qcroanoke
Sometimes I don't know if I'm the boxer or the bag
- Location
- Roanoke, VA.
- Occupation
- Sorta retired........
You're just mean........ ;o)
Lamps and the new energy code
- Thread starter ceb58
- Start date
- Status
You're just mean........ ;o)
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
So if the EI shouldn't look at it or enforce it, then the EC shouldn't be installing it. So from now on we could have the general's install the smoke alarms and the CO alarms, the required fire stopping and sound proofing in apartments. Exit signs and egress lighting in commercial as well as the exterior egress lighting. You'll be able to do what ever you want on a one or two hour wall.also. It's gonna be great. Oh and I forgot energy.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
The EI is not always the one enforcing some of those other codes, but the electrician is still the one doing the installation.
Similar situation exists with food production, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, as well as other applications. Maybe not a building code, but product safety may still have some rules that need followed by anyone that comes into the production area, whether it be how you build something, or how you protect product from just your presence and what contaminant you maybe bring with you.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
That is true, and my job, as an electrical inspector, is to cite code violations, no matter which book they come out of.
ceb58
Senior Member
- Location
- Raeford, NC
All this over a light blub..........:lol: As I said where I am the inspector is multi- trade and dose it all. I once drove home the point to a cheap A** GC once over the fans in the bath area. I had them listed as extras on the estimate, He said he wasn't paying extra and for me to take them off. The inspector tried to fail the rough in because they weren't there. I reminded him that the fans were not a NEC issue but a building code issue. He agreed and passed the elect. and failed the building. I got paid to install the fans
mwm1752
Senior Member
- Location
- Aspen, Colo
Great examples for life safety, you want to fail an electrical inspection due to non high efficacy lamps is your perogative. I don't know how you put it in the life safety class as co,fa alarms. egress lighting(not req in single family). This discussion is about using an Lumens Per Watt efficient lamp and failing an electrical inspection final. the focus of the electrical inspection should be on life safety and on the safety of the wiring system. The plan check usually states the conditions needed for compliance which does take us into different codes.
mwm1752
Senior Member
- Location
- Aspen, Colo
before all gets undone, exterior lighting can be refered to as egress lighting so sorry
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
True, but it is rather fun to watch the glass eyed look on their faces as they attempt to read it. Basically, a zombie effect overcomes them eventually.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Depends on how things work in your area, here the state adopts the codes which include the California Energy Code. We are then required to adopt it as part of our model codes. Once we adopt it, then we must enforce it. Now, just because a code is written doesn't mean it's adopted either.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Geez all this fuss over something simple IMO.
You cannot violate other codes while doing your job. Your permit will detail the scope involved.
If your job/permit is exclusive in part of other codes, such as installing smoke detectors or fart fans, fine.
But a violation such as drilling an engineered truss or installing a fixture too close to a sprinkler head is a no-no.
As far as the OP's question, he violated another code while being compliant with the NEC, so a fail IMO.
You cannot violate other codes while doing your job. Your permit will detail the scope involved.
If your job/permit is exclusive in part of other codes, such as installing smoke detectors or fart fans, fine.
But a violation such as drilling an engineered truss or installing a fixture too close to a sprinkler head is a no-no.
As far as the OP's question, he violated another code while being compliant with the NEC, so a fail IMO.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
I would say you are also limited to inspecting whatever your employer covers, which possibly is more than just NEC (or "California electrical code" or whatever it is called there). If another AHJ or branch of the AHJ covers some of these other codes then maybe you are limited to just electrical inspection. Some places do have one inspector/inspection department that inspects many different things. Sounds like you are possibly one of those places.
The drilling the truss or installing the fixture too close to a sprinkler may not get a fail from an EI, unless same inspector also enforces the code that was violated. Then I wouldn't call him strictly an EI, but rather a multiple code inspector of some sort.
Here State Electrical Inspectors only inspect what is written in their laws called the State Electrical Act. It consists of all the legal rules of the Electrical board including licensing and permitting procedures, and states the code that will be followed for installations and any amendments to that code. It does currently state 2011 NEC and next year if for some reason legislation does not pass to adopt 2014 it will remain 2011 until legislation does pass to get 2014 in the laws. No other codes are mentioned in state electrical act and no EI's inspect anything except what NEC applies to, it is not part of the scope of the agency they belong to.
curt swartz
Electrical Contractor - San Jose, CA
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Where did you get the idea that Halogen lamps were the the same efficacy as CFL's? Halogens lamps are incandescent lamps and considered low efficacy.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
I never said that they were the same as CFLs, just that for some purposes they are or were classified separately from standard incandescents.
At one time at least in CA they were classified as (relatively) high efficacy, since they are 10% or more better than standard Edison incandescents, and were counted in the high efficacy lamp requirement for kitchens. Nowhere near the factor of 8 or so obtainable with CFL and LED or the even higher figures obtainable with modern tubular fluorescents.
