# Mast pipe pulled down due to tree branch.



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> How would you repair/replace this service?


I'd install a new service mast to comply with electrical code and poco regulations.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> I'd install a new service mast to comply with electrical code and poco regulations.


You would not look to any alternative?


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> You would not look to any alternative?


Like putting a pole at the edge of the property and going underground? I do like that way best if the ground is trenchable.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Like putting a pole at the edge of the property and going underground? I do like that way best if the ground is trenchable.


Ok. So one option would be to install a mast long enough through the roof and find somewhere on this structure to secure a guy wire or set another pole.

Think Frunk. We need another alternative.

The picture below is taken with my back to the utility pole.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

They could go off the grid and install a complete solar and wind production package.. that's a nice profitable way around the mast issue.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> They could go off the grid and install a complete solar and wind production package.. that's a nice profitable way around the mast issue.


I take it you are not a problem solver.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

What's the problem? Tree branches keep taking down overhead services?

Solution is make all services underground or cut down all trees. 

No seriously, what's the problem here?


----------



## J F Go (Mar 1, 2014)

If the AHJ and the power co. would go along with it , have the power co. do a mid span splice. Doesn't look like that its very far to point of attachment. Its rare that it gets done but I've had an occasion to have it done that way and as I recall it was not that big a deal.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

aftershockews said:


> Ok. So one option would be to install a mast long enough through the roof and find somewhere on this structure to secure a guy wire or set another pole.
> 
> Think Frunk. We need another alternative.
> 
> The picture below is taken with my back to the utility pole.


under ground looks awesome!
No power now?
Skip the permit and get them on.:whistling2:


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Either the pictures do not help or we have members who do not see any alternatives.

Come on. I am losing faith.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Duplicate


----------



## Expediter (Mar 12, 2014)

Why not run a conduit around the end of the addition and put the meter and mast on the bump out?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Expediter said:


> Why not run a conduit around the end of the addition and put the meter and mast on the bump out?


Hmm. Are you sure? Would this work?
And the cost?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

I guess the pictures do not do justice. I had hoped someone could come up with a way to get this done without using a mast pipe..


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

I would ask if they can mid-span the drop. That's the most cost effective solution, and should not be an issue.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

jza said:


> I would ask if they can mid-span the drop. That's the most cost effective solution, and should not be an issue.


:no:
On a forum of expert electricians I am starting to get worried.


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

aftershockews said:


> :no:
> On a forum of expert electricians I am starting to get worried.


Look here chump, I wouldn't get too worried. Work smarter, not harder. I don't see why you're on here looking to re-invent the wheel. It's a pocket change resi job.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

so you want to funk up the front of their house with a poa and the service there. go for it. the underground would be nicer.


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

aftershockews said:


> :no:
> On a forum of expert electricians I am starting to get worried.


Ironic, for a guy who does this for a living, yet can't come up with his own solutions....

Mast/guy
Underground
Relocate

Pick one.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

jza said:


> Look here chump, I wouldn't get too worried. Work smarter, not harder. I don't see why you're on here looking to re-invent the wheel. It's a pocket change resi job.


 I did not mean to piss you off.
I am just looking for suggestions to correct this issue. So far suggestions have been on the cost side of things. I see no one has actually looked at the obvious solution.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

When are people going to stop replying to this hack?


----------



## stars13bars2 (Jun 1, 2009)

solar panels, get off the grid!


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

MTW said:


> When are people going to stop replying to this hack?


Practice what you preach?


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

aftershockews said:


> Customer wants to put it back as it was.
> I do not know if you can tell from the pictures but an addition was installed on the back of this house which is now in the way of the service drop. So someone installed 2" x 10 rigid mast which brought the POA to 4' above the roof line. This means that the service drop would probably be less than 3' off of the roof of the addition.
> 
> 
> ...


Throw a new mast up. Get in. Get paid. Get out.:thumbsup:


----------



## farlsincharge (Dec 31, 2010)

Put it back the way it was, reconnect yourself, no permit. Cash money.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

jza said:


> I would ask if they can mid-span the drop. That's the most cost effective solution, and should not be an issue.


This gets my vote.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> I see no one has actually looked at the obvious solution.


The obvious solution is for the home owner to call a real electrician who can figure it out on the spot, and not go home to consult his "team of professionals" and not like their answers from some vague, crappy photos.


----------



## Vintage Sounds (Oct 23, 2009)

Call in someone to trench for you, then kick a Teck cable into the trench and cover it up. Problem?


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Vintage Sounds said:


> Call in someone to trench for you, then kick a Teck cable into the trench and cover it up. Problem?



Yeah we don't carry the miracle cable in the states sorry


----------



## Vintage Sounds (Oct 23, 2009)

ponyboy said:


> Yeah we don't carry the miracle cable in the states sorry


Yes you do.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Vintage Sounds said:


> Yes you do.



Nice link. I wonder if anyone here has used it. Personally I've never seen, heard, or heard of it being seen being used the way you guys use teck


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> The obvious solution is for the home owner to call a real electrician who can figure it out on the spot, and not go home to consult his "team of professionals" and not like their answers from some vague, crappy photos.


Oh it's finished. I just wanted to see how others would have repaired/replaced this service and it would be to code.

Most every answer was not cost effective.


----------



## wcord (Jan 23, 2011)

ponyboy said:


> Yeah we don't carry the miracle cable in the states sorry





ponyboy said:


> Nice link. I wonder if anyone here has used it. Personally I've never seen, heard, or heard of it being seen being used the way you guys use teck


Miracle - not so much. 
Versatile - very :thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

:whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

ponyboy said:


> Yeah we don't carry the miracle cable in the states sorry


I would use ACWU for this job. You got that down there?


----------



## te12co2w (Jun 3, 2007)

Vintage Sounds said:


> Yes you do.


 I haven't found a supplier yet that wants anything to do with it. Someone, somewhere, is probably using it in the states.


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

Ah . aftershock Reused all the Material , Straightened the pipe , Remounted and better Strapped . He Reused the wire too.

Hell , he may have even cut a branch or two .







Pete


----------



## Jason Harper (Nov 7, 2014)

farlsincharge said:


> Put it back the way it was, reconnect yourself, no permit. Cash money.


I will go with that too because it seems there is only one alternative as per you situation with no costs and no hassle easy money.


----------



## Ontario (Sep 9, 2013)

Tbh, you could re-use the wire if it wasn't damaged. The pipe however, needs to be replaced. Re-heating the pipe and shaping it will just weaken it. It's not worth the risk of having it break during a blizzard/storm.


----------



## Jason Harper (Nov 7, 2014)

Ontario said:


> Tbh, you could re-use the wire if it wasn't damaged. The pipe however, needs to be replaced. Re-heating the pipe and shaping it will just weaken it. It's not worth the risk of having it break during a blizzard/storm.


It is apparent he wants to keep the cost low. May be the customer is not willing to pay much that is why he is looking for alternatives. The best to is go underground, but it will be somewhat hard on the pocket.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Ontario said:


> Tbh, you could re-use the wire if it wasn't damaged. The pipe however, needs to be replaced. Re-heating the pipe and shaping it will just weaken it. It's not worth the risk of having it break during a blizzard/storm.


Wire , meter center, mast, flange kit all damaged.
I relocated the POA to the back corner of the addition, ran a 2" PVC riser with 4/0, 4/0 ,2/0 service. It was inspected and passed this morning.


----------



## Jason Harper (Nov 7, 2014)

aftershockews said:


> Wire , meter center, mast, flange kit all damaged.
> I relocated the POA to the back corner of the addition, ran a 2" PVC riser with 4/0, 4/0 ,2/0 service. It was inspected and passed this morning.


Good work . You are in the right track now. Cheers.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Jason Harper said:


> It is apparent he wants to keep the cost low. May be the customer is not willing to pay much that is why he is looking for alternatives. The best to is go underground, but it will be somewhat hard on the pocket.


Here the POCO does the underground. They send out an engineer then give a work order number and within a few days they give the price to do the work.


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> Wire , meter center, mast, flange kit all damaged.
> I relocated the POA to the back corner of the addition, ran a 2" PVC riser with 4/0, 4/0 ,2/0 service. It was inspected and passed this morning.





God that is Ugly .

I thought you were going to use that Service Cable that I never use .




Pete


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Jason Harper said:


> Good work . You are in the right track now. Cheers.


Wait for it....


pete87 said:


> God that is Ugly .
> 
> I thought you were going to use that Service Cable that I never use .
> 
> ...


