Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    444

    Default Rules governing poles

    Whose rules govern setting poles for private use? I'm thinking sizing, footings, etc. for a freestanding pole that will be used to support an outside feeder or branch circuit en route to an outbuilding.

    The NEC talks about clearances for the conductors, and how to support them from the pole, but not the pole's design. I don't see anything in the IRC, at least not when I look through the index and TOC of my dated version.

    Similar Threads:
    Crawl Space Creeper

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    Whose rules govern setting poles for private use?
    From my experience, it has typically been the power utility company which sets those requirements; some of the time it is the AHJ which sets those requirement (however, typically those are just duplications of the power utility companies' requirements).

    I'm thinking sizing, footings, etc. for a freestanding pole ...
    Most of the time, I've seen the depth of the pole into the ground shown (specified), as I recall, 5 ft has been the typical depth of the pole into the ground.

    Here is an example:
    https://www.firstenergycorp.com/cont...Service-MD.pdf

    Scroll down to file pages 48 / 72 note 5 states 5 feet in the ground; 50 / 72 and 51 / 72 ... shows 5' 0" minimum depth.

    The utility has the liability for their overhead service drop, so they want to have control (state requirements for) the overhead service drop support on that end.

    Last edited by Jerry Peck; 05-18-2022 at 07:27 PM. Reason: speelin'
    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    444

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    From my experience, it has typically been the power utility company which sets those requirements; some of the time it is the AHJ which sets those requirement (however, typically those are just duplications of the power utility companies' requirements).
    Thank you, Jerry.

    I find it fascinating that there seems to be no standard for these poles supporting OH conductors on the load side of an NEC-compliant disconnect and OC device, so people tend to default to perhaps-varying standards set for poles serving systems that usually threaten much higher available fault current.

    This said, i can see the point that whatever power lines it's supporting, we don't want it to go down. I can even see why we might want different designs for different local environments. The latter, though, can be incorporated into codes, just like the need for seismic or high-wind resistance can be for other structures.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    I find it fascinating that there seems to be no standard for these poles supporting OH conductors on the load side of an NEC-compliant disconnect and OC device ...
    David, I suspect ("suspect" - i.e., no known knowledge of why, just 'common sense' of why) ... I suspect that there is no standard or code for support of the poles supporting the overhead conductors on the load side of an NEC-compliant disconnect and overcurrent device is because the pole is designed (and hopefully installed) to meet the requirements of the providing electrical utility. And that providing electrical utility's overhead conductors on the non-NEC line side likely have to resist as much or more loads than any conductors on the NEC-load side.

    I suspect that is because, typically, the line side conductor spans from the utility transformer to the pole are higher and longer (have to resist more load) than the load side conductor spans which are typically lower and shorter (thus will have less load on them).

    Just 'my common sense' logic being applied.

    There may be a standard for the line side utility provided conductors? I could look it up, and I recall having seen such a standard a few times, put ... I'm not ... at least not right now, I may latter when my curiosity exceeds my resistance to look it up.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Oh ye of little will power to resist education ... (including me).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    From here: https://www.electrocuted.com/2020/02/07/nec-vs-nesc/

    What is the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)?

    The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is a U.S. safety standard for the proper and safe installation, operation and maintenance of electric power utilities, their substations and power lines (both overhead and underground lines). It is intended to protect both utility workers and the public.
    What does the National Electrical Safety Code do?

    Drafted and published by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), they set minimum safety standards for power companies and electric utility companies (both public and private), governing such issues as when utilities must inspect their power lines, how those power lines are maintained and when utilities need to trim trees near power lines to prevent downed power lines from causing electrocution or electric shock injuries.
    Is the National Electrical Safety Code legally binding?

    The National Electrical Safety Code is a voluntary standard, but it is frequently adopted as law by state legislatures, municipalities, and public utility commissions.
    In those instances where it has been adopted as law, failure of a utility to comply with the National Electrical Safety Code can result in a finding of negligence as a matter of law where the utility?s noncompliance caused an accident resulting in electrocution or serious electric shock injury.
    Compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code is generally regulated by a governmental authority such as a state public service commission or public utility commission.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Other good stuff here: https://www.powerlinesystems.com/codes-standards (but none may address what you are asking?)



    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    444

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Splendid work, Jerry.
    I don't trust the lawyerly site, based simply on the assertion that the NEC is about best practices, not when Section 90.1(B) clearly states that it's providing scanty-bare-minimums. The other site, though, . . . very promising.
    Thanks


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    David, The phrase "best practices" has always (to me) really meant 'industry jargon for most unsafe we can get away with" as actual "best practices" are, unfortunately, typically too expensive and too time intensive to be used for 'every day use' work.

