# Meter to panel splicing question



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 4, 2016)

I've got a tenant building that wants to extend the SE cable from the meter socket to a new panel and wants to know if the circuit can be spliced above the ceiling in an approved junction box? 

Anybody allow this, it will put the junction splice in another tenants suspended ceiling if allowed.


----------



## steveray (Nov 4, 2016)

IF it is allowed to be there, there is no prohibition to the splice....SEU or SER? How many tenants?


----------



## north star (Nov 4, 2016)

*@ ~ @*


Spliced for what purpose,  and which Code & edition
are you using ?


*@ ~ @*


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 4, 2016)

I do not have the type of circuit cable info at this time, it's more of a "Do I have to run a new circuit or can I splice it question? 

NEC 2011


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 4, 2016)

Moving a wall is the purpose for the extension.


----------



## north star (Nov 4, 2016)

*@ : @ : @*


PC,

I'm not exactly sure of your proposed configuration.
You have an existing SE cable at the CT  for Tenant
# 1, and now Tenant # 2 wants to splice off of Tenant
# 1 Service to run to their own panel ?

Is this correct ?


*@ : @ : @*


----------



## ICE (Nov 5, 2016)

That would not be allowed here simply because NM is not permitted above a suspended ceiling.  Otherwise there's only theft to be concerned with.


----------



## north star (Nov 5, 2016)

*@ ~ @ ~ @*


The "Theft Angle" is one of my concerns as well.
Also, ...Article 230.3  [  in the `08 NEC  ] prohibits
Service Entry conductors from passing through a
bldg. or structure.

What else ?


*@ ~ @ ~ @*


----------



## ICE (Nov 6, 2016)

Where is the main disconnect?  I envisioned it near the meter.  If not, it may be a violation.  That which is being called SE should be a feeder.


----------



## cda (Nov 6, 2016)

Draw a simple diagram of what they want to do and post


----------



## steveray (Nov 7, 2016)

If it is fused at the Meter and it is SER, it might be OK, if it is 1 or 2 family, the SE cable above the drop ceiling may be allowed. I don't believe 230.3 is applicable as it is the same "building" as far as we know. 230.70A1 should disallow service entrance wiring from running too far inside the building though....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 7, 2016)

Clarification:
Feeder from the outside disconnect to a main panel. 

Q. Can the feeder be spliced so that the it can be extended to a panel that's been relocated further away. The junction box for the spice would be above a grid ceiling that would have access. This question was presented so that a new feeder would not have to be run saving $$. What section of the NEC would I be able to allow or dis-allow?

The extension is less than 25ft.


----------



## FLSTF01 (Nov 7, 2016)

I would allow it.


----------



## cda (Nov 7, 2016)

Is it also a electric utility question, that they have to answer/ bless??


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 7, 2016)

CDA, my mistake, it has nothing to do with a SE it's a feeder Q like ICE picked up on. Would like to know if this is a common way of extending a feeder inside a commercial building when walls are moved? As far as the splice in a junction box, would it be allowed by code? I being told by other AHJ's it is a BO call to allow the main panel feeder to be spliced. Some allow it some want a new feeder installed?


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 23, 2016)

If it's a feeder like he described, then it can be spliced.

If it is service entrance conductors or service conductors, it can be spliced 230.33, 230.42, if one follows the rules stated therein.  And must be accessible.

If I was an electrical contractor, I wouldn't splice it.  I'd go with a straight run.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 23, 2016)

It's not the BO's "call."  It's covered in the NEC.


----------



## north star (Dec 23, 2016)

*@ ~ @ ~ @*

PC,

IMO, ...it IS the BO's call.....See Article 90.4 - Enforcement,
in the NEC........While your described application may be
allowed by the NEC, it is up to the AHJ to make that
determination.........If you want the correct answer, contact
the applicable AHJ and have a visit or conversation. 


*@ ~ @ ~ @*


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 23, 2016)

Nonsense.  No jurisdiction these days quotes 90.4 even though that is obviously in the code.  The code is clear.  Splicing is allowed.  The BO can't arbitrarily decide one day that "splicing isn't allowed anymore" because he enforces the code and is quoting 90.4.  He/she won't be a BO for very long if they start acting like that.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 23, 2016)

The real question here is what do you mean by a "tenant building?"  Apartment house?  Condo?  Townhome?  Depending upon where you are, and state law, you may or may not be able to run ANY wire above the ceiling or attic space if you are in fact going through somebody's else's property.  I see this violation quite a bit with townhomes that have a zero lot line.  Not legal.  Now that's a question to go and ask the BO!!!


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 29, 2016)

Filthy McNasty said:


> If it's a feeder like he described, then it can be spliced.
> 
> If it is service entrance conductors or service conductors, it can be spliced 230.33, 230.42, if one follows the rules stated therein.  And must be accessible.
> 
> If I was an electrical contractor, I wouldn't splice it.  I'd go with a straight run.



I preferred that they not splice the feeder to the main panel but a junction box that is above a grid ceiling marked as such and properly fasten appears to be a permitted install according to 230.33.



Filthy McNasty said:


> The real question here is what do you mean by a "tenant building?"



Strip center with individual units is what I meant by saying "tenant building" 
Not an apartment building.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 29, 2016)

Strip center, got it, that helps me.

But now I'm confused because we thought it was a feeder.  For feeders, Art. 230 would not apply.  So you can't go there.  But the sections that 230.33 references can apply.  There are many other articles that can be applied to feeders such as 110.14(B), 300.13(A), 300.15, 314.28(A)(2), etc., etc., you get the point.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 29, 2016)

POCO to meter then a required 100 amp disconnect to main panel. Moving panel and does not want to run a new line to the panel, want's to junction box it.

I preferred he run a new line, but he claimed the code allowed it to be junction-ed.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Dec 29, 2016)

He can even gut the old panel and use it as the splice box - provided it is permanently screwed closed and it meets all the other requirements for a splice box...

...and where they are moving the panel to the tenant should have access to those breakers after it is all said and done.


----------



## steveray (Dec 30, 2016)

Moving (sub)panel, not main disco....Correct?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 9, 2017)

steveray, main panel is being moved to new location in the same space, they want to use an approved junction box that will have access and continue the feed to the same panel. 

Not a sub panel, though that would have worked as filthy suggested, making the panel a junction box.


----------



## FLSTF01 (Jan 9, 2017)

Like Steveray is asking-if there is a first means of disconnect outside, you can splice and extend the feeder, although I think it's bad practice.  With the main disconnect outside, the "main" panel gets wired like a "sub-panel", hence the confusion.


----------



## steveray (Jan 9, 2017)

If you are extending the service conductors it would be a violation of 230.70 A 1 as the service disconnect will not be "nearest the point of entrance"....Might not be a big deal, but not to be ignored...


----------



## FLSTF01 (Jan 9, 2017)

In a previous post the original poster stated there is a disconnect outside.  therefore, the SER cable is a feeder, not service conductors.  Splicing that crap is just looking for trouble anyway.


----------



## Filthy McNasty (Jan 12, 2017)

I think he's explained it several times now.


----------

