# Meterbase Feed Thru???



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

box fill, if anything.
the meter base is still accessible, plus there are no taps, so that is point is moot.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

If I understand correctly, this is a violation of article 230.7



> 230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable.
> Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable.
> Exception No. 1: Grounding conductors and bonding jumpers.
> Exception No. 2: Load management control conductors having overcurrent protection.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

What if they used a seperate entrance?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> What if they used a seperate entrance?


I don't know who you are addressing or what you mean. Can you be more specific?


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

I stand corrected! 

Is a meter can a "service raceway"? Seems to me it would fall under 314 or somewhere else...


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If I understand correctly, this is a violation of article 230.7


 I'm not sure about this...isn't the meter itself a form of disconnect? so it could be covered in that section too?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I don't know who you are addressing or what you mean. Can you be more specific?


 
Sorry Dennis. What if they didnt use the same entrance as the service conductors? Didnt the code art you mentioned say they couldnt occupy the same raceway? So what if it had its own raceway?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Sorry Dennis. What if they didnt use the same entrance as the service conductors? Didnt the code art you mentioned say they couldnt occupy the same raceway? So what if it had its own raceway?


So you are asking if the feeder can be in the meter with the service conductors. Well technically I guess they could be but I would not swear to it. 

I could definitely see an inspector making a scene over it but I am not sure the words are there to prohibit it. I can't imagine why , in this case, you would do that.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

BuzzKill said:


> I'm not sure about this...isn't the meter itself a form of disconnect? so it could be covered in that section too?


No, I don't believe the meter is considered a disco.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> No, I don't believe the meter is considered a disco.


 it ain't no service raceway either...
I think one could make a good argument for it being a disconnect of sorts; a stretch, I know.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

BuzzKill said:


> it ain't no service raceway either...
> I think one could make a good argument for it being a disconnect of sorts; a stretch, I know.


I agree. I thought I was saying that in the post above. I just wouldn't call a meter a disco. Not all meters even disconnect the power.


----------



## chenley (Feb 20, 2007)

The nipple between the meterbase and main fuse panel do contain the service conductors and feed for the sub-panel. Won't be too difficult to change. Will just need to cut the PVC down below the meterbase and put in an LB to feed into the wall below the main panel. 

Just wondering if there were in code issues involved with how it was ran.


----------



## chenley (Feb 20, 2007)

I wouldn't consider the meter a disconnect either. Mainly because they have meterbases with disconnects also the meter doesn't have the wording on/off :laughing:.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

we canargue here allnight long,it's you AHJ that has the final say...let us know what he says.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> So you are asking if the feeder can be in the meter with the service conductors. Well technically I guess they could be but I would not swear to it.
> 
> I could definitely see an inspector making a scene over it but I am not sure the words are there to prohibit it. I can't imagine why , in this case, you would do that.


I agree an inspector would have a fit. After reading the code you posted I didnt see the language to not allow it either. That makes it legal but probably not how I would of done it.


----------



## codeone (Sep 15, 2008)

Would not be allowed through the same pipe per code. Would not have enough room in the meter can to install enough raceways to be practicle even if allowed.


----------



## codeone (Sep 15, 2008)

chenley said:


> Probably a dumb question,
> Your thoughts?


No dumb questions, the only question that would be dumb is the one you dont ask! :thumbsup:

Anyone who would say its dumb is the dumb person. They would have no compassion for their fellow man. Everyone has different levels of education. Life is a continual learning process.


----------



## chenley (Feb 20, 2007)

Not even going to run it past the AHJ. At the minimum the nipple between the panel and meterbase exceeds the fill limit. I'm just going to cut the PVC feeding the tool shed and install an LB.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*Meterbase feedthru*



chenley said:


> The nipple between the meterbase and main fuse panel do contain the service conductors and feed for the sub-panel. Won't be too difficult to change. Will just need to cut the PVC down below the meterbase and put in an LB to feed into the wall below the main panel.
> 
> Just wondering if there were in code issues involved with how it was ran.


 Our utility would have a problem with this configuration.


----------