    Like the phrase "value engineering" ... which really means that the "value" has been 'engineered out'. "Value" is when you get more than you paid for. "Value engineering" is where you pay more to get less (you get 'only what is necessary' to get the job done).

    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    https://www.iaei.org/page/2020-11-Be...ESC-Clearances

    "About The Author

    Lawrence M. Slavin, Ph.D., serves on multiple NESC subcommittees, including SC4 (Clearances), SC5 (Strength & Loading), and SC7 (Underground Lines), as well the Executive Subcommittee, Main Committee, and Interpretations Subcommittee."

    David, maybe contact the author, sounds like he would know if there is a standard which addresses the end use overhead service drop power pole, and would likely know that standard if there is one.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Maryland, DC, and Northern Virginia, electrical only
    Posts
    444

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    David, The phrase "best practices" has always (to me) really meant 'industry jargon for most unsafe we can get away with".
    So it's a term of art, readily understandable by those toward whom the site is pitched.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    maybe contact the author, sounds like he would know if there is a standard which addresses the end use overhead service drop power pole, and would likely know that standard if there is one.
    He might indeed. I've already sent in an ILL request for the ANSI standard on wood poles, listed on the other site you cited.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by david shapiro View Post
    So it's a term of art, readily understandable by those toward whom the site is pitched.
    It's the same way I explain what the codes are: "codes are nothing more than the most unsafe one is legally allowed to build something".

    When contractors complain about that wording, I agree that it could be reworded to: "codes are nothing more than the least safe one is legally allowed to build something".

    "Least safe" versus "most unsafe"? Same thing. I guess one just doesn't sting their ears as bad as the other.

    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Chico,Ca
    Posts
    454

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    It's the same way I explain what the codes are: "codes are nothing more than the most unsafe one is legally allowed to build something".

    When contractors complain about that wording, I agree that it could be reworded to: "codes are nothing more than the least safe one is legally allowed to build something".

    "Least safe" versus "most unsafe"? Same thing. I guess one just doesn't sting their ears as bad as the other.

    Meets minimum standard, but people think that "code plus" is what should be, problem is they only want to pay minimum standards pricing, like buying a used Yugo*, & expecting a Lexus.

    *Yugo's were about the worst car on the US market, built in the former Yugoslavia, based on a old Fiat design, and dirt cheap, their run ended with the war and the breakup of Yugoslavia, & Fiats never had a quality reputation either, last Yugo I saw was over 20 years ago.

    For some trivia, Malcolm Bricklin, brought Subaru, and Yugo's to the USA, Hyundai started arriving about the same time as Yugo, but enjoys a much better reputation.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Thread drift:
    I remember way back in the day, a car dealer was giving away a free Yugo with the purchase of a new Cadillac.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers View Post
    Meets minimum standard, but people think that "code plus" is what should be, problem is they only want to pay minimum standards pricing, like buying a used Yugo*, & expecting a Lexus.
    That "minimum standard" itself tells you that it IS NOT 'good', 'better', or 'best' practices.

    That "minimum standard" itself even goes further and tells you that it MAY NOT EVEN BE ADEQUATE.

    Yet electrical contractors still try to pass that "minimum standard" off as being a high level and being costly to reach.

    That "minimum standard" you are promoting itself is telling you it is not even as good as a Yugo ... yet its dealers (electrical contractors) are advertising it being as good as, or better than, a Rolls-Royce, and complaining about having to meet that "minimum standard" as 'that part isn't necessary to do'.

    Truth in advertising would be good: a) stop calling it a "minimum standard", or; b) start with the attitude that they will meet that "minimum standard" no questions asked.

    After all, you did call it a "minimum" standard.

    And "minimum" is not something one tries to achieve, "minimum" is what one recognizes as thr starting point.

    "Code plus"? Really?

    "Code" is nothing to write home bragging about having met and done better than. Wouldn't even "make the podium", wouldn't even make "win, place, show" ... the last place finisher met "minimum".

    By your own words it should be "minimum plus".

    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fletcher, NC
    Posts
    28,032

    Default Re: Rules governing poles

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Wouldn't even "make the podium", wouldn't even make "win, place, show" ... the last place finisher met "minimum".

    I was thinking about the above and meaninglessness of "code plus": the next to last place finisher is equal to "Code Plus".

    And "Code Plus" is something outrageous to expect?

    Jerry Peck
    Construction/Litigation/Code Consultant - Retired
    www.AskCodeMan.com

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •