Electrical wiring concern with my PB

[skamp]

I just had a conversation with my PB about how they are going to wire my EasyTouch 8 control panel. First a little background. I have a 42 slot 200 AMP main panel (just upgraded it myself from 125 AMP to allow for pool equipment, lighting, etc) with 6 slots left open. The controller we are using is the EasyTouch 8 that has a 125 AMP capable 16 slot sub panel built in. I want to save some slots in my main panel for dedicated 20 AMP and/or 50 AMP circuits for things like power tools and a welder, etc. I also wanted to mention my main breaker panel is about 5-6 feet from where my control panel will be.

The electrician my PB uses wants to run a few individual runs (a few 30 and 15/20 AMP runs) to my control panel which would completely bypass the sub panel in the control panel. This solution would use 5-6 slots total from my main panel. By doing this it leaves me without any additional power for landscape lighting, etc at the control panel and basically would force me to run additional power to the control panel if I want to add landscape lighting or something else that would be controlled by the control panel.

What I wanted to do was have them make a single 100 AMP run from the main breaker panel (100 AMP breaker in my main panel would only require 2 slots) to the control panel and run all the equipment from the sub panel built in. This would leave me with plenty of power for landscaping lighting, power to the outdoor kitchen, etc at the control panel. My understanding this is the normal way to do this. Most of the panels I saw from other PB's had their control panels wired this way.

In order to do it my way they want to charge an extra $300.00. I was told this represents the cost for the extra breakers, wire, etc. It seems awfully excessive considering the multiple 30 AMP and 15 AMP runs would not be needed. The incremental cost here is larger wire (#4-#2 copper depending on what chart you use vs whatever would be needed for the other circuits (BTW #2 is $ .95 a foot so that is only $15.00 for the largest wire)) and the cost of the 100 AMP feeder breaker (about $35.00). It was also mentioned that larger conduit would be needed and that is harder to work with the larger wire. I am not so sure about how hard it is to deal with #2 copper. I just rewired my main panel with 4/0 aluminum and that is tough stuff to work with!

I am not pissed at my PB at all but the situation really bothers me. To me it would seem the way they want to run it is not normal and is basically talking the easy way instead of doing it the right way. It seems like I am at the mercy of the electrician and that is part I hate. I want to push this issue but don't want to get into an adversely situation with my PB.

What do you guys think? Thanks!

Steve

[huskyrider]

It seems awfully excessive considering the multiple 30 AMP and 15 AMP runs would not be needed. The incremental cost here is larger wire (#4-#2 copper depending on what chart you use vs whatever would be needed for the other circuits (BTW #2 is $ .95 a foot so that is only $15.00 for the largest wire)) and the cost of the 100 AMP feeder breaker (about $35.00). It was also mentioned that larger conduit would be needed and that is harder to work with the larger wire. I am not so sure about how hard it is to deal with #2 copper. I just rewired my main panel with 4/0 aluminum and that is tough stuff to work with!

I disagree. It's more affordable to use multiple breakers with a smaller gauge wire. However even though it's cheaper I'll always energize the pool's sub panel with the wire size I need for my load just to save the breaker spaces in the existing power center. If I were constructing your pool I'd use a #8 and if you wanted more power you'd have to pay for the upgrade in ampacity based on actual cost. It would be less than 100 bucks.

The 300 he's asking isn't out of line, I'm certain it's exactly what his electrician is charging him. This is the difference between inhouse work and outsourced work by a subcontractor. He doesn't dictate his costs, the sub does.

See ya,
Kelly

[skamp]

I disagree. It's more affordable to use multiple breakers with a smaller gauge wire. However even though it's cheaper I'll always energize the pool's sub panel with the wire size I need for my load just to save the breaker spaces in the existing power center. If I were constructing your pool I'd use a #8 and if you wanted more power you'd have to pay for the upgrade in ampacity based on actual cost. It would be less than 100 bucks.

The 300 he's asking isn't out of line, I'm certain it's exactly what his electrician is charging him. This is the difference between inhouse work and outsourced work by a subcontractor. He doesn't dictate his costs, the sub does.

See ya,
Kelly

Kelly,
I absolutely agree it is cheaper to do it with more runs of smaller wires even though in my opinion it is the wrong way to do it. If there is a sub panel in the control panel it should be engerized. I also 100% agree that I should be responsible for the difference in cost. If they told me $100.00 more for the 100 AMP breaker, larger wire (2 AWG or 4 AWG vs multiple runs 10-14 AWG wire) and labor I would have no problem whatsoever even thouggh that is still a bit high (the reality is the 100 AMP breaker plus the larger wire is about $50-60 total without taking out the cost of the 14-12 AWG wire they won't need to use). I do have a serious issue with $300.00.

I would have no problem paying the incremental cost but they claimed they spoke with the electrician and it would be $300.00 to wire a sub panel. They told me they normally do a sub panel if there is not enough room in the main panel. If that was the case I could understand as they would need to run wires back from the sub panel to the main panel to make up for the breakers that they used. This in not the case for me.

