# Back me up on this one.



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

I gave an estimate to relocate a panel because the overhead lines from the poco are directly over the pool. (13') In CA we have to get a meter spot location approval from the Poco (socal edison in this case) for any panel upgrade. So the girl comes out from edison and tells my customer that the panel can stay where it is and that the poco requirement for overhead lines over a pool is 12'. I get out my code book and point to 680.8 and she says that it is an NEC issue not a poco issue. So I call the fountain valley inspector and tell him the situation and he says he'll have to check. After an hour he calls me back and says they will except the panel where it is as long as edison accepts the responsibility in writing. I was like WTF, why would you except a clear code violation for any reason? He told me that thats was his decision and it's final. The HO is skeptical with me saying one thing and the city and utility saying another. So now I am on hold waiting for edison to call me back and say whether or not they will put it in writing. The city having to have a letter from the poco to approve something should alone be a huge red flag.

What are your thoughts on this? I am gonna email the inspector with a link to this thread.


----------



## crazymurph (Aug 19, 2009)

SoCal Edison is the AHJ. It is their problem, not yours.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Bkessler said:


> I gave an estimate to relocate a panel because the overhead lines from the poco are directly over the pool. (13') In CA we have to get a meter spot location approval from the Poco (socal edison in this case) for any panel upgrade. So the girl comes out from edison and tells my customer that the panel can stay where it is and that the poco requirement for overhead lines over a pool is 12'. I get out my code book and point to 680.8 and she says that it is an NEC issue not a poco issue. So I call the fountain valley inspector and tell him the situation and he says he'll have to check. After an hour he calls me back and says they will except the panel where it is as long as edison accepts the responsibility in writing. I was like WTF, why would you except a clear code violation for any reason? He told me that thats was his decision and it's final. The HO is skeptical with me saying one thing and the city and utility saying another. So now I am on hold waiting for edison to call me back and say whether or not they will put it in writing. The city having to have a letter from the poco to approve something should alone be a huge red flag.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this? I am gonna email the inspector with a link to this thread.


I think the inspector is trying to pass the buck..He should take the time and have an on site meeting with the POCO..to fix the issue..


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

crazymurph said:


> SoCal Edison is the AHJ. It is their problem, not yours.


So if one time some one says it's okay to do something you know is wrong and possible dangerous you'd just do it?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

If the lines are the responsibility of the poco I don't see how the city can make you move the lines. Poco does not fall under the nec.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the lines are the responsibility of the poco I don't see how the city can make you move the lines. Poco does not fall under the nec.


So you'd just go along with what the poco says and ignore 680.8? Which if you tell me what that's what you'd do, then I'll probably do it because your a fart smeller. I mean smart feller.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Not a NEC issue IMO. It's the line side not load.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Any one else run into this issue?


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the lines are the responsibility of the poco I don't see how the city can make you move the lines. Poco does not fall under the nec.


There is no issue with moving the lines, the girl from edison said it could go back to it's original spot or I could move it either way they'd oblige, This is probably my 6th time in this situation and all the other times the poco mandated that the meter be moved and the city just would come out and pass the inspection.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Bkessler said:


> So you'd just go along with what the poco says and ignore 680.8? Which if you tell me what that's what you'd do, then I'll probably do it because your a fart smeller. I mean smart feller.


I am saying it is not in my control. You can suggest to the homeowner but that's about it. How can we make the utility follow the nec?

I am not sure where they get 13' from as the nec is greater than that-- 22' from the water.


----------



## crazymurph (Aug 19, 2009)

Bkessler said:


> So if one time some one says it's okay to do something you know is wrong and possible dangerous you'd just do it?


 No, that is not what I was saying. It is a POCO issue. If they are fine with it, what can you do?


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

The overhead lines are SCEs and are not part of the NEC. Could you raise the riser to get more elevation?