:laughing:


----------



## Jason Harper (Nov 7, 2014)

aftershockews said:


> Here the POCO does the underground. They send out an engineer then give a work order number and within a few days they give the price to do the work.


So, all the problems are solved now. Smooth sailing for you . POCO made it a piece of cake for you for a clean job.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

You guys down south sure love keeping your overhead electrical wires as close to the ground as possible.

Guess it's survival of the shortest 'round there.

That service would never pass inspection here, waaay too many issues with it.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> You guys down south sure love keeping your overhead electrical wires as close to the ground as possible.
> 
> Guess it's survival of the shortest 'round there.
> 
> That service would never pass inspection here, waaay too many issues with it.


What is your minimum height on the POA?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> That service would never pass inspection here, waaay too many issues with it.


List them for me please.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

So basically you took a service that had the required clearance by using a mast, and made it non-compliant. Do you have any shame whatsoever?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

MTW said:


> So basically you took a service that had the required clearance by using a mast, and made it non-compliant. Do you have any shame whatsoever?





MTW said:


> When are people going to stop replying to this hack?


Hypocrite much?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

mtw said:


> so basically you took a service that did not have the required clearance by using a riser, and made it compliant. You are the best! :thumbsup:


fify.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

I guess I shut down two of the trolls on this forum.


----------



## farlsincharge (Dec 31, 2010)

Too close to the ground for one. POA must be below the weatherhead for another.
Looks like a male pvc terminal adapter threaded into a hub?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> I guess I shut down two of the trolls on this forum.


Ouch, you got me.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

aftershockews said:


> I guess I shut down two of the trolls on this forum.


Who's the other troll?:001_huh::001_huh:


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

aftershockews said:


> What is your minimum height on the POA?


It's in Section 13, something about being out of reach of children, right after TR receptacles.


----------



## Jason Harper (Nov 7, 2014)

In my part of the world their is no regulation about that much safety of the children. But i always try to up 4 feet.

Though curious " who is the other troll ???"


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> Ouch, you got me.


:laughing:


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Too low?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Good by an inch Ashock.....



> *230.24 B)* Vertical Clearance for Overhead Service Conduc-
> tors.
> 
> Overhead service conductors, where not in excess of
> ...


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Good by an inch Ashock.....


3M isn't even 10 feet! Room to spare.

Another fine job  .


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> Too low?


12 feet of clearance is required for residential property. I said it was a hack job and that's exactly what I meant. I was not trolling. Why is it so hard for you to simply comply with the code, instead of taking the easy way out?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> 12 feet of clearance is required for residential property. I said it was a hack job and that's exactly what I meant. I was not trolling. Why is it so hard for you to simply comply with the code, instead of taking the easy way out?


Over a driveway. No driveway in this backyard.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

We have a 12' requirement by the utility here, but that job isn't here!


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

I love it when I pull up to a job site an the Mast is ripped off by a truck ,or big tree limb. $$$$$


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> Over a driveway. No driveway in this backyard.


The NEC wording is "over residential _property_ and driveways." Nice try though.


----------



## theJcK (Aug 7, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> http://s1358.photobucket.com/user/A...TERSHOCK/WP_20141106_008_zpsef17e0fe.jpg.html Too low?


::thumbsdown:: EZ Read.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> The NEC wording is "over residential _property_ and driveways." Nice try though.


You mean 230.24(B)?



> (B) Vertical Clearance for Service-Drop Conductors.
> Service-drop conductors, where not in excess of 600 volts,
> nominal, shall have the following minimum clearance from
> final grade:
> ...


So if I have this height here.


And the transformer on the utility pole is mounted higher, then 230.24(B)(2) has been satisfied.

You can troll all you want.:thumbsup:


----------



## farlsincharge (Dec 31, 2010)

Lep said:


> I love it when I pull up to a job site an the Mast is ripped off by a truck ,or big tree limb. $$$$$


Unless of course the customer doesn't want to pay $$$$$. In which case you are justified in hacking it up as shown here.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

farlsincharge said:


> Unless of course the customer doesn't want to pay $$$$$. In which case you are justified in hacking it up as shown here.


Really?
Explain. Point out and cite the violations with a code reference. The only thing I would say would be a listing issue and that is up to the AHJ.
Or do you mean "hacking" as in you just don't like it?


