Ohio and other States battling Builders

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pierre C Belarge

Pierre C Belarge

Senior Member
Location
Westchester County, New York
As many of you already know, I am not in strong support of some of the changes for the 2008 version of the NEC.

But...
The argument the NAHB is presenting is bogus and very misleading. They are concerned (so they say), that the new code will require the cost of homes to go up in a time when the market is already in disarray.

Well, the NEC code cycle has alway brought about more expense added to homes, and the NAHB members have historically raised their prices regardless of the electrical cost changes, and raised them considerably more in % then what the electrical changes would have required.


In my opinion, their argument is flawed. The electrical gentlemen who are from Ohio should present a letter to the state asking them to look into the past practices of the NAHB members in regards to pricing and not let them use the $$$ as a means to stop the adoption of the 2008 NEC.


This practice has led to a fairly large scale attack on the NEC in our country, and I believe it is not a true indictive of what is really transpiring.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
The electrical gentlemen who are from Ohio should present a letter to the state asking them to look into the past practices of the NAHB members in regards to pricing and not let them use the $$$ as a means to stop the adoption of the 2008 NEC.
Click to expand...

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just a clarification. . Ohio didn't stop adoption of the '08NEC. . We went on '08 on Jan 1st and will remain on it for all except 1,2,+3 family dwellings.

For one 1,2,+3 family, it's we're on it, no wait a second, we're back off of it, :roll: but we promise to go back on, we're just not saying exactly when. :-? . It's a messed up situation and I hope no other states go the route we went.

This is what our Governor did
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?p=827821#post827821

David
 
I got an email earlier and it sounds like Minnesota's HBA is contesting the adoption of the 08 without ammendments. Sounds like this is going to continue spreading.
 
As is obvious, I do not agree with you, Pierre.
icon13.gif

"AFCI requirements should be removed from the NEC for dwelling unit branch circuits and not be expanded to any other location. Problems in the field, manufacturer recalls, nuisance trips, and the numerous jurisdictions that have removed this requirement from local adoption are an indication of the lack of support of AFCIs in electrical systems in residential occupancies AFCI requirements throughout the dwelling increases housing costs when not justified for new wiring systems. The AFCI does not address all of the problems with the incidents of fire that were submitted in the substantiation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The majority of known problems submitted have occurred on old wiring systems in older dwellings and not with the latest wiring requirements found in the NEC. Hazards have occurred when there is a lack of receptacles in an existing dwelling and extension cords are used to supply utilization equipment. These cords have been placed under furniture, under floor coverings or had physical damage. It appears that the intent of the AFCI requirement in the NEC is to create a market for a product where the benefit of the device does not protect against all arcing problems."
​
The above is quoted from the ROP and was written by Ron Purvis, a Principal member of CMP-2. I totally agree with Ron's response to the panel action. :smile:
 
charlie said:
"AFCI requirements should be removed from the NEC for dwelling unit branch circuits and not be expanded to any other location. Problems in the field, manufacturer recalls, nuisance trips, and the numerous jurisdictions that have removed this requirement from local adoption are an indication of the lack of support of AFCIs in electrical systems in residential occupancies AFCI requirements throughout the dwelling increases housing costs when not justified for new wiring systems. The AFCI does not address all of the problems with the incidents of fire that were submitted in the substantiation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The majority of known problems submitted have occurred on old wiring systems in older dwellings and not with the latest wiring requirements found in the NEC. Hazards have occurred when there is a lack of receptacles in an existing dwelling and extension cords are used to supply utilization equipment. These cords have been placed under furniture, under floor coverings or had physical damage. It appears that the intent of the AFCI requirement in the NEC is to create a market for a product where the benefit of the device does not protect against all arcing problems."

The above is quoted from the ROP and was written by Ron Purvis, a Principal member of CMP-2. I totally agree with Ron's response to the panel action. :smile:
Click to expand...

RIGHT ARM/ON!!!!
 
