Wisconsin may remove some code requirements

[WiInspector]

Interesting how politics are involved in code decisions, Wisconsin builders Assc. has donated to Mr. Walker.



http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/walker-administration-targets-electrical-safety-codes-citing-home-builders-concerns/article_a5e0e50e-ff6b-11e1-9da0-001a4bcf887a.html?print=true&cid=print

 

[renosteinke]

If you're claiming that the governor exercises absolute control over the code process, and that his influence was bought ..... please present your proof to the nearest DA.

Otherwise, you owe him - and us - an apology.

 

[WIMaster]

If one reads the article is is appears that our governor backs the proposal to eliminate some AFCI, GFCI, and tamper resistant devices.

From my bad experienceS with AFCIs and the article falsely stating that they only add about $200 to the cost of a home (Hmm AFCI breakers @ $35-$50 each + no more multi-wire circuits+free service calls when something with a motor is put on the circuit =????) I will have to go with him on the AFCIs.

As for the other stuff I have to call bull.
GFCIs have a proven track record.
The tamper proof outlets are not that bad and if they really are for some folks give them an Exception if they are GFCI protected.

At this pace the 2014 NEC will be out before WI adopts the 2011.

 

[Flex]

wouldn't mind if my governor did the same

 

[kwired]

I agree that there is some question as to whether or not AFCI does what the manufacturers say it will do, not sure what can be done about it other than keep demanding proof that it will save lives. There is good intention in what the AFCI is supposed to do, but will take time to perfect it. Why doesn't the lawmakers outlaw seat belts, antilock brakes, air bags and many other safety devices that have become mandatory on automobiles? Sure there is improved safety for occupants of the vehicle - but it is also increasing the cost of these vehicles:slaphead:

I think the GFCI has had 30+ years of proof it does what it is intended to do. If you want to reduce "nuisance" tripping don't buy the super cheap models - you get what you pay for. If you use decent quality models and they are tripping, there is very likely a problem that it is intended to respond to and it could be saving someones life which is the whole idea. Many early problems with GFCI was not so much a problem with the GFCI but was equipment that actually did have faults within it, that many people otherwise thought had no problem. If the motor turns or the light illuminates it must be fine:happyno:

I don't necessarily think that TR should have been a requirement but if they have good enough statistics to show that it saves lives or serious injury it is probably well worth it, and is not really all that expensive

 

[Strathead]

This thread kind of touches upon politics instead of electrical, but ultimately, many of the code changes are based in politics too. Every change increases, or less often decreases the cost of construction with a subjective or objective change in personel and equipment safety. Being a 3 phase commercial electrican, I would have rather seen him cut out the breaker ties for multiwire branch circuits.

 

[kwired]

It does involve politics, unfortunately it is politics directly involved with what we are all about here - so I hope this does not get this thread shut down as long as the topic stays on the electrical safety issues and does not go into any other political direction.

I can see cities, counties and other smaller jurisdictions trying to pass such legislation, but find it hard to believe it would get to a state level with that kind of disregard for the safety and liability issues that come with it.

Legislators have no business determining what is safe and what is not, and that is not what was done here anyway, the decisions were all based on consumer dollars and not safety. There is lots of things I would like to change in the code for consumer spending purposes, and I may believe safety is not going to be jeopardized with those changes, but I have not done the research to determine if I am right. The NEC could be wrong in some instances, but it is not like just one person just on a whim decides to make a rule in the NEC. Every three years they do make changes because they decide something is not right, or new conditions come up that were not thought of before.

 

[renosteinke]

"Legislators have no business..."

That's their job. They respond to us. Unlike some self-appointed, all-knowing, all-wise Guru, they are held accountable- both at the ballot box and in the courtroom.

But that's not the point of the OP. IMO, the OP wanted to use a trade topic to rally us to support his own, non-trade political agenda. I suspect that similar messages are going out to every sort of furum, pointing out the 'errors' of the Governor.

 

[wispector]

Adding to this discussion all should know that Gov Walker used and "Emergency Order" to expedite the change. This circumvents the normal code change process in WI. and bypasses the code panels charged with writing codes in the state. Therefore there was no discussion or input from the electrical industry or inpectors. As the article states, the changes were asked for only by the Wis Builders Association. My guess is that when the GFCI/AFCI manufacturers get wind of this and realize the millions $$ in devices they won't be selling, it will not go far. Also the NFPA is aware of this and has sent it's opposition to the Govenor. And no Reno the poster does not owe anyone an apology for pointing out an actual code role back attempt that could be an actual safety issue. This forum is full of comments about code changes pro and con, so his bringing this up is valid and important.

 

[weressl]

This thread kind of touches upon politics instead of electrical, but ultimately, many of the code changes are based in politics too. Every change increases, or less often decreases the cost of construction with a subjective or objective change in personel and equipment safety. Being a 3 phase commercial electrican, I would have rather seen him cut out the breaker ties for multiwire branch circuits.

