Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical farm
setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to the
house). The difference with this one is that there is a second panel
that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house, which i
assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just noticed
today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just outside
the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are there any
issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's own pair of
proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together either at the
ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders
just outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel.
Are there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel
has it's own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded
together either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I
understand the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a
hookup like that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I
understand the hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were
stealing power by getting an additional level of service at the
reduced rate charged after a certain level of usage. People around
here have actually gone to jail for that.

On 2010-07-08, Steve Barker wrote:

We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical farm
setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to the
house).

Three wires to the house is acceptable unless (1) there is some other
metallic path between the house and the pole (e.g. a phone line) or
(2) you are working on the feeder and are subject to the 2008 or later
NEC (existing feeders are OK). In either of those cases, you need a 4
wire feeder with an explicit EGC, and then at the house the grounds
and neutrals are kept separate (with the grounding electrodes
connected to the ground, not the neutral).

The difference with this one is that there is a second panel
that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house, which i
assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just noticed
today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just outside
the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are there any
issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's own pair of
proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together either at the
ground rods OR between the two panels?

All grounding electrodes (e.g. ground rods) at a building must be
interconnected. It is fine to have a single pair of ground rods for
both panels; you could run the grounding electrode conductor to one
panel and then a jumper to the next panel. If you have more than two
rods, you still have to interconnect all the rods.

Also, in your situation with two main panels, the feeder neutral
should be connected to the grounding electrode system at each of the
main panels. This is the rare case where you interconnect ground and
neutral at more than one location in a building.

Cheers, Wayne

On Jul 8, 1:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:29:08 -0500, Steve Barker

wrote:
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. *And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. *Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical farm
setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to the
house). *The difference with this one is that there is a second panel
that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house, which i
assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. *I just noticed
today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just outside
the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. *Are there any
issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's own pair of
proper ground rods? *Should the two be bonded together either at the
ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

The code says disconnects for the building should be "grouped" and you
can't have 2 sets of service entrance conductors. *It sounds like you
have 2 disconnects in one building that are separated.
I can't think of any way to fix this that is easy and 2008 code legal.
I would not stay awake nights worrying about it if it is otherwise
compliant.

Bare with me as I'm not a electrician, but why would grounding rods
needs to be interconnected on the two mains panels in one building?
What's the difference between one building with two main and two
house next too each other with two meters that attach to the same pole
wires? Just curious about the logic.

Robin

The Post Quartermaster wrote:

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just
outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are
there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's
own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together
either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I understand
the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a hookup like
that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I understand the
hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were stealing power by
getting an additional level of service at the reduced rate charged after
a certain level of usage. People around here have actually gone to jail
for that.

What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a meter
on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to the
garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it so I
don't have to have 2 meters.

Tony wrote:
The Post Quartermaster wrote:

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders
just outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel.
Are there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel
has it's own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded
together either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I
understand the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a
hookup like that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I
understand the hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were
stealing power by getting an additional level of service at the
reduced rate charged after a certain level of usage. People around
here have actually gone to jail for that.

What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a meter
on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to the
garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it so I
don't have to have 2 meters.

Wish they would do that for me, they made me get two meters and I have to
pay commercial rates for the damned garage.

R



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:29:08 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical farm
setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to the
house). The difference with this one is that there is a second panel
that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house, which i
assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just noticed
today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just outside
the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are there any
issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's own pair of
proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together either at the
ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

The code says disconnects for the building should be "grouped" and you
can't have 2 sets of service entrance conductors. It sounds like you
have 2 disconnects in one building that are separated.
I can't think of any way to fix this that is easy and 2008 code legal.
I would not stay awake nights worrying about it if it is otherwise
compliant.

You missed that the meter and main disconnect for the entire residence
are located on the pole, not at the house. It's also not two sets of
service entrance conductors, since those end at the disconnect at the
pole, after that it's feeders to the two panels.

On 7/8/2010 7:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:31:36 -0400,
wrote:

The Post Quartermaster wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just
outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are
there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's
own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together
either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I understand
the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a hookup like
that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I understand the
hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were stealing power by
getting an additional level of service at the reduced rate charged after
a certain level of usage. People around here have actually gone to jail
for that.

What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a meter
on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to the
garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it so I
don't have to have 2 meters.