Afci's

Afci's

charlie said:
As is obvious, I do not agree with you, Pierre.
icon13.gif

"AFCI requirements should be removed from the NEC for dwelling unit branch circuits and not be expanded to any other location. Problems in the field, manufacturer recalls, nuisance trips, and the numerous jurisdictions that have removed this requirement from local adoption are an indication of the lack of support of AFCIs in electrical systems in residential occupancies AFCI requirements throughout the dwelling increases housing costs when not justified for new wiring systems. The AFCI does not address all of the problems with the incidents of fire that were submitted in the substantiation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The majority of known problems submitted have occurred on old wiring systems in older dwellings and not with the latest wiring requirements found in the NEC. Hazards have occurred when there is a lack of receptacles in an existing dwelling and extension cords are used to supply utilization equipment. These cords have been placed under furniture, under floor coverings or had physical damage. It appears that the intent of the AFCI requirement in the NEC is to create a market for a product where the benefit of the device does not protect against all arcing problems."
​
The above is quoted from the ROP and was written by Ron Purvis, a Principal member of CMP-2. I totally agree with Ron's response to the panel action. :smile:
Click to expand...
When word was out about afci's being a code requirement even Mike Holt was not supportive of the requirement. If I remember correctly??( crc ) Mike said in a news letter that there would be lots of problems with the devices, and he felt like the homeowner would just become tired of all the headaches and just replace the afci with a common breaker.:-?
 
peter d said:
They don't have weapons. They'll just flog you to death with the 2008 NEC.
Click to expand...

The '08 is getting "beefy". . If they came after you with the '96, you could just laugh at them. . But when they come with the '08, you'd better run !
 
ItsHot said:
When word was out about afci's being a code requirement even Mike Holt was not supportive of the requirement. If I remember correctly??( crc ) Mike said in a news letter that there would be lots of problems with the devices, and he felt like the homeowner would just become tired of all the headaches and just replace the afci with a common breaker.:-?
Click to expand...

I saw the new combo AFCI "song and dance" show by Seimens. . And I have to say, their presentation was pretty impressive. . Those new combos have alot of "bells and whistles" and flashing lights that are supposed to tell you various things. . They even have a 30 day memory. . They have some slick brochures that explain all the functions. . If they work like the presentation says they will, they'll be a huge safety upgrade.

I know some of you didn't miss the fact that I used the word "if" in my last sentence. :rolleyes:
 
in this case that "IF" is a big ole word with a lot of $$ involved.
 
charlie said:
As is obvious, I do not agree with you, Pierre.
icon13.gif
"AFCI requirements should be removed from the NEC for dwelling unit branch circuits and not be expanded to any other location. Problems in the field, manufacturer recalls, nuisance trips, and the numerous jurisdictions that have removed this requirement from local adoption are an indication of the lack of support of AFCIs in electrical systems in residential occupancies AFCI requirements throughout the dwelling increases housing costs when not justified for new wiring systems. The AFCI does not address all of the problems with the incidents of fire that were submitted in the substantiation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The majority of known problems submitted have occurred on old wiring systems in older dwellings and not with the latest wiring requirements found in the NEC. Hazards have occurred when there is a lack of receptacles in an existing dwelling and extension cords are used to supply utilization equipment. These cords have been placed under furniture, under floor coverings or had physical damage. It appears that the intent of the AFCI requirement in the NEC is to create a market for a product where the benefit of the device does not protect against all arcing problems."

​
The above is quoted from the ROP and was written by Ron Purvis, a Principal member of CMP-2. I totally agree with Ron's response to the panel action. :smile:
Click to expand...


Charlie
In what way do you not agree with me???
 
ItsHot said:
When word was out about afci's being a code requirement even Mike Holt was not supportive of the requirement. If I remember correctly??( crc ) Mike said in a news letter that there would be lots of problems with the devices, and he felt like the homeowner would just become tired of all the headaches and just replace the afci with a common breaker.:-?
Click to expand...
But Mike followed up later (after he had gone the Cutler Hammer facility and found out how they really work) with a newsletter that he supported the AFCI requirements.
 
tom baker said:
But Mike followed up later (after he had gone the Cutler Hammer facility and found out how they really work) with a newsletter that he supported the AFCI requirements.
Click to expand...

So Cutler Hammer has the "song and dance" show too ?

But do they actually work as stated ?
 
charlie said:

It sounds to me like you are a proponent of the new provisions for nearly whole house protection with the combination type AFCIs. :-?
Click to expand...

I would be a proponent of whole house AFCI, if they work.

There I go using that "if" word again.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top