# Converting meter/main to subpanel



## RAD COM (Mar 3, 2019)

I just encountered a side by side combo overhead underground 200A panel that is being used now as a subpanel because they built a back house and installed the meter at the new structure. The previous electrician ran an underground feed and stubbed it into the utility section. They landed the hots and neutral onto the utility lugs but the ground wire was just coiled up and unconnected. Load grounds and neutrals all were connected to the common bus as per a typical service point.
I took it upon myself to remedy the code violation of having the neutral bonded to the ground on a subpanel.
Has anyone else done this?
It was a huge pain in the ass and required me modifying the panel. I isolated the neutral buss from the enclosure, drilled holes through the dividing panel so I could stub the neutral and ground through and land them on separate buses. I still left the grounding electrode conductor attached (moved to the new ground bus)which I don't think I should have. I have had varying experience with AHJ's on this topic, some requiring a ground on a separate structure and some not.
In the end the client is left with a panel that is no longer UL rated but I have solved an esoteric code violation that may have never become an issue.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

You should have torn that box off the wall and installed a 3R panel in its place. 

Why did you follow a hack with another hack?


----------



## VELOCI3 (Aug 15, 2019)

That’s the kind of stuff you do at your own house not to a customer that is relying on you as a professional. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Did they pay you to take it upon yourself? Yes it was a violation, but no different electrically than the original service. And if it wasn't within your original scope of work, you wasted your time and money.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

macmikeman said:


> You should have torn that box off the wall and installed a 3R panel in its place.
> 
> Why did you follow a hack with another hack?


Kinda agree with this one. Why try and save them money when it is still wrong?


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Did you ever finish your apprenticeship & pass your jman test?


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

No ground with the feed and grounds and neutrals together in an out building used to be NEC code compliant as long as there were no other metal paths to ground between the buildings. Like TV wires or metal water/sewer pipes. 
What you did is probably fine, however you turned a hacked installation into another hacked installation. It was no more or no less safe than the main house that has no separate ground from the utility feeding it either.


----------



## RAD COM (Mar 3, 2019)

The panel is flush in a stucco wall with custom cabinetry enclosing it, tearing something off the wall would be the most hackish option. The wall would have to be reframed, stucco repaired and enclosure reattached. And all of this would end up with the same mechanical connections as how I left it. 
I'd have to disagree that I did not make it safer, from my schooling bonding was a major code change and life safety improvement. But the actual safety benefit will only come in play if there is a fault in the ungrounded conductor between the two houses. Then the now functioning ground conductor could be a life saver. How does one make a cost benefit analysis of something like that?

It took me two hours labor, and two buss kits to do it so the cost to the client will be $300.00 It would cost 10X to swap the panel and the neighbor/client probably would not be amenable so I didn't even ask (her ex was the installer) . I try to make the world safer and a little brighter to the best of my ability within a clients budget. Rarely is that impossible I'd like to think but, you can't repair every violation either by a hack or otherwise on every job so we pick and choose.

So the consensus seems to be that most of you would leave it as is, which is totally understandable. Would you quote the client a price to swap out the panel and let them take it or leave it? I'd think to sell the job you would have to inform them that there are serious safety concerns. Or would you close the panel and be on your merry way? 
Thanks for your input.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

If I’m not comfortable with it, I tell the customer why and give him the price to do it my way. My price might be $2000 compared to a guy who glues it together for $300. I would walk away before agreeing to glue it together for $300.


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

It was most likely not a violation at the time of installation. This was a code compliant install until the adoption of the 2008 NEC. It's a grandfathered installation.
I don't go installing AFCI breakers for most of the circuits in the whole house on a 20 year old house. Code didn't require it then and it does not have to comply with current code unless you replace it.
Old houses can keep their weatherproof flap covers, Basement single receptacles for appliances, non GFCI garage door opener outlets, Large islands with 1 outlet, 3 wire dryer outlets.......
ETC......................


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

@RAD COM


What did you do about the hole left where the meter used to be?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

A Little Short said:


> @RAD COM
> 
> 
> What did you do about the hole left where the meter used to be?


