Fixing the NEC

Location
NH
Here are some ideas to actually make the code better, instead of reworking language to make it still nonsensical:

1. Delete 210.12 completely. AFCI is a waste of money, and they don't actually do anything. The first ones that had ground fault protection in them at least did something.
2. In 210.8 delete "through 250-volt" for receptacles. Trying to use GFCIs on inverter driven equipment is stupid, and a waste of time.
3. Delete GFCI protection for EVSE. They all have built in GFCI protection anyway, so all you are protecting is the branch circuit feeding the EVSE, which is stupid. Also delete the 3 phase part too. Manufacturers are not building them, so people have to do all kinds of janky stuff to make it compliant. We had to put in a receptacle for a 3 phase fryer, and there was an Eaton panelboard. We had to install a Square-D QO plug on 3-circuit can with a 3-pole 50 amp gfci. It was ridiculously expensive when all we did was pull an extra wire through a conduit to replace an existing 2-pole 50 amp receptacle.
4. Bring load calculations into reality. Namely, show window receptacles, recessed lights, track lighting, and lighting load calcs in general. Everything is LED now. Also allow a reduction in residential load if central heat/air is installed. If you have central air, you aren't going to have a window shaker in every room.
5. Get rid of the 2 ground rod rule if you don't measure 25 ohms to ground with 1. Ground rods don't do anything except maybe help the utility. Call 1 good, even though they don't do anything for your house electrical system. Around here they usually aren't 8' long anyway, since the soil is so rocky.
6. Get rid of the intersystem bonding jumper. I've never seen one actually used, and new installations are all basically fiber optic, so its not used at all. Its irrelevant.
7.Delete 805.156. See #6, its an obsolete ruling because fiber has replaced DSL, and only a tiny fraction of homeowners use a copper land line. Fiber and Cable both need modems (or whatever they call them) and they aren't installed outdoors.
8. Bring back the rule that lets emergency disconnects feed the service disconnect with a 3-wire wiring method. Outside disconnects are a good thing, but don't make people rip apart their houses to install a 4th wire that doesn't do anything for safety.
9. Ban pull-out style disconnects. They are fine for HVAC condensers, but are proven to be unsafe when using actual resistive or EV charging applications. Just get rid of them.
10. Get rid of the stupid pop up island/peninsula receptacles. They are junk. Go back to allowing receptacles in the side of the island. People accepted that even if they thought they were ugly. I was talking to a GC in Texas that says they just leave a coil of wire below the island to pass inspection, and then their electrician comes back and installs a receptacle in the side of the island. If someone wants to plug a cheesy triple tap 16 gauge extension cord into their side island receptacle and run a toaster off it, then that's their problem, and being stupid should hurt.
11. Get rid of the separate barrier rule for multi-gang meter packs. Anyone dumb enough to go flailing around in a live meter pack should feel pain for it. Stop making stuff more expensive because someone was a moron 30 years ago.
12. Get rid of the bonding rule for portable generators. No one drives a ground rod to hook their 5000w generator to when they roll it out because they lost power. It's a stupid rule that no one follows, and it confuses inspectors into thinking they are supposed to look for a ground rod.
13. Mandate minimum wiring compartment size for light fixtures. I just installed a few Lithonia 2x4 flat panel troffers and the wiring compartment was smaller than my thumb, but somehow its rated for 2 12-2 cables. You couldn't even fit 3 yellow wirenuts in it with the wires cut to 3" long. Make them follow them same rules we have for boxes or something. The 6" wafer lights I installed to replace CFL cans had far larger wiring compartments. It's stupid.
14. Get rid of the raintight fitting rule for EMT installed outdoors. Raceways outdoors are a wet location, so the wire inside is designed to get wet. Those things sucks, and for some reason whenever I install EMT outdoors, there are little gaskets and metal rings laying on the ground. It's very strange.
15. Fix 110.26(A)(1) for 151-600 volts to ground. 1 meter is 39.37" and 3'6" is 42". Pick one.
16. Get rid of the torque rule. I don't know anyone that follows it.
17. Get rid of the available fault current labelling rule. Most don't follow that either.
18. Get rid of more labelling rules. The labels are getting ludicrous and everything is plastered in red stickers. It's stupid.

There are plenty more, but that's just off the top of my head. The code has been getting more and more stupid every cycle, and I'm sick of it. Start deleting stuff, and changing with the times instead of adding more and more garbage on top of garbage.
 
