# 1 riser 2 meters



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

i saw this the other day:
1 riser through the roof into one meter pan then into a second pan. The power co. just skinned the conductors(instead of doubling up) and passed through to the second pan...is this a violation?...


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

A picture would say a thousand words here but.....

Utility companies do not have to adhere to the code as they are responsible for their wiring forever.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

my batteries went dead....
ok , ill try again.... 2 one gang meters mounted next to each other with a 2'' nipple between them....one set of wires through the riser into one meter and then into the second...no taps, just skinned back at the first and passing through the second.....


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

It's the utility companies wiring - correct ?
They own it forever, no code to adhere to.
Utilities are exempt from adhering to the code.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

manchestersparky said:


> It's the utility companies wiring - correct ?
> They own it forever, no code to adhere to.
> Utilities are exempt from adhering to the code.


Utilities are exempt from using OUR code (the NEC).

They use the *NESC*.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

manchestersparky said:


> It's the utility companies wiring - correct ?
> They own it forever, no code to adhere to.
> Utilities are exempt from adhering to the code.


dude, ok.........lets say YOU do it...then what?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

nobody?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> nobody?


Present and accounted for!:laughing:


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

am i explaining myself enough?....i figured you'd have something to say on this one


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> am i explaining myself enough?....i figured you'd have something to say on this one


Mebbe he's offline?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

no, YOU damnit!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> no, YOU damnit!


Me what?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

come on...you are omnipotent, omnipresent , and some other word...you know all nec...


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> come on...you are omnipotent, omnipresent , and some other word...you know all nec...


 
So............ what is it you want to know?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

uhhhh.well refer to one of those posts...is it a violation or not?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> uhhhh.well refer to one of those posts...is it a violation or not?


Depends on the size of the wire, rating of the meter sockets, and the size of the two OCDs.

Many meter sockets have lay-in terminals for just such an installation.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Skinned mid-conductor is still "one conductor per terminal". That's kinda one of the nice things about lay-in terminals.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

MDShunk said:


> Skinned mid-conductor is still "one conductor per terminal". That's kinda one of the nice things about lay-in terminals.


yes, i was considering that....and yes 480 lets say its 2 135 amp pans...and the connected load of both panels exceeds that, then it would be a violation
?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> yes, i was considering that....and yes 480 lets say its 2 135 amp pans...and the connected load of both panels exceeds that, then it would be a violation
> ?


 
135 amp equipment? Where did _that_ number come from?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

...every "100 amp" meter pan i have ever bought said it was good for 135 amps on the sticker....disregard that # then


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> ...every "100 amp" meter pan i have ever bought said it was good for 135 amps on the sticker....disregard that # then


That's a new one on me.... how do you protect 135 amp equipment?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

i have no idea....i use it for 100 and 125 amp services...i'll have to take a pic of it for you.


----------



## F & F Electric (Jun 9, 2009)

*Utility Side of the story*

The utlity i work for would not allow this to happen weather or not it is Code or not. They would require a second riser up to the same attachment point or replace meter can with a 2 gang. Just one point of view. This is a NY utility...:whistling2:


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

I don't see any issues with what they've done.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Magnettica said:


> I don't see any issues with what they've done.


right, like marc said its listed for one conductor and by skinning it they only have 1 conductor on the lug...i guess then the only issue would be the amp rating on the first lug-as long as the continuous load doesn't exceed what the lug is rated for then it is ok...


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> right, like marc said its listed for one conductor and by skinning it they only have 1 conductor on the lug...i guess then the only issue would be the amp rating on the first lug-as long as the continuous load doesn't exceed what the lug is rated for then it is ok...


Those lugs would be on the POCO's end right? 

then that's their responsibility, unless of course you know somethings not right, to that point I would tell them about it and be done with it.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

NoLa, the utility here will skin one conductor and run it through multiple ganged meters. It's OK. Easier than bugs and neater than running trough.


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

nola - you know the quality of electrical work that goes on in this city - now having said that you know entergy is one of the worst outfits in the city....:thumbup:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> yes, i was considering that....and yes 480 lets say its 2 135 amp pans...and the connected load of both panels exceeds that, then it would be a violation
> ?


If the work is covered by the NEC the riser ampacity supplying more then one service disconnect is only required to be large enough to carry the calculated load.

Lets say you have a 5 family with an additional landlord meter.

The calculated load for each dwelling is 60 amps

The calculated load for the landlord panel is 30 amps.

You decide to use six 100 amp panels for each of these, that means the total over current protection of the riser equals 600 amps.

But the calculated load total is 60*5+30=_330 amps_.

The riser from the six meters to the power company would only need to be rated 330 amps or more even with 600 amps of over current protection.

See 230.90(A) Exception 3.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Present and accounted for!:laughing:





480sparky said:


> Mebbe he's offline?





480sparky said:


> Me what?





480sparky said:


> So............ what is it you want to know?





480sparky said:


> 135 amp equipment? Where did _that_ number come from?


Very helpful, I am really amazed your still single. :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Very helpful, I am really amazed your still single. :laughing:


He started addressing me in post 6, but didn't say so until post 11. That's when I started asking questions. Which, by and large, have gone unanswered.

I guess being single allows me a clearer mind to understand these sort of things.


----------