I was starting to type that same thing into mine , but I just decided to call the whole thing hack. He probably put a plastic see thru cover and a ring over the old socket hole. And now those old lugs are hot in reverse....... I say its garbage, stucco patch or not. By the way, I work with GC's that can make that repair in a flash and they get a painter in who matches existing like it was a natural thing. After watching all they stuff they do, I can do it myself as well, but I don't like mixing mud and so forth and so on......... So I get a GC in. We fix it right and charge large. That's what the op should have done.


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

The best course of action would have been to have had the lot divided into two parcels since it is property lines that dictate whether a 3 or 4 wire circuit is safe.


:devil3:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

A Little Short said:


> @RAD COM
> 
> 
> What did you do about the hole left where the meter used to be?


I am not sure what he did, but we have clear plastic inserts that the power company gives us. They connect right into the meter jaws and close up the hole. We use them in meter bases when a meter is not yet ready to be installed, which is fairly often.

To the OP, $300 is not nearly enough money for that work. You have to charge more, and then you have to charge even more than that for the liability of what you have done. The installation was code compliant when it was installed which means it is compliant today. You reversed that and made a hack installation and now carry all the liability on your shoulders.


----------



## Drsparky14 (Oct 22, 2016)

macmikeman said:


> You should have torn that box off the wall and installed a 3R panel in its place.
> 
> Why did you follow a hack with another hack?



I agree with Mac here. A meter main is not listed or engineered to be a sub panel. If you have to go through that much trouble to modify something and void its listing, you should just charge more and replace the whole thing with the proper equipment. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Drsparky14 said:


> I agree with Mac here. A meter main is not listed or engineered to be a sub panel. If you have to go through that much trouble to modify something and void its listing, you should just charge more and replace the whole thing with the proper equipment.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh my God you just agreed here with Mac. Don't you realize you just lost all your social credits? You better watch your step buddy!


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

As Joesparky said this might have been code compliant when it was done or maybe I am not understanding the issue here. Is there a listing for a sub panel or are they just panels? If the original building is totally separate from the new building except for the feeder could this not be considered a "service " aside from not being a utility supplied service? Or since four wire was ran 2 hots, 1 neutral, 1 EGC could not this be used as a 3R disconnect? Some of our meter mains have provisions for an isolated neutral and an EGC bar. I like pictures. I am not good with reading comprehension at times.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

kb1jb1 said:


> As Joesparky said this might have been code compliant when it was done or maybe I am not understanding the issue here. Is there a listing for a sub panel or are they just panels? If the original building is totally separate from the new building except for the feeder could this not be considered a "service " aside from not being a utility supplied service? Or since four wire was ran 2 hots, 1 neutral, 1 EGC could not this be used as a 3R disconnect? Some of our meter mains have provisions for an isolated neutral and an EGC bar. I like pictures. I am not good with reading comprehension at times.


I don't believe it was compliant the minute is was turned from a meter/panel combo unit into a sub panel. The units we use here have the common lug bolted down to the neutral/ground bar and the can itself. 

So I think what he did was to separate the grounds and neutrals at this location, as somewhere down the line someone had turned it into a sub panel.

I guess what he did was to make it safer, but it is just a hack way of doing things. He should have just pulled the stupid thing out and replaced it with a 3R panel. Maybe it is a flush mount unit, and he didn't want to deal with the stucco work? IDK...


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

kb1jb1 said:


> As Joesparky said this might have been code compliant when it was done or maybe I am not understanding the issue here. Is there a listing for a sub panel or are they just panels? If the original building is totally separate from the new building except for the feeder could this not be considered a "service " aside from not being a utility supplied service? Or since four wire was ran 2 hots, 1 neutral, 1 EGC could not this be used as a 3R disconnect? Some of our meter mains have provisions for an isolated neutral and an EGC bar. I like pictures. I am not good with reading comprehension at times.


