Just wondering in the following example who the EWRB (or others) would chase for the ESC or if they would not be worried due to there being a COC.
Electrician wires and fits off a new house including switchboard etc and issues a COC
Inspector checks the high risk work and issues a ROI.
Meter installer does his (or her) work and issues a COC and ESC for the meter installation only.
At this point the installation is now live (apart from maybe turning on the breakers) however the only ESC is for the meter installation not for the entire installation.
My understanding is that in the above case the ESC from the meter installer is supposed to cover the entire installation, but since it doesnt I do wonder who would get in trouble if it was investigated for any reason
New house ESC
Re: New house ESC
The problem with the scenario as described is that step 3 is not valid.
the meter installer can't issue an ESC unless the mains supplying the meterbox have already been connected to supply
Which would have required someone to issue an ESC covering up to that point; ie from PoS to meter position.
and they would first have to have ensured that this was safe to connect despite the meters not yet having been installed.
Note that making any connection of mains to works is illegal unless / until the person connecting has sighted both CoC & RoI.
So the common practice of lines staff connecting mains N to distribution N, and A to empty service fuse, before the Inspector even arrives, is non-compliant in every case and electrically unsafe on most cases (because the other end isn't checked as being safe-to-liven).
If there's supply to meterbox already; then the meter installer's ESC must cover not only the meters, but everything that has so far been installed . Which would include, at minimum, the rest of the mains up to main switch(es) & main N-bar.
So if the metering contractor issues an ESC that doesn't cover anything but the meters & load control, then it's not an accurate document; and that's an offence.
On the other hand, if they get in early and install meters before mains are connected to supply, they don't have to issue any ESC ar all.
However that would mean they couldn't do all the tests that most if not all MEPs require to be done - some of which require the meter to be live.
the meter installer can't issue an ESC unless the mains supplying the meterbox have already been connected to supply
Which would have required someone to issue an ESC covering up to that point; ie from PoS to meter position.
and they would first have to have ensured that this was safe to connect despite the meters not yet having been installed.
Note that making any connection of mains to works is illegal unless / until the person connecting has sighted both CoC & RoI.
So the common practice of lines staff connecting mains N to distribution N, and A to empty service fuse, before the Inspector even arrives, is non-compliant in every case and electrically unsafe on most cases (because the other end isn't checked as being safe-to-liven).
If there's supply to meterbox already; then the meter installer's ESC must cover not only the meters, but everything that has so far been installed . Which would include, at minimum, the rest of the mains up to main switch(es) & main N-bar.
So if the metering contractor issues an ESC that doesn't cover anything but the meters & load control, then it's not an accurate document; and that's an offence.
On the other hand, if they get in early and install meters before mains are connected to supply, they don't have to issue any ESC ar all.
However that would mean they couldn't do all the tests that most if not all MEPs require to be done - some of which require the meter to be live.
Re: New house ESC
Thanks AlecK, very interesting reading.
Sounds like no one in this area really knows how this system should work.
Another example is that im in the process of getting a BTS connected, the network company has connected the mains to the pillar today which means the neutral only thing stopping the power flowing to the main switch at the moment is that the fuse will currently be sitting in the BTS.
From my experience the network company will leave a copy of a combined COC/ESC form on site with the COC portion filled out, the ESC portion left blank, and the ESC signed instead of the COC.
The retailer livens, does fault loop testing etc then pulls the fuse out and leaves it in the meter box
The inspector is currently booked to do the inspection, but I can book them either before or after the network company, they dont mind either way.
I still havnt booked the meter installer but I know from experience that their COC and ESC will only be for the meter which leaves the BTS and mains without a ESC.
The meter installer will also be kind enough to charge me to pushing the supplied fuse into the base (livening fee) but thats a complaint for another day.
I have no idea what the ESC covers with the other network I normally connect to, as the only paperwork I get off them is a invoice, but I assume that the retailer would be their customer so they dont have to supply me with a COC or ESC
Sounds like no one in this area really knows how this system should work.
