Different States and their amendments to the NEC

[sguinn]

I signed up recently on the Code Alert website. It opened my eyes whereas before they had relatively been closed, along with this forum (of course). I've learned that different states are still operating under older versions of the code, some adopt the new with few or no amendments, and some states' amendments disregard certain requirements, i.e. AFCI's. I had always thought that the NEC was a national minimum and that set the bar for the country. Please enlighten me gentlemen.

 

[cowboyjwc]

While we would like to think that we all do it the same, you are correct and that is not the case. While some of the country just adopted the 2008 NEC, here in CA, where we used to pride ourselfs as leaders, we just now adopted the 2005 NEC, amended to become the 2007 California Electrical Code (CEC). Many of the amendments that we adopt are simply ADA requirements for commercial and multi family dwellings, but there are also some that are adopted by other agencies. Here in CA I do not inspect hospitals, elevators, carnival rides, mobile home parks, and several other things, but there are amendments in the CEC that are adopted by the agencies that do inspect these things.

I have heard that there are still areas that are on the 1996 NEC.

We here also adopt the California Energy Code, Residential and NonResidential, which is another animal in it's self.

This difference is why sometimes on this forum we will have a difference of opinon, not because we can't agree, simply because we might be reading the same thing out of two diffent code books.

 

[BryanMD]

I signed up recently on the Code Alert website. It opened my eyes whereas before they had relatively been closed, along with this forum (of course). I've learned that different states are still operating under older versions of the code, some adopt the new with few or no amendments, and some states' amendments disregard certain requirements, i.e. AFCI's. I had always thought that the NEC was a national minimum and that set the bar for the country. Please enlighten me gentlemen.

Are you familiar with the phrase "states rights" ?

We don't one national 'code' on *anything*.
50 states (+ territories) x 70? counties/cities (avg)

= 3500 possible different sets of interpretations

 

[lpelectric]

........... I had always thought that the NEC was a national minimum ..............

The National Electrical Code is not a "minimum" standard. There are "maximums" listed in it as well. It's more like a "performance" code, than like a "prescriptive" code. In other words, it states the end target, not necessarily how to acheive that target. For example, take the term "effective grounding path" at 250.68(B). It says the connection must be made in such a manner---doesn't prescibe the manner, just tells how the connection is to perform---:smile:

 

[dlhoule]

While we would like to think that we all do it the same, you are correct and that is not the case. While some of the country just adopted the 2008 NEC, here in CA, where we used to pride ourselfs as leaders, we just now adopted the 2005 NEC, amended to become the 2007 California Electrical Code (CEC). Many of the amendments that we adopt are simply ADA requirements for commercial and multi family dwellings, but there are also some that are adopted by other agencies. Here in CA I do not inspect hospitals, elevators, carnival rides, mobile home parks, and several other things, but there are amendments in the CEC that are adopted by the agencies that do inspect these things.

I have heard that there are still areas that are on the 1996 NEC.

We here also adopt the California Energy Code, Residential and NonResidential, which is another animal in it's self.

This difference is why sometimes on this forum we will have a difference of opinon, not because we can't agree, simply because we might be reading the same thing out of two diffent code books.

230.40 + definitions. 167 responses so far. I believe this was out of the NEC and I'm still not sure what the answer is and now you want to throw more code books into the picture.:grin:

 

[charlie b]

It would help if you kept in mind that the word ?code? carries with it the notion of its having been enacted into law by some governmental body that has the authority to do so. In reality, when each new edition of the NEC is published, the word ?code? that appears in its title is not (yet) true. It is not a code until the first governmental body adopts it. There is no reason to expect that every such body will like the same things as the authors of the NEC liked. A large number of governmental bodies make changes, as part of the process of adopting each new edition of the NEC.

In Washington State, we are presently working under the 2005 version, as amended by certain articles within the Washington Administrative Code. One specific modification we made, just as an example, is that the concept of ?Electrical Datum Plane? has been deleted from NEC article 555.

The City of Seattle has its own ?Electrical Code Supplement.? It consists of replacement pages that are designed to be inserted into the 3-ring binder version of the NEC. I keep my copy in a separate binder, right next to the NEC binder.

 

[John Arendt]

NJ is on the 2005 NEC, as adopted within the NJ Uniform Construction Code (UCC) 5:23 et al. It is adopted with amendments; mostly administrative...as the UCC is the 'bible' (Law). I'll scan the amendments tonite or tommorrow, time permitting and post them if anyone wants to see them.