I am not sure how to handle this with my PB. Should I tell them they are way out of line and talk to someone higher up like the owner? I really don't want to get into a fight with my PB as they have been great up to here but I don't think I should just suck it up and pay $300.00 for $50-100 worth of work. Thanks!

Steve

[huskyrider]

I suggest just paying it.
I really don't see the electrician coming down on his price, and I don't see the contractor making a concession out of his contract. He never made an allowance for it on his spread. The price the electrician is asking is the fair market value of the upgrade to 100 amps regardless of how much the additional materials cost.
If he proceeds with his multiple breakers installation it's going to take 5 slots in your existing breaker box. It'll be 2 double throw 30's and a single throw 15 for the pool lamps.
Another option would be to ask the builder if you purchased the materials would the electrician install it on your behalf, all he'd be out is the same labor it would of taken to begin with.

See ya,
Kelly

[skamp]

I suggest just paying it.
I really don't see the electrician coming down on his price, and I don't see the contractor making a concession out of his contract. He never made an allowance for it on his spread. The price the electrician is asking is the fair market value of the upgrade to 100 amps regardless of how much the additional materials cost.
If he proceeds with his multiple breakers installation it's going to take 5 slots in your existing breaker box. It'll be 2 double throw 30's and a single throw 15 for the pool lamps.
Another option would be to ask the builder if you purchased the materials would the electrician install it on your behalf, all he'd be out is the same labor it would of taken to begin with.

See ya,
Kelly

Kelly,
As always I appreciate your response. I really don't want to suck it up but it looks like I may have to do that. I will propose buying the supplies and see what they say. Thanks!

Steve

[Poolidiot]

Steve,
I will throw my 2 cents in on this. First of all $300.00 is not out of line. Second, you need to determine what your panel is pulling now without the pool equipment on it. You say you have a 200 amp service correct? Well if you are pulling , lets say 150 amps now without your pool equipment then you do not have enough amperage to add a sub panel of 100 amps. But lets say you are only pulling 100 amps now then you do have enough amperage to add a 100 amp subpanel BUT you will not have enough left to add anything (like tools or welders) in the future from your panel. If you go over 200 amps then you run the risk of over loading your service. Your 4/0 wire is just at the 200 amp range so if you add more amperage then you run the risk of your service wire over heating and then you could run into a dangerous situation. If you will have over 200 amps total you will need to run the service from your meter to your controller panel and not from your existing panel. But to do this you need to make sure your meter is rated for more then 200 amps. Not sure if I wrote this to where you can understand what I am saying or if all I did was confuse you more.

[skamp]

Well I just looked at my contract again and it states in the utilities section that it includes a sub panel. Looks like they are on the hook for doing this. I guess the big question is what AMP service does that mean? If they were planning on running a 60 AMP (which I would deem to be the minimum) they would need to run #4 so I am hoping I can convince them to run #2 with a 100 AMP breaker instead for the cost difference. I will let you know what happens.

Steve

[pinkivory_99]

I agree with Skamp 100 to 150 extra for the work would be more inline than the 300 that the electrcian wanted. I did not mean that Skamp should just do it, I realize that permits are needed and that codes need to be followed. Since Skamp just upgraded his service I think he should know the codes and that permits would be needed, since going from a 125 amp service to a 200 amp service would mean an increase in the wire size coming from the metercan and possibly a change in the metercan plus bigger wire from the metrercan to where the utility company hooks up. The town that I live in Texas allows the Homeowner to perform his own work if he can articulate to the inspector what he is going to do and show that he knows the code and the utility company will not hook you back up until the inspector okays the work. Being an electrician by trade at one time, I don't see what the big deal is about this job.

[skamp]

I agree with Skamp 100 to 150 extra for the work would be more inline than the 300 that the electrcian wanted. I did not mean that Skamp should just do it, I realize that permits are needed and that codes need to be followed. Since Skamp just upgraded his service I think he should know the codes and that permits would be needed, since going from a 125 amp service to a 200 amp service would mean an increase in the wire size coming from the metercan and possibly a change in the metercan plus bigger wire from the metrercan to where the utility company hooks up. The town that I live in Texas allows the Homeowner to perform his own work if he can articulate to the inspector what he is going to do and show that he knows the code and the utility company will not hook you back up until the inspector okays the work. Being an electrician by trade at one time, I don't see what the big deal is about this job.

Yea where I live there are no permits or inspections but I spent a ton of time makeing sure I knew what I was doing before I did it. Electric service is no joke. The reason why I did the 200 AMP upgrade myself is contractors were quoting me $2000+. I did it for $450.00 which included some day laborers to dig the trench. This included running 90 feet of 4/0 4/0 2/0 URD through 2" schedule 80 conduit buried 18+ inches deep from the transformer to the meter can, a 200 AMP main breaker, and running the 4/0 4/0 2/0 URD from the meter can to the main panel.

Anyway I spoke with my PB and there was a miscommunication. My quote included a sub panel hookup so it looks like I got all worked up for nothing. I appreciate all the feedback and comments!

Steve

[Poolidiot]

"As far as overloading the service, a sub panel or multiple sub panels are not a problem"

Standard wise, this statement is wrong.