Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    7,563

    Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor

    A set of proposals to change EGC to EBC. Don G made the same proposals in 2005 cycle, some panels liked, but said lets see what CMP 5 says. Same this time.
    Anyone (Hello Don) know what CMP-5 said?

    I am reading thru the proposals during lunch. Haven't gotten to Art 250 yet
    Moderator-Washington State
    Ancora Imparo

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    23,159
    Tom,
    I haven't looked at that yet. When I made my proposals there was a majority of CMP 5 in favor, but was one vote short of the required 2/3s majority. Had CMP 5 accepted, the other panels would have been directed by the TCC to accept the change.
    Don, Illinois
    The code only applies to T&M work....it does not apply to contract work.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,425
    I am all in favor of calling it a EBC instead of EGC. Way mo' bettah IMO.

    If it does involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by jumper View Post
    I am all in favor of calling it a EBC instead of EGC. Way mo' bettah IMO.

    If it does involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.
    Well get ready to support them in the public comment stage.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
    Posts
    16,078
    Basically they said the problem was solved to their satisfaction, and changing the wording further would not overcome what they call "a problem of education" as opposed to verbiage.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,826
    Quote Originally Posted by George Stolz View Post
    Basically they said the problem was solved to their satisfaction, and changing the wording further would not overcome what they call "a problem of education" as opposed to verbiage.
    Unless the source is a "giant in the industry" CMP5 has a very definite Not Invented Here attitiude. Several other CMPs do too.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
    Posts
    9,911
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Unless the source is a "giant in the industry" CMP5 has a very definite Not Invented Here attitude. Several other CMPs do too.
    So Don needs to wine and dine them a little more like the big industry lobbyist
    Wayne A. From: N.W.Indiana
    Be Fair, Be Safe
    Just don't be fairly safe

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    11,425
    Quote Originally Posted by jumper View Post
    I am all in favor of calling it a EBC instead of EGC. Way mo' bettah IMO.

    If it does involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.

    If it does not involve dirt/ground than it is bonding. Much simpler.

    Forgot a word.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derek

Posting Permissions

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