Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Vote on 2020 NEC?????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shortcircuit2
    replied
    Originally posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    All of the Certified Amending Motions that passed at the technical session go back the the CMPs, and have to be approved by a 2/3s vote of the panel members, and then, it goes to the Standards Council where it has to be approved again by a 3/4s vote of the Standards Council members, so those sections are not yet final. There is also the chance of appeals to the Standards Council for CAMs that failed to get a majority vote at the technical session.
    So if a NITMAM is passed...it then goes back to the CMP to re-approve the NITMAM or reject it again? Why that seems like an unreasonable process. The CMP could just reject the NITMAM?

    Who voted on the CAM's?

    Is there a link you could provide to read about the process?

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • mbrooke
    replied
    Originally posted by peter d View Post
    Not the slightest doubt should remain that the NEC/NFPA is completely bought and sold by manufacturers now.

    Leave a comment:


  • peter d
    replied
    Not the slightest doubt should remain that the NEC/NFPA is completely bought and sold by manufacturers now.

    Leave a comment:


  • mbrooke
    replied
    Originally posted by romex jockey View Post
    Thx Den
    So objectively ,i guess one could say it's the cycle of the toroid....



    For whatever (enter rational) reason , big (services) small (outlets) are being scrutinized and subjected to this one key element inherent of all enhanced ocpd devices.

    But it's disjointed imho, there is no overall design of coordinated ma from the service on through feeders ,branch circuits , end use outlets

    If the NEC is going to evolve towards IEC standards, one would imagine more attention to specifics follow, especially given the manufacturers writing NEC proposals hail from international companies

    jhmo

    ~RJ~


    Indeed so?


    http://www.eaton.eu/ecm/idcplg?IdcSe...me=PCT_3203220

    Leave a comment:


  • mbrooke
    replied
    Originally posted by hbiss View Post
    You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?

    I really believe they want the surge protector to protect the AFCI electronics.

    -Hal
    The think if we used these, we would not need to protect any electronics:










    Leave a comment:


  • romex jockey
    replied
    In reality the FD calls the poco to drop power out , for any serious event.....~RJ~

    Leave a comment:


  • jaggedben
    replied
    Originally posted by hbiss View Post
    You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?

    I really believe they want the surge protector to protect the AFCI electronics.

    -Hal
    At least the firefighter disconnect has an ostensible safety justification with respect to human life. But yes, it is about 98% as egregious.

    Leave a comment:


  • electrofelon
    replied
    Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
    The surge protector requirement is particularly egregious, since it is only about protecting property, and far far more money will be spent on surge protectors than the value of the property that would otherwise be damaged.
    Schneider has been working on getting that in for years.

    Originally posted by hbiss View Post
    You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?



    -Hal
    Yes equally. How much can they overthink and complicate things? Seems like 45 min of training and keep some gloves and face shield in the firetrucks is all that is required. Of all the training and things firefighters have to deal with, I dont see pulling a meter as even on the map. Do people really think the utility workers that set and swap meters have years of experience and extensive training??

    Edit: changed "an hour of training" to "45 minutes of training"

    Leave a comment:


  • oldsparky52
    replied
    Originally posted by electrofelon View Post
    This is just getting way out of control.
    What they have lost sight of is that the cost of any safety improvement must be taken into account. Most of these things have a high cost with a very small benefit. Many people will end up cutting costs/corners somewhere else and face risks orders of magnitudes higher, such as perhaps having a brother in law do electrical work, or any number of non electrical things.
    More "youtube" electricians.
    Lots of lives would be saved if the speed limit was 30 MPH........
    Oh NO! I hated it in the 70's when we had the 55 MPH speed limit.

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?

    I really believe they want the surge protector to protect the AFCI electronics.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • jaggedben
    replied
    The surge protector requirement is particularly egregious, since it is only about protecting property, and far far more money will be spent on surge protectors than the value of the property that would otherwise be damaged.

    Leave a comment:


  • electrofelon
    replied
    This is just getting way out of control. What they have lost sight of is that the cost of any safety improvement must be taken into account. Most of these things have a high cost with a very small benefit. Many people will end up cutting costs/corners somewhere else and face risks orders of magnitudes higher, such as perhaps having a brother in law do electrical work, or any number of non electrical things. Lots of lives would be saved if the speed limit was 30 MPH........

    Leave a comment:


  • peter d
    replied
    How many a/c units in Florida or Arizona or anywhere else hot do you think will be GFCI protected after the inspection is over?

    Leave a comment:


  • hbiss
    replied
    Hopefully by the time the 2020 gets adopted here (we are on 14) I'll be long retired. Maybe it's time to start lobbying your state to stay where they are. Why do they think they need to adopt a new code every time the NEC comes up with a different idea.

    -Hal

    Leave a comment:


  • peter d
    replied
    What an absolute disgrace.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X