Actually quite the contrary, the existing dwelling code shields him from having to bring anything up to code other than what he touched, since the service entrance meets the code that was in effect at the time, even with the 2023 wording an argument could be made.
Challenging 230.85 existing building code per IBC
- Thread starter faroutdesign
- Start date
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Not according to any language you quoted.
The AHJ cannot start requiring all the electrical of an existing building to be brought up to current NEC, unless the EC touched it.
The existing building code is a under used tool for people rehabing old buildings, read it yourself here the links related to the OP
Chapter 1 Scope and Administration: Scope and Administration, 2023 FBC - Existing Building, 8th edition | UpCodes
UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdiction
up.codes
Chapter 4 Repairs: Repairs, 2023 FBC - Existing Building, 8th edition | UpCodes
UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdiction
up.codes
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Surely you are not arguing that replacing a service panel constitutes not touching the service. I mean, 230.85 is in article 230. In any case...
That's interesting but I don't see the relevance. While it's interesting that, by code, I might be allowed to repair knob and tube with knob and tube, I don't see how replacing a service panel necessarily constitutes a repair, nor does it address the OP's issue in any serious way.The existing building code is a under used tool for people rehabing old buildings, read it yourself here the links related to the OP
Chapter 1 Scope and Administration: Scope and Administration, 2023 FBC - Existing Building, 8th edition | UpCodes
UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdictionChapter 4 Repairs: Repairs, 2023 FBC - Existing Building, 8th edition | UpCodes
UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdiction
Again, playing devil's advocate here, but I see no solid argument from these citations.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
What other reason would there be to replace like with like?
I have successfully argued it and similar situations many times in many jurisdictions on behalf of owners of historic buildings, its part of my job. Its like for like replacement of a panel nothing more. If the OP is replacing anything more than just the panel like the service entrance or meter well then yeah I can't help there.
Panel replacements are easy, knob and tube reapirs no problem, historic elevators a little more complicated.
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Solar? More breaker space?
(Also unclear to me if '1 for 1' is the same as 'like for like'.)
In any case it's kinda irrelevant. There's nothing in tortuga's links that says anything explicitly demarcating where a repair does not invoke bringing related items up to code.
The code is saying the legal occupancy of any building existing (as in you using your home as it is) on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change. The without change part means your not required to bring it up to current NEC code. Many states have similar laws, here in Oregon its worded similar.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I kind of agree with you. If you simply swapping a failed main breaker that is a repair. If you swapping the entire panel that is changing service equipment.
I might buy the panel swap to some degree as being a repair if you replace with the same thing that was originally there. I've replaced QO load center internals before without even needing to replace or modify the cabinet, but they been using same or close enough to same components since 80 or early 90's that this is possible for many of them.
I even replaced single phase with a three phase interior a time or two without changing or modifying the cabinet. That only works with certain ones though.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
The IEBC defines "Repair" as "The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage."
So replacing an existing panel like for like because the previous one was old, worn or damaged is certainly a "repair" under the IEBC. Conversely replacing it because you want more breaker spaces or some new feature would not be a repair.
Cheers, Wayne
So replacing an existing panel like for like because the previous one was old, worn or damaged is certainly a "repair" under the IEBC. Conversely replacing it because you want more breaker spaces or some new feature would not be a repair.
Cheers, Wayne
Yeah often the replacements are triggered by insurance companies not wanting to insure the brand of panel such as 70's era Federal Pacific and Zinsco / Frank Adams