GRANDFATHERED ELECTRICAL CLAUSES

[Rstone1973!!]

I FEEL THE NEED TO EXPRESS MY OPINION ON THE FACTS ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSES ON ALL TRADES BUT ESPECIALLY ON ELECTRICAL CODES, AND IM TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL AND LOCAL CITY CODES. THE CLAUSE WAS SET TO ALLOW THE CODES TO BE CURRENT, THE YEAR OF WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT AND CURRENT AS OF TODAY ONLY IF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S LIKE PIPES, WIRE, DUCT WORK WERE NOT COMPLETELY REINSTALLED WITH UP TO DATE BRAND NEW MATERIAL'S. THE ONLY THING THAT INSPECTORS WILL BE INSANELY PERTICULAR ABOUT IS THE INTEGRITY AND SAFETY OF ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. LET ME MAKE THIS REALLY CLEAR REPLACING SWITCHES AND REPLACING RECEPTS DOES NOT COUNT AS THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S USED, THAT ONLY PERTAINS TO THE WIRE USED WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT

 

[infinity]

Welcome to the Forum.

I see this as a mini rant which is fine but please let us know what the point of your opinion is. And also please do not use all caps. It makes your post hard to read.

 

[rc/retired]

I'm curious. Where in any code is the Grandfather Clause mentioned?

 

[roger]

I FEEL THE NEED TO EXPRESS MY OPINION ON THE FACTS ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSES ON ALL TRADES BUT ESPECIALLY ON ELECTRICAL CODES, AND IM TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL AND LOCAL CITY CODES. THE CLAUSE WAS SET TO ALLOW THE CODES TO BE CURRENT, THE YEAR OF WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT AND CURRENT AS OF TODAY ONLY IF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S LIKE PIPES, WIRE, DUCT WORK WERE NOT COMPLETELY REINSTALLED WITH UP TO DATE BRAND NEW MATERIAL'S. THE ONLY THING THAT INSPECTORS WILL BE INSANELY PERTICULAR ABOUT IS THE INTEGRITY AND SAFETY OF ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. LET ME MAKE THIS REALLY CLEAR REPLACING SWITCHES AND REPLACING RECEPTS DOES NOT COUNT AS THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S USED, THAT ONLY PERTAINS TO THE WIRE USED WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT

YEAH, I guess.

Roger

 

[Hv&Lv]

I FEEL THE NEED TO EXPRESS MY OPINION ON THE FACTS ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSES ON ALL TRADES BUT ESPECIALLY ON ELECTRICAL CODES, AND IM TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL AND LOCAL CITY CODES. THE CLAUSE WAS SET TO ALLOW THE CODES TO BE CURRENT, THE YEAR OF WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT AND CURRENT AS OF TODAY ONLY IF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S LIKE PIPES, WIRE, DUCT WORK WERE NOT COMPLETELY REINSTALLED WITH UP TO DATE BRAND NEW MATERIAL'S. THE ONLY THING THAT INSPECTORS WILL BE INSANELY PERTICULAR ABOUT IS THE INTEGRITY AND SAFETY OF ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. LET ME MAKE THIS REALLY CLEAR REPLACING SWITCHES AND REPLACING RECEPTS DOES NOT COUNT AS THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S USED, THAT ONLY PERTAINS TO THE WIRE USED WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT

I take it you failed something because you replaced some switches and receptacles??

 

[NTesla76]

I FEEL THE NEED TO EXPRESS MY OPINION ON THE FACTS ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSES ON ALL TRADES BUT ESPECIALLY ON ELECTRICAL CODES, AND IM TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL AND LOCAL CITY CODES. THE CLAUSE WAS SET TO ALLOW THE CODES TO BE CURRENT, THE YEAR OF WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT AND CURRENT AS OF TODAY ONLY IF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S LIKE PIPES, WIRE, DUCT WORK WERE NOT COMPLETELY REINSTALLED WITH UP TO DATE BRAND NEW MATERIAL'S. THE ONLY THING THAT INSPECTORS WILL BE INSANELY PERTICULAR ABOUT IS THE INTEGRITY AND SAFETY OF ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. LET ME MAKE THIS REALLY CLEAR REPLACING SWITCHES AND REPLACING RECEPTS DOES NOT COUNT AS THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL'S USED, THAT ONLY PERTAINS TO THE WIRE USED WHEN A HOUSE WAS FIRST BUILT

Who are you yelling at?

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[GoldDigger]

"I CAN"T HEAR YOU, I CAN"T HEAR YOU, I CAN"T HEAR YOU"
(with my hands pressed firmly over ears)

 

[tom baker]

An issue with 406.4 (D) replacements, perhaps? this was adopted at least ten years ago.

 

[kwired]

I'm curious. Where in any code is the Grandfather Clause mentioned?

NEC doesn't really use such a term. It does occasionally require to bring specific things up to what is current though when making replacements, such as the already mentioned 406 (D).

Otherwise the "grandfather rules" are primarily local jurisdiction rules for the most part that allow something existing to remain as is if it was compliant when it was originally installed. Even those local rules still can have exceptions to some things they want brought up to date in some circumstances though.

 

[kwired]

NEC doesn't really use such a term. It does occasionally require to bring specific things up to what is current though when making replacements, such as the already mentioned 406 (D).

Otherwise the "grandfather rules" are primarily local jurisdiction rules for the most part that allow something existing to remain as is if it was compliant when it was originally installed. Even those local rules still can have exceptions to some things they want brought up to date in some circumstances though.

NEC also has a limited number of places where it does deal with how to handle some situations that were allowed at one time but no longer as a general rule on new installs, such as using the grounded conductor to bond the frames of ranges and clothes dryers or not running separate EGC to separate buildings/structures.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I agree with Kwired..
The term “grandfathering“ isn‘t a real thing In my opinion. “Nonconforming use” is the legal term in a lot of jurisdictions.
And generally that doesn’t come easy.