You got your meter spot in writing. Collect your 2k and upsell a volleyball net hanging from the triplex.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I am saying it is not in my control. You can suggest to the homeowner but that's about it. How can we make the utility follow the nec?
> 
> I am not sure where they get 13' from as the nec is greater than that-- 22' from the water.


I just can't believe the city inspector didn't just say that the meter had to be moved to be in accordance with 680.8. The Meter would actually move closer to the pole about 15' away.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

knowshorts said:


> The overhead lines are SCEs and are not part of the NEC. Could you raise the riser to get more elevation?
> 
> You got your meter spot in writing. Collect your 2k and upsell a volleyball net hanging from the triplex.


I'd feel much better collecting $4600 and knowing I was doing a good job done right the first time every time. I just got off the phone with bob the head resi inspector, he's gonna call another edison planner and get the facts.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

crazymurph said:


> No, that is not what I was saying. It is a POCO issue. If they are fine with it, what can you do?


I guess not much, but it just seems weird when you can't pass an inspection without a special note giving you permission to excuse the illegal work. If I get two edison people and two city people telling me it's okay, I'll shut my mouth. And go to work. At least I won't have to build the two story riser and cut threw the fancy tile roof.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Us = NEC
PoCo = NESC

Not our problem


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

I would tell the HO that if I am going to do the work, I will relocate the service. If they can find someone else who does not mind doing it with the lines over the pool, that is fine with me. My way or the highway.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

doubleoh7 said:


> I would tell the HO that if I am going to do the work, I will relocate the service. If they can find someone else who does not mind doing it with the lines over the pool, that is fine with me. My way or the highway.


No offence but isn't your business not doing so hot right now? I want to do what's best for the HO and make as much money doing it. I just got this email from there spec book.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Bkessler said:


> After an hour he calls me back and says they will except the panel where it is as long as edison accepts the responsibility in writing. I was like WTF, why would you except a clear code violation for any reason?


It is not an NEC code violation assuming these conductors are under exclusive control of the utility.



> *90.2 Scope.
> 
> (B) Not Covered. *This Code does not cover the following:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

BBQ said:


> It is not an NEC code violation assuming these conductors are under exclusive control of the utility.


You forgot to say trump.


----------



## failelectric (May 27, 2010)

Your fighting a giant why waste any more time swallow your pride and walk away.


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

Bkessler said:


> No offence but isn't your business not doing so hot right now? I want to do what's best for the HO and make as much money doing it. I just got this email from there spec book.


 

At this point, I don't know if I can really say I even have a business. If I wanted to do a bunch of dangerous, stupid work and do it for free, I could be busy. I'd still be just as broke.


----------



## failelectric (May 27, 2010)

Tell the HO not to invite any one over 13' high and every thing will be okay.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Take the next NESC code cycle update class. It's informative and well worth the cost. I think their next cycle is 2012.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

BBQ's posting of 90.2 did it for me, I am putting the meter main back in the original position. Although the utilities out here are all over the place, I called utility planner for Anahiem, they require 25', LA and SDGP or both 22.5' and socal edison 12. I think maybe there was a misprint when socal edison was writing out there spec book and there all to stupid to see the error. I would never want my overhead line that close to the pool. Oh well, thanks for all the input guys.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

As an electrician and pool owner I say you would have to be a complete ****** to allow a service drop over a pool.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> As an electrician and pool owner I say you would have to be a complete ****** to allow a service drop over a pool.


Look ...... it is Shorty Circuit ...:laughing:


So other than your built in ****** sensor do you have a list of verifiable horror stories about SECs over pools? :whistling2:


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Look ...... it is Shorty Circuit ...:laughing:
> 
> 
> So other than your built in ****** sensor do you have a list of verifiable horror stories about SECs over pools? :whistling2:


 

He don't need a list of horror stories. BBQ, apparantly you failed common sense class. DO you really think it is a good idea to have a pool full of people and the only thing keeping them alive is a couple of split bolts and/or an anchor screwed inot the side of a house?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

doubleoh7 said:


> DO you really think it is a good idea to have a pool full of people and the only thing keeping them alive is a couple of split bolts and/or an anchor screwed inot the side of a house?