In addition, they are still legal to manufacture and sell in the US in sizes where standard incandescents have been phased out.
To further complicate things, incandescent bulbs are still allowed in form factors designed for low voltage fixtures, and in that application halogens are again preferred.
curt swartz
Electrical Contractor - San Jose, CA
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Well.....I have been doing electrical work in CA for 30 years and have never seen an addition of the energy code that classified halogens as high efficacy. Halogens lamps are better than standard incandescent but they are still considered low efficacy.
Halogen lamps have the same manufacturing restrictions as standard incandescent lamps. If you don't believe me try purchasing standard 100 and 75 watt halogen lamps. Your supply house may still have existing inventory but they will not get replaced. One of the most common lamps we use is the 75PAR30 and had to switch to the 53 watt version early this year because all local inventory of 75's were gone.
Many of the newer higher efficacy lower wattage lamps are halogen but they are still considered low efficacy incandescent lamps.
Inspectors can only enforce what has been written into law in their jurisdiction. Period. If they try to enforce a code or standard that has NOT been written into law, then they are probably flirting with a lawsuit. Just because somebody has written a code or standard does not make it law in a given jurisdiction. It may be a good idea, but its not law and thus you can't be force to comply until it has been adopted. Building codes, electrical codes and other codes are the domain of the states and if they alow, local authority. Many third party organizations write codes and standards hopeing that they get adopted, but until they do, they are just that, a good idea and nothing more. The first page of the NFPA-70 states that it is purely advisory as far as the NFPA is concerned. What it boils down to is that you must know what has been adopted for your jurisdiction. I go to my states website, print out its modifications to the NFPA-70 and stick them in it and call it the state electrical code.
I have always felt that the NFPA title to their section 70 code, "National Electrical Code" is kind of a misnomer in that the CFR ( Code of federal regulations) does not make reference to their book and thus there is no sigular, binding to all, national electrical code. Granted most states do adopt it and make their own, it is not truly a "National Electrical Code" See the following link:
http://www.nema.org/Technical/FieldReps/Pages/National-Electrical-Code.aspx
Side note: the NEC-1984 is reference under OSHA for construction
I have always felt that the NFPA title to their section 70 code, "National Electrical Code" is kind of a misnomer in that the CFR ( Code of federal regulations) does not make reference to their book and thus there is no sigular, binding to all, national electrical code. Granted most states do adopt it and make their own, it is not truly a "National Electrical Code" See the following link:
http://www.nema.org/Technical/FieldReps/Pages/National-Electrical-Code.aspx
Side note: the NEC-1984 is reference under OSHA for construction
Last edited:
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Correct, the "National Electrical Code" is a publication put out by NFPA. They also have other publications with "National" in the title.
It is simply the name of a product they make so to speak, and they do give permission for government entities to adopt it as their official code
Any of us could write our own code and call it something similar (like containing the word national in the title somehow) as long as it doesn't infringe on any copyright or trademark and attempt to market it in similar fashion as NFPA has done, with hope that jurisdictions maybe adopt it and we can continue to make sales of our product.
It looks like you are in Nebraska, so you would be under the 2007/2009 IECC:
http://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states
Here in Illinois, meeting the IECC is only required if any type of building permit is required. Then, whoever reviews and approves the building permit is responsible for verifying the design is per the IECC.
So in Illinois, if you build a house out in the sticks, and no building permit is required, then it doesn't have to meet the IECC. If you build a house anywhere a permit is required, its supposed to meet the IECC. (And we are on the 2012).
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
There may be a law that has been passed making this an official code, but I can promise you there is nobody enforcing this code here - at least in rural areas. Larger cities, towns maybe, but from what I do know of I don't think there is much for enforcement in those places either.
Kind of like 20+ years ago the NEC was adopted as part of the State laws, but dwelling units did not require inspection at that time. I guess someone could drag you into a lawsuit claiming you did not follow the code, but there was nobody actually enforcing said code otherwise.
There are many other things out there that are laws that are not well known and generally are not enforced. Court cases usually turn up these laws and use the law for one party to gain an advantage over the other.
Another example - anyone working on the right of way of a public road must wear high visibility PPE. This is a state law, yet general public is not really aware of it. This includes utility workers, contractors, police, rescue workers, - even volunteer rescue workers and possibly infringes to some extent on the good somaritan being required to do so also.
I sure hope nobody ever prosecutes, fines, or whatever a rescue worker whether paid or not, for doing the right thing and helping someone out even though they were not wearing proper required PPE.
Unless I've missed something I can't find where you are required to install lamps in the fixtures.
210.70 requires "lighting outlets" not lamps.
Article 100 defines lighting outlet as: Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder or luminaire.
As i'm reading this the lighting outlet is "intended" for the direct connection of a luminaire (the luminaire would have the lamp included) but I dont see mandatory language for the installation of a lamp or a luminaire for that matter in 210.70.
Pete
- Status