----------



## farlsincharge (Dec 31, 2010)

aftershockews said:


> Really?
> Explain. Point out and cite the violations with a code reference. The only thing I would say would be a listing issue and that is up to the AHJ.
> Or do you mean "hacking" as in you just don't like it?


Even if it meets code in your area, (It sure as hell doesn't here) it's hack. 

Show a picture of the backyard with the sag in the drop.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

farlsincharge said:


> Even if it meets code in your area, (It sure as hell doesn't here) it's hack.



Define "hack".
Code violation?
You just don't like the way it looks?



farlsincharge said:


> Show a picture of the backyard with the sag in the drop.


The drop was still rolled up and laying near the pole when I left. No my responsibility to tie it back in although I would have if it wasn't vacant property.
If the linemen re string the drop and it is in violation then that is not my problem in this case.


----------



## farlsincharge (Dec 31, 2010)

It is up to you to provide a POA that allows a compliant install of overhead conductors with proper sag.

It's not that it's a violation, and you can justify it by saying "that's what they wanted to pay for".
In 10 years someone is going to buy the house and wonder who the hack was that did that.
Same as you wonder who the hack was that built the addition and didn't remedy the electrical then.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> You mean 230.24(B)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seriously? You can't be that ignorant. A 12 foot clearance is required on all residential property without exception. 10 feet does not comply. Your job is in violation. It's hack work, regardless of whether it passed inspection and the poco hooks it up.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

farlsincharge said:


> It is up to you to provide a POA that allows a compliant install of overhead conductors with proper sag.


That has been met.


farlsincharge said:


> It's not that it's a violation, and you can justify it by saying "that's what they wanted to pay for".
> In 10 years someone is going to buy the house and wonder who the hack was that did that.


You still have not defined what is "hack" about it.
It must be because you don't like it.



farlsincharge said:


> Same as you wonder who the hack was that built the addition and didn't remedy the electrical then.


The definition of "hack" in that quote would be from causing a code violation.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> Seriously? You can't be that ignorant. A 12 foot clearance is required on all residential property without exception. 10 feet does not comply. Your job is in violation. It's hack work, regardless of whether it passed inspection and the poco hooks it up.


Seriously? You can't be that ignorant.

So tell me why this is even in the code?


> (B) Vertical Clearance for Service-Drop Conductors.
> Service-drop conductors, where not in excess of 600 volts,
> nominal, shall have the following minimum clearance from
> final grade:
> ...


By your logic it should read.


> (1) 3.7 m (12 ft) — at the electrical service entrance to
> buildings, also at the lowest point of the drip loop of
> the building electrical entrance, and above areas or
> sidewalks accessible only to pedestrians, measured
> ...


In order to satisfy.


> (2) 3.7 m (12 ft) — over residential property and driveways,
> and those commercial areas not subject to truck
> traffic where the voltage does not exceed 300 volts to
> ground


Or maybe the elevation should make a drastic 2' drop once away from the foundation.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

I'm all for frunk slamming, but lets call it what it is! 

That's high end hackery.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #2 said:


> I'm all for frunk slamming, but lets call it what it is!
> 
> That's high end hackery.


You are late.:laughing:


----------



## Expediter (Mar 12, 2014)

MTW or Peter, You, I think forget that your wonderful powers that be drew up there own version of the code partly because of all the bad driving in MA.
Folks up there with box trucks just dont know enough to stay off the grass.:jester::whistling2:

The OP is in TN where everyone takes an approved driving course, and so the need to modify the NEC for OH POA just isn't there:whistling2:.:laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> Seriously? You can't be that ignorant.
> 
> So tell me why this is even in the code?
> 
> ...


I tried reasoning with you, but I can only conclude you're an ignoramus as well as being a hack.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Expediter said:


> MTW or Peter, You, I think forget that your wonderful powers that be drew up there own version of the code partly because of all the bad driving in MA.
> Folks up there with box trucks just dont know enough to stay off the grass.:jester::whistling2:
> 
> The OP is in TN where everyone takes an approved driving course, and so the need to modify the NEC for OH POA just isn't there:whistling2:.:laughing:


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> I tried reasoning with you, but I can only conclude you're an ignoramus as well as being a hack.


I can only conclude you're an ignoramus.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> I can only conclude you're an ignoramus.


Maybe so, but your hack, non-compliant work is what's being discussed here. It's pretty shameful that you keep defending it when you're clearly in the wrong.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

MTW said:


> I tried reasoning with you, but I can only conclude you're an ignoramus as well as being a hack.