Is the garage a separate structure? That is the difference. I got the
impression the OP was talking about two service drops to one building.


yes, two panels in the same house. the garage is detached and is fed
off the pole. typical ag setup. One meter.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:43:30 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:29:08 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm
setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to the
house). The difference with this one is that there is a second panel
that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house, which i
assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just noticed
today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just outside
the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are there any
issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's own pair
of
proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together either at the
ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

The code says disconnects for the building should be "grouped" and you
can't have 2 sets of service entrance conductors. It sounds like you
have 2 disconnects in one building that are separated.
I can't think of any way to fix this that is easy and 2008 code legal.
I would not stay awake nights worrying about it if it is otherwise
compliant.

You missed that the meter and main disconnect for the entire residence
are located on the pole, not at the house. It's also not two sets of
service entrance conductors, since those end at the disconnect at the
pole, after that it's feeders to the two panels.

That just moves you from 230.70 to 225.33. They still have to be
grouped in one location.

I'm not sure that I'm getting a clear picture of this setup from the OP. I
see it as Wayne Whitney describes: The drop comes to the pole, down the pole
into a meter, out of the meter into "the service disconnect", out of the
service disconnect back up the pole, then across to house via one set of
triplex. At the house the triplex is tapped into twice and feeding two
separate panels.

Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical farm
setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to the
house). The difference with this one is that there is a second panel that
was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house, which i assumed
at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just noticed today that the
second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just outside the house and so
it in effect is a second main panel. Are there any issues with it being
this way as long as each panel has it's own pair of proper ground rods?
Should the two be bonded together either at the ground rods OR between the
two panels?


I think in this case the disconnect at the meter on the pole serves as the
main panel and therefore the bonding of the neutral and ground should take
place in there as well as your ground rod connection. So you should have
four wires to each subpanel or metal conduit could serve as the grounding
conductor with three wires. At the time these were installed three wires
were permissible with the installation of a ground rod at each building. One
shared ground rod was all that was needed at the time for both buildings.

I think that the rated life for a copper clad ground rod is 40 years. Other
materials except stainless steel is less. You should probably install new
rods for optimum lightning protection. Install two rods at least 16' apart
and have one common grounding electrode conductor with one end going to one
panel and the other end going to the other panel. Also install at least one
new rod at the meter pole.

Is there a main breaker in each panel? Are the conductor sizes the same for
each panel?

On 7/9/2010 6:21 AM, RBM wrote:

I'm not sure that I'm getting a clear picture of this setup from the OP. I
see it as Wayne Whitney describes: The drop comes to the pole, down the pole
into a meter, out of the meter into "the service disconnect", out of the
service disconnect back up the pole, then across to house via one set of
triplex. At the house the triplex is tapped into twice and feeding two
separate panels.



exactly right


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 7/9/2010 6:27 AM, John Grabowski wrote:
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just
outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are
there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's
own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together
either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?


I think in this case the disconnect at the meter on the pole serves as
the main panel and therefore the bonding of the neutral and ground
should take place in there as well as your ground rod connection. So you
should have four wires to each subpanel or metal conduit could serve as
the grounding conductor with three wires. At the time these were
installed three wires were permissible with the installation of a ground
rod at each building. One shared ground rod was all that was needed at
the time for both buildings.

I think that the rated life for a copper clad ground rod is 40 years.
Other materials except stainless steel is less. You should probably
install new rods for optimum lightning protection. Install two rods at
least 16' apart and have one common grounding electrode conductor with
one end going to one panel and the other end going to the other panel.
Also install at least one new rod at the meter pole.

Is there a main breaker in each panel? Are the conductor sizes the same
for each panel?

yes, and yes. at this time, everything involved is 4ga. And it's all
the same building. Actually, the panels are only about 8 feet apart,
but in different rooms.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

"Tony" wrote in message
...
The Post Quartermaster wrote:

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating
the neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the
question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the
typical farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and
three wires to the house). The difference with this one is that
there is a second panel that was added in about 1960, when they
added on to the house, which i assumed at first was just a sub off
the main panel. I just noticed today that the second panel is
ALSO tied into the feeders just outside the house and so it in
effect is a second main panel. Are there any issues with it being
this way as long as each panel has it's own pair of proper ground
rods? Should the two be bonded together either at the ground rods
OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I
understand the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a
hookup like that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I
understand the hookup correctly, what is happening is that they
were stealing power by getting an additional level of service at
the reduced rate charged after a certain level of usage. People
around here have actually gone to jail for that.

What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a
meter on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to
the garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it
so I don't have to have 2 meters.

Nothing wrong with that if the power company okays it. But, as I said,
I'm not sure I understand the hookup as it was described. But it
sounded to me like it would be the same as if a neighbor made a deal
to run their power off your meter and then split the lower cost. All
I'm saying is that method is really, really frowned upon around here.

