2026 NEC Motions Commitee Report Released 🔥

B

brycenesbitt

Senior Member
Location
United States
NITMAM's have become CAM's. The list of appeals to the 2026 code cycle have just been published at

There's quite a bevy of article 625 concerns, though no clear way to fix the tangle given the limits of the motion process.
The vote on all these is June 19th or 20th, with politikin' and coalition building before then. Anyone interested in GFCI expansion
there's a coalition for that.

Of particular interest to this group may be an effective ban on permits for DIY install of EV charging. I myself am trying to get the
word "non-locking" for EV connectors stricken from the code as obsolescent.
 
brycenesbitt said:
NITMAM's have become CAM's. The list of appeals to the 2026 code cycle have just been published at

There's quite a bevy of article 625 concerns, though no clear way to fix the tangle given the limits of the motion process.
The vote on all these is June 19th or 20th, with politikin' and coalition building before then. Anyone interested in GFCI expansion
there's a coalition for that.

Of particular interest to this group may be an effective ban on permits for DIY install of EV charging. I myself am trying to get the
word "non-locking" for EV connectors stricken from the code as obsolescent.
Click to expand...
No matter what language is in the code that will not change the permitting process. All of the qualified person rules are well outside the scope of the NEC and are not enforceable.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
No matter what language is in the code that will not change the permitting process. All of the qualified person rules are well outside the scope of the NEC and are not enforceable.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
Qualified person rules will be latched onto by some, if not many, jurisdictions to impose widely varying standards for who is qualified. The lack of a path to become qualified becomes the new barrier.
 
brycenesbitt said:
I disagree.
Qualified person rules will be latched onto by some, if not many, jurisdictions to impose widely varying standards for who is qualified. The lack of a path to become qualified becomes the new barrier.
Click to expand...
Very unlikely...there have been "qualified person" rules in the code for a number of cycles and they are not enforced. The closest to enforcement of a "qualified person" is where the jurisdiction has electrical licenses, but that does not effect homeowner permits.
As long as anyone can buy electrical parts, these installations will continue to be made by homeowners and handymen, qualified or not.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Very unlikely...there have been "qualified person" rules in the code for a number of cycles and they are not enforced.
Click to expand...
You don't live where I live.
If the qualified wording is unimportant, then why did anyone push to add it?

My view is we want to push DIY'ers to get permits, not push them farther from the permit system.
Even if the qualified language's only effect was to discourage some educated/aware DIYers from even approaching a building official, that's a negative in my book.
 
brycenesbitt said:
You don't live where I live.
If the qualified wording is unimportant, then why did anyone push to add it?

My view is we want to push DIY'ers to get permits, not push them farther from the permit system.
Even if the qualified language's only effect was to discourage some educated/aware DIYers from even approaching a building official, that's a negative in my book.
Click to expand...
Local AHJ's can push interpretations and/or amendments to whatever limit they want to. Until they get enough negative feedback on a particular issue from people within the jurisdiction they serve they will continue to get away with it.

Average citizen don't have the knowledge to present counter argument for a lot of this stuff and only a handful of contractors maybe fight rules they don't agree with. The rest just do what they are told when they fail inspections because they want to stay on good terms with inspectors.
 
brycenesbitt said:
You don't live where I live.
If the qualified wording is unimportant, then why did anyone push to add it?

My view is we want to push DIY'ers to get permits, not push them farther from the permit system.
Even if the qualified language's only effect was to discourage some educated/aware DIYers from even approaching a building official, that's a negative in my book.
Click to expand...
It was pushed by contractor/labor organizations in hopes of increasing market share.

I talked with a number of code experts at SuperCode and all of them said that this language is not enforceable and is a waste of ink.
 
The whole process gets complicated. Even if the meeting vote accepts a change from the Second Draft Report, it still has to go back to the CMP, and they must agree with the meeting vote with a 2/3s majority. If they don't there is no consensus and the language would revert back to the 2023 language in that case.
Even with that happening it can still be appealed to the Standards Council. I expect most of the 625 stuff will result in appeals to the Standards Council.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top