Oh and you did not try reasoning. You came out attacking with insults from the get go. That is what makes you a troll.

Something you might want to think about in the future.:thumbsup:


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> Maybe so, but your hack, non-compliant work is what's being discussed here. It's pretty shameful that you keep defending it when you're clearly in the wrong.


You have yet to cite a violation on my part. :laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> Oh and you did not try reasoning. You came out attacking with insults from the get go. That is what makes you a troll.
> 
> Something you might want to think about in the future.:thumbsup:


I call hack work what it is. After all, you were all proud of your service with the drip loop at 9 feet in another thread you posted. You have a pattern of doing garbage work already.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

aftershockews said:


> You have yet to cite a violation on my part. :laughing:


I did, but you're incapable of seeing it because you must justify your violation.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

MTW said:


> I call hack work what it is. After all, you were all proud of your service with the drip loop at 9 feet in another thread you posted. You have a pattern of doing garbage work already.


That is a lie. Back it up.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Troll #1 said:


> I did, but you're incapable of seeing it because you must justify your violation.


No, in your mind I made a code violation because that is what you want to think, therefor you press it to satisfy your reasoning to troll as to make you feel so much better about your own short comings. Do you not see the pattern you have created for yourself?


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

farlsincharge said:


> Unless of course the customer doesn't want to pay $$$$$. In which case you are justified in hacking it up as shown here.


I had a guy complain about the price one time on a job where the mast got ripped down by a truck.I worked on it over the weekend on emergency rate I gave him a couple hundred dollars off and he was happy


----------



## OaklandElec (Jan 4, 2011)

13' point of attachment here. When I see pictures of the services you guys do on here, I'm always surprised by the exposed pvc risers. We have to use GRC here. Seems like POCO wiring should be in something stronger than PVC.


----------



## Expediter (Mar 12, 2014)

aftershockews said:


>


My AHJ doesn't require any different heights than the book either but personally I like it higher the better. 25' up? Cool!:laughing:


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

OaklandElec said:


> 13' point of attachment here. When I see pictures of the services you guys do on here, I'm always surprised by the exposed pvc risers. We have to use GRC here. Seems like POCO wiring should be in something stronger than PVC.


We can only use PVC if the riser/mast doesn't penetrate the roof and also meets the height requirements. 
If we penetrate the roof we have to use 2-1/2" rigid.

We have to use an eyebolt or long lag bolt that hits a framing member for the POA if PVC is used. I see more services with GRC torn off or bent over than I do PVC providing the POA was done to the specs.
The POA takes the brunt of the force if PVC is used, again providing the POA is done correctly. If the force is strong enough that it still effects the PVC then usually all that needs to be replaced is the PVC.

But with rigid, it takes all of the force and usually damages the meter base and hub as well.


I'm in the same state as the OP and the POCO sets the height requirements in my area. 12' to the POA is what all the POCOs in my area want for residential. 15'-18' if over a driveway or road respectively.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

MTW said:


> The NEC wording is "over residential _property_ and driveways." Nice try though.


I'm not commenting on the OP's install other than this:

(B) Vertical Clearance for Service-Drop Conductors.
Service-drop conductors, where not in excess of 600 volts,
nominal, shall have the following minimum clearance from
final grade:
(1) 3.0 m *(10 ft) — at the electrical service entrance to
buildings, also at the lowest point of the drip loop of
the building electrical entrance,* and above areas or
sidewalks accessible only to pedestrians, measured
from final grade or other accessible surface only for
service-drop cables supported on and cabled together
with a grounded bare messenger where the voltage
does not exceed 150 volts to ground
(2) 3.7 m *(12 ft) — over residential property and driveways,*
and those commercial areas not subject to truck
traffic where the voltage does not exceed 300 volts to
ground 

The 10' requirement is as stated in red. That is the requirement AT the service entrance and/or drip loop.

The 12' is where the conductors are running OVER resi property or driveways. That is a different height requirement than where it enters/attaches to the house/building.

Then there is this:

230.26 Point of Attachment
The point of attachment of the service-drop conductors to a
building or other structure shall provide the minimum clearances
as specified in 230.9 and 230.24. In no case shall this
point of attachment be less than 3.0 m (*10 ft*) above finished
grade.

