systems , and for use by insurance inspectors . The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules , for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
By special permission , the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety .
This Code may require new products , constructions, or mate rials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adop ted. In such event , the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products , constructions , or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction .
1 Like
Thanks for reminding me of the dumbest inspection rule I’ve ever heard. 
5 Likes