Those type of cans are listed as a metering and main panel combination. There are branch circuits after the main on some of the models, but the neutral / grounding bonding is done in the same can via a common busbar. You cannot back feed it and get a sub panel out of it legally. Regardless of whether it was legal at one time due to a utility feed that was removed and relocated to another building. It should have been removed and replaced with an exterior rated load center, and grounding busbar. They are not that expensive, this job was hack and then bigger hack.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

The problem arises with the listing of the box.


A meter main will say "Suitable for use as service equipment only", meaning can only be service main



Where as a panel will say "Suitable for use as service equipment", meaning can be either the main or subpanel


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

This is silly. The only thing he did wrong was not make more money. The electrical issue isn't really an issue at all.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

CoolWill said:


> This is silly. The only thing he did wrong was not make more money. The electrical issue isn't really an issue at all.


The bottom two meter lugs are energized when that "panel" is energized. With no signage to alert anybody who removes the plastic cover over the meter hole. (that's if the op even put a cover over the meter opening.)
I say you are full of BS on this one. It's an unexpected disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

macmikeman said:


> The bottom two meter lugs are energized when that "panel" is energized. With no signage to alert anybody who removes the plastic cover over the meter hole. (that's if the op even put a cover over the meter opening.)
> I say you are full of BS on this one. It's an unexpected disaster waiting to happen.


The OP didn't do the conversion, he just separated the grounds and neutrals. He claims the feed hits the utility lugs.

There is currently no signage of any sort on the service to my house either.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

CoolWill said:


> The OP didn't do the conversion, he just separated the grounds and neutrals. He claims the feed hits the utility lugs.
> 
> There is currently no signage of any sort on the service to my house either.


IDK...

He didn't screw it up, I get that. I also highly doubt almost any of the inspectors in all the Cali jurisdictions I have worked in would allow what was "originally done". 

So what he did was put his hands and liability on a sub standard installation to save some cash.

Have we all done that? Yeah, I bet each and every one of us have. But ultimately is it wrong? Yeah, likely. 

To me the issue isn't like replacing a fuse on a circuit that should now be AFCI protected. Isn't to code now but was on the installation. 

By what he is describing, it was never something that should have or would have been allowed. If he hit the utility lugs there is some type of bar between the line and load lugs. That isn't wrong, but everything beyond it certainly is. 

We all do something at some point that isn't to code, because we all know code isn't really about safety or best practices.

I guess the better question is "Was the customer better served by what he did, or would they have been better served by a new panel"?


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

Switched said:


> I guess the better question is "Was the customer better served by what he did, or would they have been better served by a new panel"?



Neither. It probably wasn't a code violation at the time of installation. It is definitely not a safety issue to run a single phase 3 wire feed to a separate structure because everyone's single family homes would spontaneously combust if it was. How many wires are in your service entrance?

If it was a violation at the time of installation, it was only a technical violation. Draw an invisible line around the structure, give it a property deed and put a meter in the socket and it is a compliant install 

OP should have left it alone. Make sure proper jumpers were installed in the socket and a proper cover was installed over the unused meter hole. None of this floating neutral bus hackery, drilling holes between the sections .....etc

OP now owns the liability of his field modifications for the paltry price of 3 bones. Not worth the liability for that kind of scratch :no::no:


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Switched said:


> IDK...
> 
> He didn't screw it up, I get that. I also highly doubt almost any of the inspectors in all the Cali jurisdictions I have worked in would allow what was "originally done".
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I simply do not agree there is necessarily a substandard install going on, ignoring any listing issues that may have been voided. I am 100% confident that an electrician can field reconfigure a meter main into a safe and reliable subpanel. From a business angle, there is room for improvement for sure.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

When installing a service rated transfer switch we have to isolate the neutrals from the grounding conductors in the main distribution house panel which is now a " sub panel ". So we have to add an isolated neutral bar. Are we violating the listing on the panel? If yes then every generator with a service rated transfer switch we install we have to also change the house panel with one rated to be used as a " sub panel". Who does this? Did the OP do the same with the external meter / main? If the listing on the equipment says " to be used as service equipment only" that is one thing. If it says " suitable for service equipment" that is another. The OP mentioned about drilling holes, that might be a problem. As far as the old meter socket goes, don't they make jumpers and pie plates that the utility company uses all the time? Different utilities have different designs for metering equipment so I cannot speak for what the OP has.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

kb1jb1 said:


> When installing a service rated transfer switch we have to isolate the neutrals from the grounding conductors in the main distribution house panel which is now a " sub panel ". So we have to add an isolated neutral bar. Are we violating the listing on the panel?