Besides of the technological, safety and fiduciary argument I am glad to see the US Constitition at work and the State(s) excercising their right to formulate their laws and regulations.

Would you like to see the IEC - under the aegis of the UN - replace the NEC?!

 

[jim dungar]

Wisconsin has had exceptions for AFCI, GFCI, and TR for many code cycles. What the govenor has proposed is not radical based on our previous codes.

For example, right now our code reads

(b) Exception. This is a department exception to the requirements in NEC 210.8 (A).
Exception: Ground−fault circuit−interrupter protection shall not be required for a single receptacle providing power for sump or sewage pumps where an accessible ground−fault circuit−interrupter protected receptacle is located within 900 mm (3 ft) of the non−GFCI protected receptacle.

 

[kwired]

"Legislators have no business..."

That's their job. They respond to us. Unlike some self-appointed, all-knowing, all-wise Guru, they are held accountable- both at the ballot box and in the courtroom.

OK I agree with that, I also don't think the general public really cares about GFCI, AFCI or TR receptacles and this particular legislation will not make or break an election campaign or anything like that. But then again maybe there is more dollars at stake than I realize. Just like the cost of energy effects almost everything - maybe the cost of installing these devices has a major impact on the general economy:happyno:

 

[wispector]

OK I agree with that, I also don't think the general public really cares about GFCI, AFCI or TR receptacles and this particular legislation will not make or break an election campaign or anything like that. But then again maybe there is more dollars at stake than I realize. Just like the cost of energy effects almost everything - maybe the cost of installing these devices has a major impact on the general economy:happyno:

People will care when their child drops a hair dryer in the tub. Smoke detectors cost money and sometimes are a nuisance. Should we pull those out too? Exit lights? EM lights? There is no good arguement for rolling back proven safety devices, other then greed.

 

[jim dungar]

People will care when their child drops a hair dryer in the tub. Smoke detectors cost money and sometimes are a nuisance. Should we pull those out too? Exit lights? EM lights? There is no good arguement for rolling back proven safety devices, other then greed.

Could you please provide the reference that says the Gov is trying to remove all GFCI, and not just continue what is already exempt in Wisconsin?

 

[jim dungar]

"Legislators have no business..."

That's their job. They respond to us. Unlike some self-appointed, all-knowing, all-wise Guru, they are held accountable- both at the ballot box and in the courtroom.

In Wisconsin, there is an Electrical Advisory Council. This 11 member group advises the Safety and Buildings Division of the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services on electrical matters and code changes. The state building department submits code changes to the general legislature which then votes to accept or reject each of them.

In normal code cycles Wisconsin adopts the current NEC and the state 'amendments' in August. We are now more than 12 months past the normal date, so I can see the governor wanting to move the process along. I wonder if the governor simply wants to enact the proposals made by the council. In the 2009 code cycle the council advised that a time limit be added to the selective coordination requirements of 700 and 701. After lobbying by some concerns the legislature voted to reject this proposal.

 

[pfalcon]

People will care when their child drops a hair dryer in the tub. Smoke detectors cost money and sometimes are a nuisance. Should we pull those out too? Exit lights? EM lights? There is no good arguement for rolling back proven safety devices, other then greed.

GFCI is proven but AFCI and TR are not. The jump to the across the board mandate of AFCI was presumptive. Check out the various AFCI organizations that support their use. They all state that they expect "future statistics" to support AFCI use.

You're applying an emotional appeal "There is no good arguement for rolling back proven safety devices, other then greed." to all three technologies across the board where only GFCI is proven.

 

[wispector]

Could you please provide the reference that says the Gov is trying to remove all GFCI, and not just continue what is already exempt in Wisconsin?

Attached is the emergency order dated June 29th 2012. View attachment scope.pdf

 

[jim dungar]

That link is simply the scope of the order, not its specifics. I read that the scope is claiming 600 hours of state employee time will be needed to evaluate changes to the existing rules.

 

[iwire]

GFCI is proven but AFCI and TR are not. The jump to the across the board mandate of AFCI was presumptive. Check out the various AFCI organizations that support their use. They all state that they expect "future statistics" to support AFCI use.

You're applying an emotional appeal "There is no good arguement for rolling back proven safety devices, other then greed." to all three technologies across the board where only GFCI is proven.

You argument about AFCIs is a valid one but bringing TRs into it seems silly to me.

There is little technology to them, little increase in cost, most devolved countries use a type of TRs and the statistics proving the need are extensive.

 

[wispector]

That link is simply the scope of the order, not its specifics. I read that the scope is claiming 600 hours of state employee time will be needed to evaluate changes to the existing rules.

Read the scope again.

The 4th item is "Detailed Description of the Proposal" "The proposed rules would remove the mandatory requirements in the Electrical Code for the installation and use of AFCI's, GFCI's and TR's in dwelling units"

How much more detailed could it be?

This is a directive from the Governor to the code division (DSPS) to change and rewrite the current rules to eliminate GFCI's, AFCI's and TR's from dwelling units. He has the power to do it and the division must follow his directive.