On 2010-07-09, Steve Barker wrote:

And it's all the same building. Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-09, Steve Barker wrote:

And it's all the same building. Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

Those disconnects on the house are not service disconnects. The only service
disconnect is on the Pole.
At least by current code it should be done as John Grabowski describes. The
ground rods should be installed at the pole and attached to the service
disconnect. Four wires should be run from the disconnect to the sub panels
at the house.

On Jul 9, 11:39*am, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2010-07-09, Steve Barker wrote:

And it's all the same building. *Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. *Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. *So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. *Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

In order not to limit the power available to the rating of one panel
it may be better to locate an enclosed breaker for one panel at the
other panels location or to group two disconnects at one location on
the exterior of the building with each disconnect feeding one of the
panels. There is only supposed to be a single set of service entry or
feeder conductors supplying the building except for an emergency
feeder from an alternate power source or a supply with different phase
or voltage characteristics.

Just a reminder that the code specifically allows a separate
disconnect for a water pump located at the yard pole so that you can
kill power to the building without shutting off the source of water
used for first aid fire suppression. The conductors from the water
pump disconnect are another exception to the one set of supply
conductors rule.

--
Tom Horne

On Jul 9, 1:27*pm, "RBM" wrote:
"Wayne Whitney" wrote in message

...

On 2010-07-09, Steve Barker wrote:

And it's all the same building. *Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. *Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. *So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. *Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

Those disconnects on the house are not service disconnects. The only service
disconnect is on the Pole.
At least by current code it should be done as John Grabowski describes. The
ground rods should be installed at the pole and attached to the service
disconnect. Four wires should be run from the disconnect to the sub panels
at the house.

Don't forget that the house also has to have a main disconnecting
means that meets most of the rules that apply to a service. It also
is required to have a fully compliant Grounding Electrode System. On
the yard pole the best practice is to make the Grounding Electrode
Conductor connection at the top of the pole to the first accessible
point on the neutral past the power company splices. Under most
public utility rule schemes the power companies ownership ends at the
top of the pole before the Service Entry Conductors run down to the
meter enclosure and the Service Disconnecting Means. What confuses
many people is that the meter belongs to the power utility and in some
States so does the meter enclosure. In most States that does not
change the location of the service point which is still at the point
were the service drop connects to the Service Entry Conductors. Since
the transformer is also mounted on the same pole the service point may
be elsewhere on the pole in this case. The location of the
transformer suggest that the pole may be utility owned in which case
that may also change the location of the service point for regulatory
purposes.
--
Tom Horne

ROANIN wrote:
Tony wrote:
The Post Quartermaster wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders
just outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel.
Are there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel
has it's own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded
together either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I
understand the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a
hookup like that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I
understand the hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were
stealing power by getting an additional level of service at the
reduced rate charged after a certain level of usage. People around
here have actually gone to jail for that.
What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a meter
on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to the
garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it so I
don't have to have 2 meters.

Wish they would do that for me, they made me get two meters and I have to
pay commercial rates for the damned garage.

They do it at farms all the time with all the different outbuildings. I
don't know but maybe the first residential rate meter is on the house
and commercial rates to all the outbuildings?

wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:31:36 -0400, Tony
wrote:

The Post Quartermaster wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders just
outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel. Are
there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel has it's
own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded together
either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email
I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I understand
the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a hookup like
that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I understand the
hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were stealing power by
getting an additional level of service at the reduced rate charged after
a certain level of usage. People around here have actually gone to jail
for that.
What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a meter
on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to the
garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it so I
don't have to have 2 meters.

Is the garage a separate structure? That is the difference. I got the
impression the OP was talking about two service drops to one building.


Yes mine are two separate structures fed with two sets of wire from one
transformer. To me the OP sounded like the main was run to two main
panels in one building.

The Post Quartermaster wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message
...
The Post Quartermaster wrote:

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Ok, i understand the whole panel/subpanel setup. And isolating the
neutral from the ground in the sub etc etc. Here's the question:
We've recently purchased a house (next door) and it has the typical
farm setup, (meter on the pole with a disconnect, and three wires to
the house). The difference with this one is that there is a second
panel that was added in about 1960, when they added on to the house,
which i assumed at first was just a sub off the main panel. I just
noticed today that the second panel is ALSO tied into the feeders
just outside the house and so it in effect is a second main panel.
Are there any issues with it being this way as long as each panel
has it's own pair of proper ground rods? Should the two be bonded
together either at the ground rods OR between the two panels?

thanks!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

I don't know the answer to your question. I'm not even sure I
understand the question. But I know this. In my area, if you have a
hookup like that running off of just one meter, you gonna pay. If I
understand the hookup correctly, what is happening is that they were
stealing power by getting an additional level of service at the
reduced rate charged after a certain level of usage. People around
here have actually gone to jail for that.

What??????????? I have 2 main panels run off of one main with a meter
on the pole with the transformer. One to the house and one to the
garage. The power company told me that is the best way to do it so I
don't have to have 2 meters.

Nothing wrong with that if the power company okays it. But, as I said,
I'm not sure I understand the hookup as it was described. But it sounded
to me like it would be the same as if a neighbor made a deal to run
their power off your meter and then split the lower cost. All I'm saying
is that method is really, really frowned upon around here.

I doubt they would mind neighbors getting power from other neighbors.
Because we are charged a flat kwh fee. No additional costs.

On 7/9/2010 10:39 AM, Wayne Whitney wrote:
On 2010-07-09, Steve wrote:

And it's all the same building. Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

That's kind of the direction I'm headed and why i asked. I'm pretty
sure there is spaces left in the main panel, so that shouldn't be a
problem to "re-feed" it properly, since i'm changing the second panel to
a breaker panel anyway.

THANKS for all the responses.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 7/9/2010 12:27 PM, RBM wrote:
"Wayne wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-09, Steve wrote:

And it's all the same building. Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

Those disconnects on the house are not service disconnects. The only service
disconnect is on the Pole.
At least by current code it should be done as John Grabowski describes. The
ground rods should be installed at the pole and attached to the service
disconnect. Four wires should be run from the disconnect to the sub panels
at the house.



there is never 4 wires from the pole to the house in these setups.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 7/9/2010 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:39:21 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Whitney
wrote:

On 2010-07-09, Steve wrote:

And it's all the same building. Actually, the panels are only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects to be
grouped, I missed that. Whoever installed the second panel installed
a violation which should be fixed. So the second panel should be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. Hopefully it wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

Bear in mind, I also said I would not lose any sleep over the way it
is done now. This is a technical violation but I don't see a huge
safety issue since the service disconnect is on the pole. The fire
department would pull the meter anyway and the homeowner knows what he
has.

I'm not a thinking that a 50+ year old installation is under much code
restriction. I didn't even mention that the first MAIN panel is on the
outside of the house. LMAO! No one's too worried about the small stuff
here in this area.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

This thread reminds me a bit of a discovery a friend made when
building a new home. The attic was to be left unfinished in the
house, but my friend wanted a subpanel installed there for a
future bedroom and media room he planned to build. He got a price
from the electrician to install one with around 12 breaker slots,
as I recall. In addition, he had the plumber rough in a bathroom
and wet bar where would eventually build them in the attic.

When he and I were touring the almost-completed house, I noticed
the subpanel and walked over to look inside. The electrician had
done a great job putting it in, and also populating it with
breakers. The guy had used it to feed branch circuits in several
of the rooms below, eliminating any future expansion the owner had
paid for. I showed this to my friend and there was a subsequent,
"Come to Jesus" meeting with the electrician. The issue was
solved by the electrician dragging more wire from the main panel
and supplying a second load center nearby, but with none of the
slots used.

Nonny

--
On most days,
it's just not worth
the effort of chewing
through the restraints..

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
On 7/9/2010 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:39:21 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Whitney
wrote:

On 2010-07-09, Steve wrote:

And it's all the same building. Actually, the panels are
only about
8 feet apart, but in different rooms.

gfretwell is exactly right about the need for the disconnects
to be
grouped, I missed that. Whoever installed the second panel
installed
a violation which should be fixed. So the second panel should
be
converted to a subpanel of the first main panel, which would
require a
4-wire feeder from the first main panel. Hopefully it
wouldn't be too
hard to do since it is only 8 feet away.

Cheers, Wayne

Bear in mind, I also said I would not lose any sleep over the
way it
is done now. This is a technical violation but I don't see a
huge
safety issue since the service disconnect is on the pole. The
fire
department would pull the meter anyway and the homeowner knows
what he
has.

I'm not a thinking that a 50+ year old installation is under
much code restriction. I didn't even mention that the first
MAIN panel is on the outside of the house. LMAO! No one's too
worried about the small stuff here in this area.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Here in Southern Nevada, there is a combined meter socket, main
and breaker box on the OUTSIDE of almost every home in the valley.
Unless the home is so large that several inside load centers are
needed, you have to go outside to get to the breaker box.

Nonny

--
On most days,
it's just not worth
the effort of chewing
through the restraints..