Another example is that im in the process of getting a BTS connected, the network company has connected the mains to the pillar today which means the neutral only thing stopping the power flowing to the main switch at the moment is that the fuse will currently be sitting in the BTS.
From my experience the network company will leave a copy of a combined COC/ESC form on site with the COC portion filled out, the ESC portion left blank, and the ESC signed instead of the COC.
The retailer livens, does fault loop testing etc then pulls the fuse out and leaves it in the meter box
The inspector is currently booked to do the inspection, but I can book them either before or after the network company, they dont mind either way.
I still havnt booked the meter installer but I know from experience that their COC and ESC will only be for the meter which leaves the BTS and mains without a ESC.
The meter installer will also be kind enough to charge me to pushing the supplied fuse into the base (livening fee) but thats a complaint for another day.
I have no idea what the ESC covers with the other network I normally connect to, as the only paperwork I get off them is a invoice, but I assume that the retailer would be their customer so they dont have to supply me with a COC or ESC
Re: New house ESC
There's how it's supposed to happen, which is clearly set out in ESRs.
Then there's how it happens in practice; which varies hugely.
Some of that is down to practicability, and some to ignorance.
Also a lot of it is down to networks abusing their natural monopoly and acting as if they were still pre-1993 Supply Authorities.
All complicated by retailers, the MEPs they use, and the contractors the MEPs use
All of these parties tend to put their own "system" and convenience ahead of following the rules.
None of them wants to accept any responsibility / liability if they can avoid it.
When you look closely at the ESRs, it becomes clear that while there are a lot of things that "must" happen; for most of them there's no-one who's made responsible for ensuring that they actually do happen.
As examples, when we do electrical work, ESRs tell us that work must be tested, that it must be certified, and (for high risk) that it must be inspected. Most of us assume that having these things done is the responsibility of whoever did the work - but that's not strictly true.
The only thing that ensures CoCs & RoIs actually are issued is ESR 73A's requirement that "the person doing the connection" has to sight them; along with doing some other pre-connection checks.
That's the same person that issues the ESC.
In fact ultimate responsibility for the entire system for ensuring that what gets connected to supply is safe falls on "the person doing the connection" .
Which is because - broadly speaking - nothing is an electrical hazard until it's connected to supply
Perhaps not so surprising that so many of the parties don't want to issue ESCs; especially for work they didn't do themselves.
At the smaller end of things, eg adding a socket to existing circuit, it's all the same person anyway;
and most sparkies have no problem accepting responsibility for what they do themselves.
(In fact most appear willing to accept a lot more, by being sloppy about what they write - or don't write - on their CoCs & ESCs).
But once there are other parties involved, it seems that many participants are only too happy to take advantage of confusion to avoid being held accountable.
Then there's how it happens in practice; which varies hugely.
Some of that is down to practicability, and some to ignorance.
Also a lot of it is down to networks abusing their natural monopoly and acting as if they were still pre-1993 Supply Authorities.
All complicated by retailers, the MEPs they use, and the contractors the MEPs use
All of these parties tend to put their own "system" and convenience ahead of following the rules.
None of them wants to accept any responsibility / liability if they can avoid it.
When you look closely at the ESRs, it becomes clear that while there are a lot of things that "must" happen; for most of them there's no-one who's made responsible for ensuring that they actually do happen.
As examples, when we do electrical work, ESRs tell us that work must be tested, that it must be certified, and (for high risk) that it must be inspected. Most of us assume that having these things done is the responsibility of whoever did the work - but that's not strictly true.
The only thing that ensures CoCs & RoIs actually are issued is ESR 73A's requirement that "the person doing the connection" has to sight them; along with doing some other pre-connection checks.
That's the same person that issues the ESC.
In fact ultimate responsibility for the entire system for ensuring that what gets connected to supply is safe falls on "the person doing the connection" .
Which is because - broadly speaking - nothing is an electrical hazard until it's connected to supply
Perhaps not so surprising that so many of the parties don't want to issue ESCs; especially for work they didn't do themselves.
At the smaller end of things, eg adding a socket to existing circuit, it's all the same person anyway;
and most sparkies have no problem accepting responsibility for what they do themselves.
(In fact most appear willing to accept a lot more, by being sloppy about what they write - or don't write - on their CoCs & ESCs).
But once there are other parties involved, it seems that many participants are only too happy to take advantage of confusion to avoid being held accountable.
Re: New house ESC
To cover your 2nd scenario:
"The retailer livens, does fault loop testing etc then pulls the fuse out and leaves it in the meter box"
Livening is only possible after connection to supply has happened. Connection of mains to supply is illegal prior to inspection of those mains, as ESR 73A requires the person connecting to sight the RoI (as part of mandatiry pre-connection checks ).
"The inspector is currently booked to do the inspection, but I can book them either before or after the network company, they dont mind either way."
A good Inspector will note on their RoI if they find that mains are already connected.
And they have to notice, because the fact of being connected alters how they do the tests that should be part of their inspection.
"I still havnt booked the meter installer but I know from experience that their COC and ESC will only be for the meter which leaves the BTS and mains without a ESC."
Their CoC only needs to cover the work they do.
Since they will be connection that part of the installation to supply, they need to sight their own CoC prior to making that connection.
The connection of meters to supply necessarily includes connecting the outgoing mains to supply; so an ESC that doesn't include that is automatically a false document.
far from limiting their liability by not mentioning however much of the rest of the installation gets connected to supply by their connection; they actually open themselves up to becoming responsible for all of it. It would take the Board, or Worksafe, or a court, about 0.5 sec to work out that you can't connect a sealed meter without also connecting the outgoing mains conductors, and also whatever happens to be supplied via those conductors. In this case just a "BTS", but could be an entire house or an entire factory / office block. If they fail to sight the relevant CoC(s) & RoI, that's just further non-compliance by them.
So the fact that there's no ESC that specifically "includes" these conductors won't prevent responsibility falling where it belongs.
The only thing(s) that would prevent them being held responsible for the entire installation would be any later ESC(s) for part(s) connected later.
"The retailer livens, does fault loop testing etc then pulls the fuse out and leaves it in the meter box"
Livening is only possible after connection to supply has happened. Connection of mains to supply is illegal prior to inspection of those mains, as ESR 73A requires the person connecting to sight the RoI (as part of mandatiry pre-connection checks ).
"The inspector is currently booked to do the inspection, but I can book them either before or after the network company, they dont mind either way."
A good Inspector will note on their RoI if they find that mains are already connected.
And they have to notice, because the fact of being connected alters how they do the tests that should be part of their inspection.
"I still havnt booked the meter installer but I know from experience that their COC and ESC will only be for the meter which leaves the BTS and mains without a ESC."
Their CoC only needs to cover the work they do.
Since they will be connection that part of the installation to supply, they need to sight their own CoC prior to making that connection.
The connection of meters to supply necessarily includes connecting the outgoing mains to supply; so an ESC that doesn't include that is automatically a false document.
far from limiting their liability by not mentioning however much of the rest of the installation gets connected to supply by their connection; they actually open themselves up to becoming responsible for all of it. It would take the Board, or Worksafe, or a court, about 0.5 sec to work out that you can't connect a sealed meter without also connecting the outgoing mains conductors, and also whatever happens to be supplied via those conductors. In this case just a "BTS", but could be an entire house or an entire factory / office block. If they fail to sight the relevant CoC(s) & RoI, that's just further non-compliance by them.
So the fact that there's no ESC that specifically "includes" these conductors won't prevent responsibility falling where it belongs.
The only thing(s) that would prevent them being held responsible for the entire installation would be any later ESC(s) for part(s) connected later.
- Rating: 16.67%