 No. There is nothing wrong with adding an isolated neutral bar to a panel, if necessary.



> If yes then every generator with a service rated transfer switch we install we have to also change the house panel with one rated to be used as a " sub panel".


 Most of them probably only required you to remove the screw that bonds the neutral bar to the backpanel, no?


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

HackWork said:


> No. There is nothing wrong with adding an isolated neutral bar to a panel, if necessary.
> 
> Most of them probably only required you to remove the screw that bonds the neutral bar to the backpanel, no?


The newer panels usually have two neutral / grounding buss bars. One can be isolated and one is directly bolted to the panel. Many older panels have only one buss bar directly bolted to the panel.

I do not have a clear picture of what the OP did nor what the equipment is listed for. The equipment we use here has plenty of room and if I remember correctly a isolated neutral can be added.. I have to look. I like these questions, it makes me do research and look closer at codes and products.


----------



## RAD COM (Mar 3, 2019)

I'm trying to reconcile my choice of action knowing that replacing the panel is out of the question.
Do I close the panel up knowing there is an obvious code violation, main bonding jumper between panels unattached and the common ground/neutral bus bonded to the sub panel enclosure. One would only notice this if they open the utility side of the box. I'm sure most electricians wouldn't bother to inspect the utility section in their duties of installing an additional circuit. Hell, the clients ex-husband did the install in 2015 and left it that way during the addition of a guest house. I don't know how someone could sleep at night doing an install like that for their spouse. I know I would have trouble sleeping fearing that some perfect storm of events would cause a catastrophe to happen with any client I had. I would also stress if I did nothing, knowing that a customer's panel could be easily ($300.00) repaired, why didn't I. Even if I implored them to replace it and they declined I would fear the worst and have it in the back of my mind. I know when some other electrician opens up the panel he will shake his head upon seeing that 3/0 neutral poking through the divider wall. I did use a bushing and it makes a sexy bend into the new isolated buss.(My apologies for the gender stereotype)
So I have now traded an invisible hack job that could be potentially dangerous for a visible hack job that is safer. This troubles me least because I know the wires are doing what they're meant to do even though it's got a blush of hackery. It will probably sit like that until the client sells her house, where upon a reasonable home inspector will call it out. Then the next owners will have the choice to replace the whole panel. If I had left it alone then the unsafe situation would surely go undetected until a disaster happened or a major remodel occurred.


----------



## mofos be cray (Nov 14, 2016)

RAD COM said:


> I'm trying to reconcile my choice of action knowing that replacing the panel is out of the question.
> Do I close the panel up knowing there is an obvious code violation, main bonding jumper between panels unattached and the common ground/neutral bus bonded to the sub panel enclosure. One would only notice this if they open the utility side of the box. I'm sure most electricians wouldn't bother to inspect the utility section in their duties of installing an additional circuit. Hell, the clients ex-husband did the install in 2015 and left it that way during the addition of a guest house. I don't know how someone could sleep at night doing an install like that for their spouse. I know I would have trouble sleeping fearing that some perfect storm of events would cause a catastrophe to happen with any client I had. I would also stress if I did nothing, knowing that a customer's panel could be easily ($300.00) repaired, why didn't I. Even if I implored them to replace it and they declined I would fear the worst and have it in the back of my mind. I know when some other electrician opens up the panel he will shake his head upon seeing that 3/0 neutral poking through the divider wall. I did use a bushing and it makes a sexy bend into the new isolated buss.(My apologies for the gender stereotype)
> So I have now traded an invisible hack job that could be potentially dangerous for a visible hack job that is safer. This troubles me least because I know the wires are doing what they're meant to do even though it's got a blush of hackery. It will probably sit like that until the client sells her house, where upon a reasonable home inspector will call it out. Then the next owners will have the choice to replace the whole panel. If I had left it alone then the unsafe situation would surely go undetected until a disaster happened or a major remodel occurred.