Apparently the NEC says it is okay also.


----------



## jusme123 (Dec 27, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Apparently the NEC says it is okay also.


...but the NEC will not be named in the lawsuit. What if it passed 6' in front of a diving board, you would still install it with a 12' clearance(just curious)?


----------



## Teaspoon (Jan 10, 2009)

jusme123 said:


> ...but the NEC will not be named in the lawsuit. What if it passed 6' in front of a diving board, you would still install it with a 12' clearance(just curious)?


 In our area An overhead wire cannot pass over a pool or hottub.
The Inspector will not allow it.
The Electric System will not allow it.
Must be at least 20' from pool.
I know I sure would not want to be in a pool with an overhead service above it.In your case I would explain the dangers to the homeowner!
But in good conscience I could not do this install.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Look ...... it is Shorty Circuit ...:laughing:
> 
> 
> So other than your built in ****** sensor do you have a list of verifiable horror stories about SECs over pools? :whistling2:


Not one! :laughing:

I would not do it though. Ever.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Apparently the NEC says it is okay also.


I know you are smarter than this answer makes you look. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jusme123 said:


> ...but the NEC will not be named in the lawsuit. What if it passed 6' in front of a diving board, you would still install it with a 12' clearance(just curious)?


I never said I would install it but if it were existing and to code so be it. If it is the utility wire then it is not my responsibility.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> I know you are smarter than this answer makes you look. :thumbsup:


Probably not.

What can you do about it. If I went to a job and there was a wire owned by the poco going across the pool I would mention it to the homeowner. The Nec says at a certain height it is legal. Would I do it? No. But the poco is not something I have control over. 

Why does the nec allow it-- I don't know but it does. Sounds dumb to me but...


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

So we can agree that ahj can do what they want, but 12' clearance over the pool is ********. The triplex was AU#8 with no messenger wire. I was able to pull it up to about 14'.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

I know state of wisconsin do not useally allow the drop run over the pool they will try to advoid it much it can if not then they will follow the guideline as I will give you the link in a moment.

http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/business/manual/7_2.pdf


In France we do NOT allow any overhead drop at all it don't matter if primary or secondary.

Merci.
Marc


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Bkessler said:


> I'd feel much better collecting $4600 and knowing I was doing a good job done right the first time every time. I just got off the phone with bob the head resi inspector, he's gonna call another edison planner and get the facts.


FINALLY! someone not scared to bill the customer a good amount.

And if it were me, and the inspector said its OK and signed the permit.. id just go with it. FK em.. im tired of holding other peoples hands, and doing other peoples jobs, they can all kiss my ass. There is definitely no way you're going to get the POCO to follow the NEC.

I hate the POCO i have to deal with... 

to add:
I personally think the height requirement is stupid... who cares if its 12' or 20'... they should either be allowed over pools or not. Which I think they just shouldn't be allowed over pools. what the hell is a foot or 2 going to matter.

Just venting.... :thumbup:

~Matt


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Pictures of why i thought this panel needed to be moved, socal Edison says it's fine and so does fountain valley.


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Good looking job:thumbup: but I do have one minor nit to pick...on the left side:











...it looks like you left the discolored/charred insulation on the neutrals....I personally would have spliced them out, as someone down the road might think there is a problem with them even if there isn't. Same with the hots if there is even a hint of discoloration/damage. 

And I love  dealing with those flush-mount panels in a repair job like this I hate removing and patching stucco. 

As for the drop over the pool, I can top that..in another So Cal city and SCE territory, I did a panel swap where the drop ran over both the HO's pool AND the neighbor's pool!! I did move the panel around the corner of the house but it didn't really change the position of the drop much. I had to temp some #6 from the old drop location to the new riser, because the drop was very long and heavy and I wasn't about to try to move it myself..I only weighed in at 135 then and the damn thing would've pulled me right off the roof!!


----------