This backs up the 10' requirement for the service entrance providing the POA allows the conductors from the POCO to meet the height requirements. So you could have a 10' POA and still meet the 12' for over the "property" providing the grade is accommodating and the POCO's transformer is high enough.

IOW, if the house/building is lower than, or the same as the grade leading to it, a 10' POA would allow the correct clearance. If it is higher it may not.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

So if the OP install_ didn't_ meet your POCO specs (which hail from NEC) , would they have hooked it up? ~CS~


----------



## Big Pickles (Oct 25, 2014)

230.54(c)


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

What we have here is a customer who lost power to his house and wants it repaired so he can get on with his life. He didn't hire Leonardo DaVinci, he hired an electrician. If it meets code and passes inspection, any further discussion is just blah, blah, blah.

Do the job, take the money, move on.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> So if the OP install_ didn't_ meet your POCO specs (which hail from NEC) , would they have hooked it up? ~CS~


Their minimum specs "hail" from the NEC.

Hard to say if they would have hooked this up. A lot of times they will on an emergency repair. That's if you did all you could within reason to make it compliant.
But they definitely make you stick with their standards on a new install.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Big Pickles said:


> 230.54(c)





> (C) Service Heads and Goosenecks Above Service-Drop
> Attachment. Service heads and goosenecks in serviceentrance
> cables shall be located above the point of attachment
> of the service-drop conductors to the building or other
> ...


That has never been enforced here by either the AHJ or the POCO.
When my POA is above it is never more than maybe 18". So I would imagine if I had a POA 3' or more above the weatherhead it would draw a red flag.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

99cents said:


> He didn't hire Leonardo DaVinci, he hired an electrician.


 
I like this.:laughing:


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

aftershockews said:


> That has never been enforced here by either the AHJ or the POCO.
> When my POA is above it is never more than maybe 18". So I would imagine if I had a POA 3' or more above the weatherhead it would draw a red flag.


Where's my "Thanks" for defending you in post #96?:jester:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> Their minimum specs "hail" from the NEC.
> 
> Hard to say if they would have hooked this up. A lot of times they will on an emergency repair. That's if you did all you could within reason to make it compliant.
> But they definitely make you stick with their standards on a new install.


True Shorty
add to it being a complete pita customer , to the point where they hook stuff like this up>>>








~C:whistling2:S~


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

aftershockews said:


> That has never been enforced here by either the AHJ or the POCO.
> When my POA is above it is never more than maybe 18". So I would imagine if I had a POA 3' or more above the weatherhead it would draw a red flag.


OK so if they don't enforce it, that makes everything alright.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> Where's my "Thanks" for defending you in post #96?:jester:


There's really no defense for the E.T.E.C. (ET board of electrical critiques) 

But 'thanks' for trying....


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> OK so if they don't enforce it, that makes everything alright.


Yeah, kinda like driving 32 in a 30mph all the time..... ~CS~


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

sbrn33 said:


> OK so if they don't enforce it, that makes everything alright.


It does in my jurisdiction. That code article is there IMO to prevent water from entering the service raceway via the conductors. With a drip loop on the conductors this keeps that from happening. Plus in this case it would not have been practical to install the POA below the weather-head.

How would you interpret the exception to


> (C) Service Heads and Goosenecks Above Service-Drop
> Attachment. Service heads and goosenecks in serviceentrance
> cables shall be located above the point of attachment
> of the service-drop conductors to the building or other
> ...


It does not specify vertical or horizontal.


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

A Little Short said:


> Where's my "Thanks" for defending you in post #96?:jester:


Sorry sir. I will not let that happen again.:jester:


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

Aftershockews, you're a trooper.. You keep coming back thread after thread with pictures of your work, when every time people dump on you for how terrible it looks or how many codes it breaks.

You are one thick skinned sun a bich! If not anything else, I can admire you for that! :thumbsup:


----------



## Expediter (Mar 12, 2014)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Aftershockews, you're a trooper.. You keep coming back thread after thread with pictures of your work, when every time people dump on you for how terrible it looks or how many codes it breaks.
> 
> You are one thick skinned sun a bich! If not anything else, I can admire you for that! :thumbsup:


Aftershock is channeling B4T?:laughing::laughing:


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Expediter said:


> Aftershock is channeling B4T?:laughing::laughing:


Not sure.
I do use this








And a few of these








Prior to posting though.


----------