Code does not mean necessarily mean safe therefore a code violation might not result in an unsafe condition. If i did not do something create either a code violation or unsafe condition it would have to be, in my view, very very serious for me to feel obliged to rectify it.
I too have a weakness for imagining worst case scenarios but you have to rein it in and reflect on the likelihood of occurance.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm holding my ground on this. While the op's meter/main may not be same brand or model as shown in picture (this one is for a 4/8 circuit so I know it's not) most other brands and models used in Western states follow the same idea.
Take a good look at the bussing and the neutral bussing. 

There will need to be jumpers to get across where a meter would normally go and that would heat up 4 exposed feed lugs in an opening for the meter. At minimum a plastic cover needs to be installed over the opening for the meter and at minimum a sign placed warning anybody- be they competent electricians or just a home inspector the fact remains electrical current is invisible and maybe somebody is gonna be hurt badly after somebody else trying to turn this into a sub panel.


----------



## yamatitan (Sep 4, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> I'm holding my ground on this. While the op's meter/main may not be same brand or model as shown in picture (this one is for a 4/8 circuit so I know it's not) most other brands and models used in Western states follow the same idea.
> Take a good look at the bussing and the neutral bussing.
> 
> There will need to be jumpers to get across where a meter would normally go and that would heat up 4 exposed feed lugs in an opening for the meter. At minimum a plastic cover needs to be installed over the opening for the meter and at minimum a sign placed warning anybody- be they competent electricians or just a home inspector the fact remains electrical current is invisible and maybe somebody is gonna be hurt badly after somebody else trying to turn this into a sub panel.





Im not saying its right in fact i know its not it violates any listing of the meter/main but im assuming he bypassed the meter section all together by taking out the factory wires and bring his wires straight to the lugs on the bus bar. Its common around here for guys adding transfer switches after the fact to pull the factory wires and wire their transfer switch in series. Personally I would never do it and would rebuild the service but I see it all the time from the local generac installers.


----------



## Norcal (Mar 22, 2007)

A Little Short said:


> The problem arises with the listing of the box.
> 
> 
> *A meter main will say "Suitable for use as service equipment only", meaning can only be service main*
> ...



With the neutral being permanently bonded to the enclosure, there is no way to use one as a subpanel.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Norcal said:


> With the neutral being permanently bonded to the enclosure, there is no way to use one as a subpanel.




That is what I was trying to convey to these guys all along. The neutral bus is bonded in at least 4 places to the can using rivets.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Norcal said:


> With the neutral being permanently bonded to the enclosure, there is no way to use one as a subpanel.



I don't know if you were disagreeing with me or not, but I was saying the same thing as you said. If it says "only" then that can't be a sub.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Norcal said:


> With the neutral being permanently bonded to the enclosure, there is no way to use one as a subpanel.


Yep, there's just no way. Impossible. Can't be done.lain:


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

There are also many older panels where the neutral bar is fastened to the cabinet. I do not think meter mains have riveted neutral bars. There would be no way to check the integrity of the rivets. At least the ones I just looked at. If you can add an isolated neutral bar to a panel then could you add one to a meter main? The ones I looked at have several unused threaded bosses for add one. Every utility has different equipment specifications. Some might allow it.


----------



## Norcal (Mar 22, 2007)

kb1jb1 said:


> There are also many older panels where the neutral bar is fastened to the cabinet. I do not think meter mains have riveted neutral bars. There would be no way to check the integrity of the rivets. At least the ones I just looked at. If you can add an isolated neutral bar to a panel then could you add one to a meter main? The ones I looked at have several unused threaded bosses for add one. Every utility has different equipment specifications. Some might allow it.



Most are bolted but that does not change anything, still not suitable for a subpanel.


----------