2008 NEC....coming soon???:smile:

 

[bphgravity]

The NFPA considers the code the be a minimum standard. States and local jurisdictions, on the other hand, have a public duty doctrine which requires them to determine what is in the best interest of their serving public. It is not the job of the NFPA nor the FED GOV to provide that service. They simply provide standards and codes which can be used by the states and local jurisdiction to do with them as they feel is appropriate and necessary to serve the public best, which might include amending things into and/or out of the code.

I for one find several sections of the code to be a "design consideration" verses a minimum requirements for safety. An example would be most of Article 220 and 250.

And lpelectric, the NEC is mostly a prescriptive code rather than performance based. There are a few sections that do not provide a prescriptive method, but for the MOST part, one does not need to know WHY the code mandates a particular requirement, you simply need only know WHAT the code requires.

 

[celtic]

NJ is on the 2005 NEC, as adopted within the NJ Uniform Construction Code (UCC) 5:23 et al. It is adopted with amendments; mostly administrative...as the UCC is the 'bible' (Law). I'll scan the amendments tonite or tommorrow, time permitting and post them if anyone wants to see them.

My fav is the '05's amendment making 210.12 "optional"

 

[iwire]

Please enlighten me gentlemen.

Traditionally MA adopts the new NEC right away.....with 60 to 70 amendments.

Some of our amendments relax the rules, some of them are more restrictive.

 

[cowboyjwc]

230.40 + definitions. 167 responses so far. I believe this was out of the NEC and I'm still not sure what the answer is and now you want to throw more code books into the picture.:grin:

:grin: Some of us who have some older jobs are still doing some work out of the 1999 code and the 2002 as well as having to update to the 2005. There are many times that I start to type something and then figure I better look it up before Bob (iwire) jumps all over me. :grin:

Just kidding Bob. I think it was you that I was having a "discussion" with one time when I realized that we were working out of two different books.

 

[ryan_618]

It's more like a "performance" code, than like a "prescriptive" code. In other words, it states the end target, not necessarily how to acheive that target. For example, take the term "effective grounding path" at 250.68(B). It says the connection must be made in such a manner---doesn't prescibe the manner, just tells how the connection is to perform---:smile:

I would disgree strongly with that. The only performance based provisions in the code that I am aware of would be 250.4 and the whole "neat and workmanlike" thing.

 

[John Arendt]

It's good to see that at least one NJ guy reads the UCC!!
AFCI as an option has not happened in actuality at any job in my area. It came up on plans for a new hotel......but alas....the PE/Arch revised and deleted that from plans. The occasional DIY that picks one up at big box....uses it for a hydro tub...instead of GFI.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

The occasional DIY that picks one up at big box....uses it for a hydro tub...instead of GFI.

I bet he bonds the plastic pipe too. :wink:


Yes, this site and others like it have made our "Electrical Country" that much smaller.

What does surprise me (don't ask me why), is that there are so many jurisdictions that are on much older versions of codes.
I started to type out why I believe so, but then I would be banned from life if I did not delete it.

 

[lpelectric]

The NFPA considers the code the be a minimum standard. States and local jurisdictions, on the other hand, have a public duty doctrine which requires them to determine what is in the best interest of their serving public. It is not the job of the NFPA nor the FED GOV to provide that service. They simply provide standards and codes which can be used by the states and local jurisdiction to do with them as they feel is appropriate and necessary to serve the public best, which might include amending things into and/or out of the code.

I for one find several sections of the code to be a "design consideration" verses a minimum requirements for safety. An example would be most of Article 220 and 250.

And lpelectric, the NEC is mostly a prescriptive code rather than performance based. There are a few sections that do not provide a prescriptive method, but for the MOST part, one does not need to know WHY the code mandates a particular requirement, you simply need only know WHAT the code requires.

You may be correct in your statements. I am alluding to the direction we are going in NY and in general to the way that codes standards committees are developing their codes more and more with emphasis on "performance". Please read the following: :smile:
View attachment 1143

 

[John Arendt]

Pierre:
Yes, bonded plastic water lines; 'bonds' run to the 'plastic water main'....parallel #12 or #10 greens run through structure & jumped at the hot & cold water piping at the water heater in the basement.....

Add in the hot tub/spa with four (4) ground rods.......

Had a detached garage (new const) DIY homeowner....AFCI for receptacles....'big box guy said this is better'

:smile: