You completely failed to understand the thread of the conversation. Please don't attribute opinions to me because of this failure on your part. For the record, that is completely not what I think.
I read every posting in this thread prior to replying. I don't think I "completely failed to understand the thread of the conversation." Since it is plain that you don't want to be questioned about your motivation for finding fault with the actual rule change I will stick to persisting in asking the questions about the changes themselves. What does it keep an electrician from doing or that it forces them to do that you find abhorrent? If you won't answer that question without trying to hide behind something that the Correlating Committee, which is responsible for uniformity of language and appropriateness of of a provisions place in the code, may have simply missed.
"For the record, that is completely not what I think." Then I apologize for casting aspersions on your motivations. As a Firefighter with 45 years of service to my community I have developed the, possibly bad, habit of suspecting the motives of those that fight anything that is proposed for the safety of firefighters. The reason has so often come down to money that I now tend to conclude that it is always about avoiding the cost that human safety has that will cut into profit even to the slightest degree.
Requiring residential sprinklers is too expensive in spite of the thousands of lives it would save and the millions of dollars spent on manual suppression that could be saved out of local government budgets and therefore taxes.
Requiring an on site water supply for homes built on the less expensive land outside of the hydranted area is taking the food out of the mouths of the developers' children.
Forbidding the construction of new homes without the provision of water mains, libraries, schools, recreation centers, adequate road networks for those residents to get to work and all the other places they have to go, and YES fire stations to protect those homes, is communism and a deep state conspiracy. The developers being forced to pay the whole costs of what they build is
SOCIALISM.
I volunteered to suppress the fires which broke out in my community and to get stable patients to good care for 45 years. The pushback we got on any new fire safety provisions during that time has made me suspicious of the motivations of people who always oppose any improvement in community safety unless it will not cost them a penny. By there fruits shall ye know them.
I ask you again. What is your objection to allowing the Service or Building Disconnect of dwellings to be up to 50 feet away instead of in or on the building? If that is not the issue what is your objection to limiting the distance that a building or service disconnect may be from a dwelling? Why is it such a travesty to allow the only required disconnect for the power to a dwelling unit to be no more than 50 feet. What harm is being done?
There should be no distance limit on supplying a dwelling with a feeder,
Why not? This is the heart of the matter on this dispute. Why are you opposed to there being a limit to the distance a dwelling's service or feeder disconnect may be from the structure. It allows the electricians to install the disconnecting means for either type of supply somewhere other than on or in the building. It does not require an additional disconnect so why is it so awful.
Tom Horne
