A369 Metal-Enclosed Bus Duct
A373 Industrial Equipment in Mobile Structures
A425 Fixed Commercial and Industrial Process heating Equipment
A691 Large Scale PV Supply Stations
A706 Energy Storage Systems
A710 AC Microgrids
A711 DC Micorgrids
Actually BOTH.Do individuals suggest new articles or do the cmp members come up with them?
Anything done at the CMP becomes a First Revision and it open for public comment. The items that were Resolved do not come under public comment but will require some sort of explanation as to why they were resolved. That is going to be the tricky part I am awaiting to see.....because the new system in place is not like the old system so you will have to actually LOOK for the resolved comments versus the First Revisions that will be placed forward for public comment. Everything again is open to public comment when it is presented in the First Revision.Sounds like a major undertaking. So does the entire article come under public comment. For instance suppose, not likely of course, many people responded with reason the entire article should get chucked-- would it actually happen or since the panel members adopted it would it not come under our scrutiny.
The PI's that were resolved will have a full panel statement with them to explain the reason that the PI was resolved. NFPA emphasized to all the panels that each PI should get an explanation as to why the PI was resolved. ...
Well now....that is a totally different thought.....as it has but never submitted to my knowledge....but it just did for Type SE Cable which a lack of real data on testing Type SE is available. The theory presented at the CMP in Hilton Head (which was not a vacation as some suggested in another thread...lol) was that Type SE is made very similar to Type NM-B so the testing done for Type NM-B should apply to Type SE....I happen to disagree but more testing is required and it is being done as we speak as well before the PC Stage in November.But has it ever been considered?
Well now....that is a totally different thought.....as it has but never submitted to my knowledge....but it just did for Type SE Cable which a lack of real data on testing Type SE is available. The theory presented at the CMP in Hilton Head (which was not a vacation as some suggested in another thread...lol) was that Type SE is made very similar to Type NM-B so the testing done for Type NM-B should apply to Type SE....I happen to disagree but more testing is required and it is being done as we speak as well before the PC Stage in November.
The issue is there is valid testing done on the issues of thermal contact and bundling to support the reduction to 60 degree C........not to my knowledge of a single Type NM-B with no bundling or thermal contact issues (if that situation exists anymore with energy eff. construction)...but the Type NM-B nonmetallic sheathing (Per UL 719) is rated at 75 Degree C......so a well crafted PI in 2020 may just get support but more information would be needed to remove any fears of the bundle or thermal aspects of the equation.
Ok, that's a lot of good info
SO in theory it is possible that with the right testing we could see a proposal that would allow NM-B at 75*C if its not bundled? Or perhaps in all cases?
On thing that would make me support this change without question is 310.16 before being turned into table 310.15 B 7. 14 gauge was rated 20 amps and 12 gauge was rated 25 amps at 60*C before the change. So far I have not heard any issues in AC and motor applications where 240.4 is overridden.
Actually the "Coalition" really plays no role in the CMP process. The main goal of the Coalition is to unite and help promote speedy adoption of the most recently published editions of the National Electrical Code around the country where getting speed adoptions are problematic.
They probably do in a way...at least 6 of the organizations have representatives on most if not all of the code panels, but those organizations don't always agree with each other.
@mbrooke - it is quite possible that if the data is produced the CMP will listen. It appears to me that it would take data that is in contrast to the UL report that came out a few year ago regarding Type NM-B in thermal contact with thermal insulation or a report showing in cases of no thermal contact the use at a higher value is validated...at this time it is not.
In terms of 310.15(B)(7), it was not a spawn child of 310.16 as the smaller table, previously 310.15(B)(6) has been around awhile and was based on the 83% concept being used in the 2014 NEC.
But yes, if someone is willing to do the research it is quite possible....