Final Vote on 2020 NEC?????

jaggedben

Senior Member
The surge protector requirement is particularly egregious, since it is only about protecting property, and far far more money will be spent on surge protectors than the value of the property that would otherwise be damaged.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?

I really believe they want the surge protector to protect the AFCI electronics.

-Hal
 

oldsparky52

Senior Member
This is just getting way out of control.
:thumbsup:
What they have lost sight of is that the cost of any safety improvement must be taken into account. Most of these things have a high cost with a very small benefit. Many people will end up cutting costs/corners somewhere else and face risks orders of magnitudes higher, such as perhaps having a brother in law do electrical work, or any number of non electrical things.
More "youtube" electricians.
Lots of lives would be saved if the speed limit was 30 MPH........
Oh NO! I hated it in the 70's when we had the 55 MPH speed limit.
 

electrofelon

Senior Member
The surge protector requirement is particularly egregious, since it is only about protecting property, and far far more money will be spent on surge protectors than the value of the property that would otherwise be damaged.
Schneider has been working on getting that in for years.

You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?



-Hal
Yes equally. How much can they overthink and complicate things? Seems like 45 min of training and keep some gloves and face shield in the firetrucks is all that is required. Of all the training and things firefighters have to deal with, I dont see pulling a meter as even on the map. Do people really think the utility workers that set and swap meters have years of experience and extensive training?? :happyno:

Edit: changed "an hour of training" to "45 minutes of training"
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?

I really believe they want the surge protector to protect the AFCI electronics.

-Hal
At least the firefighter disconnect has an ostensible safety justification with respect to human life. But yes, it is about 98% as egregious.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
You don't think the exterior "firefighter" disconnect is equally egregious?

I really believe they want the surge protector to protect the AFCI electronics.

-Hal
The think if we used these, we would not need to protect any electronics:










 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Thx Den
So objectively ,i guess one could say it's the cycle of the toroid....



For whatever (enter rational) reason , big (services) small (outlets) are being scrutinized and subjected to this one key element inherent of all enhanced ocpd devices.

But it's disjointed imho, there is no overall design of coordinated ma from the service on through feeders ,branch circuits , end use outlets

If the NEC is going to evolve towards IEC standards, one would imagine more attention to specifics follow, especially given the manufacturers writing NEC proposals hail from international companies

jhmo:cool:

~RJ~


Indeed so?


http://www.eaton.eu/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&allowInterrupt=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=Primary&dDocName=PCT_3203220
 

peter d

Senior Member
Not the slightest doubt should remain that the NEC/NFPA is completely bought and sold by manufacturers now.
 

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
All of the Certified Amending Motions that passed at the technical session go back the the CMPs, and have to be approved by a 2/3s vote of the panel members, and then, it goes to the Standards Council where it has to be approved again by a 3/4s vote of the Standards Council members, so those sections are not yet final. There is also the chance of appeals to the Standards Council for CAMs that failed to get a majority vote at the technical session.
So if a NITMAM is passed...it then goes back to the CMP to re-approve the NITMAM or reject it again? Why that seems like an unreasonable process. The CMP could just reject the NITMAM?

Who voted on the CAM's?

Is there a link you could provide to read about the process?

Thanks.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Glad he can see it as being excessive.


Perhaps its time to consider this >>>
Why do you always have to muddy the waters with European/British stuff? There is not the slightest reason to believe that we are going in that direction. We're stuck with the garbage AFCIs and the industry is not going to replace them with European style RCDs. :happyno::happyno:
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
Why do you always have to muddy the waters with European/British stuff? There is not the slightest reason to believe that we are going in that direction. We're stuck with the garbage AFCIs and the industry is not going to replace them with European style RCDs. :happyno::happyno:



1) The NEC is headed toward 100% GFCI/GFP for everything.

2) 3/4 of IEC RCDs do not have electronics, so there is no reason to use the excuse "we need SPDs on every service"

3) A select few manufacturers are gaining control over almost every code on earth under the cloak of harmonization and committees.
 

peter d

Senior Member
1) The NEC is headed toward 100% GFCI/GFP for everything.

2) 3/4 of IEC RCDs do not have electronics, so there is no reason to use the excuse "we need SPDs on every service"

3) A select few manufacturers are gaining control over almost every code on earth under the cloak of harmonization and committees.
I get all that, but I simply don't see a move away from electronic GFCI protection here.
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
I get all that, but I simply don't see a move away from electronic GFCI protection here.


Sadly we have to deal with self test devices :rant::rant: Its going to be epic when a panel full of breakers need to be replaced every 5-10 years.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Sadly we have to deal with self test devices :rant::rant: Its going to be epic when a panel full of breakers need to be replaced every 5-10 years.
I agree. Don't get me wrong, I think the industry's decision to use electronics was a bad one, especially for life safety devices. But that's what we're stuck with now. It's planned obsolescence on their part. They get to sell more GFCIs for all the ones that fail. :roll::roll:
 

mbrooke

Senior Member
I agree. Don't get me wrong, I think the industry's decision to use electronics was a bad one, especially for life safety devices. But that's what we're stuck with now. It's planned obsolescence on their part. They get to sell more GFCIs for all the ones that fail. :roll::roll:
Yes, which is why people should figure out there is no honesty in the business or the code making panels and NRTLs they are puppeteering.
 
Top