Take K&T for example. Just because it’s in and working doesn’t mean the AHJ can‘t say it must be replaced. If it’s unsafe or uninsurable it will have to be replaced. And the POCO CAN disconnect if they deem a property unsafe. It’s an AHJ call. Subjective? sure…
Yes, you can sue.. what costs more? lawsuit or conformance?

 

[kwired]

I agree with Kwired..
The term “grandfathering“ isn‘t a real thing In my opinion. “Nonconforming use” is the legal term in a lot of jurisdictions.
And generally that doesn’t come easy.

Take K&T for example. Just because it’s in and working doesn’t mean the AHJ can‘t say it must be replaced. If it’s unsafe or uninsurable it will have to be replaced. And the POCO CAN disconnect if they deem a property unsafe. It’s an AHJ call. Subjective? sure…
Yes, you can sue.. what costs more? lawsuit or conformance?

I don't know, maybe the use of the word "grandfathering" isn't used in any legislative bills or local ordinances, but the effect does still exist in many situations.

Outside of electrical codes one I see a lot of is more at the planning and zoning stage of new construction - clearances from property lines and right of ways of public roads and such. Many existing buildings that would not meet new rules but are allowed to remain, even might be allowed to have additions and such but if you were to tear it completely down you would never be able to put it back where it was.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I don't know, maybe the use of the word "grandfathering" isn't used in any legislative bills or local ordinances, but the effect does still exist in many situations.

Outside of electrical codes one I see a lot of is more at the planning and zoning stage of new construction - clearances from property lines and right of ways of public roads and such. Many existing buildings that would not meet new rules but are allowed to remain, even might be allowed to have additions and such but if you were to tear it completely down you would never be able to put it back where it was.

The effect is called “nonconforming use” and can come with restrictions of consequences.
occasionally you will see if defined in general statutes.

 

[gadfly56]

I agree with Kwired..
The term “grandfathering“ isn‘t a real thing In my opinion. “Nonconforming use” is the legal term in a lot of jurisdictions.
And generally that doesn’t come easy.

Take K&T for example. Just because it’s in and working doesn’t mean the AHJ can‘t say it must be replaced. If it’s unsafe or uninsurable it will have to be replaced. And the POCO CAN disconnect if they deem a property unsafe. It’s an AHJ call. Subjective? sure…
Yes, you can sue.. what costs more? lawsuit or conformance?

It sure means that in NJ. A quick call to the DCA will bring that AHJ back in line. DCA really hates it when AHJ's start writing shirt pocket rules. And I think there is an intro in the NEC that discusses it not being intended for application to existing structures unless specifically required by the AHJ

 

[kwired]

t sure means that in NJ. A quick call to the DCA will bring that AHJ back in line. DCA really hates it when AHJ's start writing shirt pocket rules. And I think there is an intro in the NEC that discusses it not being intended for application to existing structures unless specifically required by the AHJ

90.2 is where that likely would be and I don't see anything about existing structures in there.

90.4 mentions that AHJ's may waive specific requirements or permit alternative methods - basically meaning they can create their own amendments.

 

[LarryFine]

Grandfathering is, or should be implied automatically, in the sense that an inspector should only be looking at the scope of work done under the present permit.

 

[tortuga]

(Grandfather clauses pertain) only if the original material's like pipes, wire, duct work were not completely reinstalled with up to date brand new material's.

Rstone1973!! in the jurisdiction of the city/county of Philadelphia (where it says you are) as soon as you alter or remove something Electrical you now have to bring that something up to the current code.

The code can be found here:

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-185660#JD_A-101
A-102.6 Existing structures. 10 The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of the Building Construction and Occupancy Code, or any subcode thereof, shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in such code, the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code or Philadelphia Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the code official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public. This Section (A-102.6) is subject to the following provisions of the UCC:
1. A building that was built before April 27, 1927 is deemed to be legally occupied until the owner proposes to renovate, add an addition, alter or change the occupancy of the building. The renovation, addition, alteration or change in occupancy must comply with the UCC.
2. For all existing structures built on or after April 27, 1927, the code official is authorized to issue a certificate of occupancy if the building meets the requirements of the latest adopted version of the "International Existing Building Code". The code official may deny the issuance of a certificate of occupancy if the official deems that a building is unsafe because of inadequate means of egress, inadequate lighting and ventilation, fire hazards or other dangers to human life or to public welfare.
A-102.6.1 Existing installations. Except as otherwise specifically provided for in the technical codes, a provision in the technical codes shall not require the removal, alteration or abandonment of, nor prevent the continued utilization and maintenance of the following systems and equipment lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of this code and the technical codes.
1. Building envelope
2. Electrical systems and equipment
3. Fuel gas installations
4. Mechanical systems
5. Plumbing systems
6. Service water-heating systems
A-102.6.2 Buildings not previously occupied. 11 A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose in accordance with the laws in existence at the time of its completion shall comply with the Building or Residential Code as applicable for new construction or with any current permit for such occupancy.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-185660#JD_A-101

 

[GoldDigger]

90.2 is where that likely would be and I don't see anything about existing structures in there.

90.4 mentions that AHJ's may waive specific requirements or permit alternative methods - basically meaning they can create their own amendments.

But note that although it specifically provides room for reducing the requirements without formally ammending the code, it does not provide for informally making more restrictive requirements.

 

[tom baker]

90.2 is where that likely would be and I don't see anything about existing structures in there.

90.4 mentions that AHJ's may waive specific requirements or permit alternative methods - basically meaning they can create their own amendments.

In WA, to get a variance per 90.4, you have to get it in writing, and pay an application fee. You are paying for a no.