The system is open for the submission of Public Inputs to make changes for the 2029 code until end of day April 9th. Have at it, but remember most public inputs that are rejected are rejected for lack of a solid technical substantiation that supports the proposed change. For example, in your #1, saying they don't do anything and are worthless, is not a technical substantiation.
 
The system is open for the submission of Public Inputs to make changes for the 2029 code until end of day April 9th. Have at it, but remember most public inputs that are rejected are rejected for lack of a solid technical substantiation that supports the proposed change. For example, in your #1, saying they don't do anything and are worthless, is not a technical substantiation.

That's why I'm posting my gripes here. I want a code that is written in reality and is followed, not based on some lawyer writing up a report. I suppose I could have AI write up a fake report saying AFCIs tripping is causing deaths due to home medical equipment being turned off. That's about as technically accurate as the substantiation for adopting AFCI rules in the first place.
 
So we should get rid of rules that people don't follow?
I believe these particular rules actually save life and property.

If you say so. I would bet the number of electricians that use properly calibrated torque tools is under 1,000. If anything, most guys just go to harbor freight or amazon and buy some China special with a fake calibration report with it. I torque what needs to be torqued, but I did that before the rule was passed that says I'm supposed to use a properly certified and calibrated torque screwdriver on a receptacle.

ETA: For the available fault current labelling, there is only 1 facility I've ever worked in that had it, and it was done by the on-site engineering and maintenance team. That's it.
 
For the available fault current labelling, there is only 1 facility I've ever worked in that had it, and it was done by the on-site engineering and maintenance team. That's it.
Wow.
And these rules, actually 110.09 and 110.10, have been in the code for more than 50 years.
 
That's why I'm posting my gripes here. I want a code that is written in reality and is followed, not based on some lawyer writing up a report. I suppose I could have AI write up a fake report saying AFCIs tripping is causing deaths due to home medical equipment being turned off. That's about as technically accurate as the substantiation for adopting AFCI rules in the first place.
I think that most would agree that the NEC is a bloated, somewhat poorly written document. If laws were written so poorly many of them would be tossed by the courts. It is not user friendly, nor written in a language that is easily understood which is why you'll find lengthy debates here on this forum about the actual meaning of the words.

The problem is the entire system which needs to be changed. Start with term limits for CMP's. Stagnation sucks the life out of progress especially with the "we've always done it this way" attitude. Inject some new blood into the process. I could name 10 people off of the top of my head from this forum that would be better CMP members than some of the ones on there now. As Don stated you should need some significant substantiation to get a code change. At least in theory because the CMP's frequently accept changes with little to absolute zero substantiation. Many code changes are a solution in search of a problem.

As far as your list. I wrote a PI a few code cycles ago to delete what you have down as #7. I stated that this is obsolete (which it is as you've noted) and it should be removed. That was rejected. If you take a look back at code language from 60, 70, 80 years ago you'll see that some of it is virtually unchanged but no one can even tell you why it's in the code in the first place, for example the 25Ω or less rule.
 
Wow.
And these rules, actually 110.09 and 110.10, have been in the code for more than 50 years.

I was referring to 110.24 A and B. I think those were added in 2014 or 2017, and I have never seen a new installation comply with those. We do commercial/industrial service work, and I have never seen them added except in that one factory I mentioned earlier.
 
Another thing that annoys the h*** out of me is that they put metric units before English or SAE units so you have to read through them before getting to what we need. It just makes reading more confusing for many things that they make already confusing. THIS IS AMERICA! If they want to include metric equivalents put them last! Just shows their ignorance.

-Hal
 
Last edited:
That's why I'm posting my gripes here. I want a code that is written in reality and is followed, not based on some lawyer writing up a report. I suppose I could have AI write up a fake report saying AFCIs tripping is causing deaths due to home medical equipment being turned off. That's about as technically accurate as the substantiation for adopting AFCI rules in the first place.
It does not appear that you understand the process. The code is written by people like you submitting Public Inputs.
 
people like you submitting Public Inputs
People submitting input supported by demonstrable facts* and that doesn't make something less safe.
*yes, I know, AFCIs etc

they put metric units before English or SAE units
If the NFPA's writing style has SI units first, all the codes are going to do that. Oh, and it does-
13.2 Measurement Systems.
13.2.1 System Preference. The system of measurement used in all NFPA codes, standards,
recommended practices, and guides shall conform to one of the three following conventions:
(1) International System (SI) of Units, or metric, measurements alone
(2) SI units followed in parentheses by the equivalent value in US customary (inch-pound)
units
(3) US customary units followed in parentheses by the equivalent value in SI units
13.2.2* Statement in Chapter 1. A statement shall be included in Chapter 1 establishing the
units of measure. (See 5.2.7.)
It's in the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents October 2023 Edition a web search will quickly find that.
 
4. Bring load calculations into reality.
Some of #4 actually happened in the 2026 NEC.
6. Get rid of the intersystem bonding jumper. I've never seen one actually used, and new installations are all basically fiber optic, so its not used at all. Its irrelevant.
On a Multi Grounded Neutral (MGN) or TN-C system you can have a situation such as in a ice storm or other weather event cause 7.2kV primary conductors contact communications conductors, even fiber may have a metallic shield. However arcane it seems I think it remains desirable to ground/bond all metallic paths that come from a typical utility pole or man-hole.
7.Delete 805.156. See #6, its an obsolete ruling
805.156 just requires one communications outlet, it could literally be a empty 3/4" smurf tube, or even a pull string to a mud ring with a blank cover. You dont need to run a phone line.
 
Some of #4 actually happened in the 2026 NEC.

On a Multi Grounded Neutral (MGN) or TN-C system you can have a situation such as in a ice storm or other weather event cause 7.2kV primary conductors contact communications conductors, even fiber may have a metallic shield. However arcane it seems I think it remains desirable to ground/bond all metallic paths that come from a typical utility pole or man-hole.

805.156 just requires one communications outlet, it could literally be a empty 3/4" smurf tube, or even a pull string to a mud ring with a blank cover. You dont need to run a phone line.

There's nothing to bond on a fiber drop to a house. Mine isn't bonded. I have never seen an intersystem bond used. What's the point of having something that isn't used?

For 805.156 it was meant for a phone line. When it came in during what, 08?, we ran a Cat5 from outside to a 1g box inside to hook up a cordless phone base, because people still used land lines. That time has passed. Codes should be changed or deleted when they are obsolete.

ETA: The part about changing load calcs is good. I didn't realize that. I haven't had to do my 26 update yet. My 23 update was pointless because my state is still on the 20 with amendments, but I had to do a 23 update anyways. Thankfully the Mike Holt one didn't take the full 15 hours to do, but still counts.
 
Last edited:
(A bunch of the items sound like arguing against speed limits because "nobody pays attention to them".)

Speed limits make logical sense to have on many roads. The codes no one follows aren't followed because they are unnecessary or stupid. Using a torque wrench on every connection that has a torque spec is stupid and unnecessary. A $10 Amazon torque wrench isn't going to improve the quality of an install , because it's not accurate. It has a piece of paper that says its good though, so happy inspector.

8,000,000 stickers that say electricity is dangerous is stupid, because people who work on electricity know it's dangerous, and people who don't know it's dangerous are going to ignore the stickers. Its like having to mark white wires used as ungrounded conductors. People that know what they are doing can see that it isn't a neutral. People that don't shouldn't be touching it. Handle tying multi wire branch circuits is the same thing. Neither of those were code requirements for decades, so you learn what to look for. I should add those to my list.
 
Neither of those were code requirements for decades...
So the code should only cover those things that we still do the way that grandpa did?

I had an ITE pushmatic panel with multi wire circuits. On one circuit the 'red' phase breaker was in the upper left side of the panel and the 'black' phase breaker was 3 columns over ion the far right side this was only discovered when the neutral was found to still be energized.

Do you always open every load center and chase down all neutrals when changing a single broken receptacle?
 
If the NFPA's writing style has SI units first, all the codes are going to do that. Oh, and it does-
13.2 Measurement Systems.
13.2.1 System Preference. The system of measurement used in all NFPA codes, standards,
recommended practices, and guides shall conform to one of the three following conventions:
(1) International System (SI) of Units, or metric, measurements alone
(2) SI units followed in parentheses by the equivalent value in US customary (inch-pound)
units
(3) US customary units followed in parentheses by the equivalent value in SI units
13.2.2* Statement in Chapter 1. A statement shall be included in Chapter 1 establishing the
units of measure. (See 5.2.7.)

Yeah, so what? I don't care what that says. That's them talking!

US customary units followed in parentheses by the equivalent value in SI units is the only way. THIS IS THE US!!


-Hal
 
I am a nut and bolt guy, have read quite a little. The torque rule has problems due to the stuff we aren sposed to vbe torquing is crap. I have a couplke HF wrenches that are perfect but dont mean squat when you never know if the screw is going to seize. So I think there should be another rule says the panel has to have usable screws.
 
Top