Professional Electrical Engineer

[andrew.tkelly]

I potentially need an electrical PE to stamp the electrical portion of some commercial solar plans (or create their own and stamp them). It seems like there are tons of structural and civil PE's, but barely any electrical PE's. I'm here in the SF Bay Area, and can't seem to find anything with a Google search. Does anyone know how to effectively locate one?

Thank you.

Andy

 

[ron]

Call these folks in the morning and I'm sure they would be happy to help you

https://www.nspe-ca.org/home

or these guys

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/

 

[Sierrasparky]

When is it required to have a PE wet stamp electrical in CA other than if it is multi - story. I can't seem to find a rule requiring..

 

[charlie b]

I potentially need an electrical PE to stamp the electrical portion of some commercial solar plans (or create their own and stamp them).

Let me just mention that when a PE signs and seals a set of plans, he or she is declaring to the world that "this work was done by me or under my supervision." Therefore, they are not allowed, by law, to stamp drawings that were done by someone else and handed to the PE to review after all the design work was finished. You need to let the PE's brain be involved in the project early on.

 

[ggunn]

Let me just mention that when a PE signs and seals a set of plans, he or she is declaring to the world that "this work was done by me or under my supervision." Therefore, they are not allowed, by law, to stamp drawings that were done by someone else and handed to the PE to review after all the design work was finished. You need to let the PE's brain be involved in the project early on.

This is incorrect. A complete and thorough review of existing plans, even if no corrections were necessary, is sufficient supervision.

 

[charlie b]

This is incorrect. A complete and thorough review of existing plans, even if no corrections were necessary, is sufficient supervision.

I am not incorrect. Every state in which I have had a license includes, in their state laws, a statement to the effect that a PE is forbidden to seal documents for which the related work was not performed or supervised by that PE. I don't think you are disagreeing with this. We seem to be disagreeing on the notion of an after-the-fact review constituting "supervision." I believe it does not.

As supporting evidence for my viewpoint, I offer the following information from Washington state law. It explicitly allows an architect from one company to accept completed plans that were developed by another architect company, perform just such a review as you mention, and take on legal responsibility for that design. It only requires that there be some manner of contractual relationship between the two companies. Our state law explicitly forbids engineers from doing this same thing.

I have worked with engineers who were willing to seal documents that were performed by others, treating their own review as constituting supervision. All I can say is that each PE has to live with his or her own conscience on this point.

 

[ggunn]

I am not incorrect. Every state in which I have had a license includes, in their state laws, a statement to the effect that a PE is forbidden to seal documents for which the related work was not performed or supervised by that PE. I don't think you are disagreeing with this. We seem to be disagreeing on the notion of an after-the-fact review constituting "supervision." I believe it does not.

As supporting evidence for my viewpoint, I offer the following information from Washington state law. It explicitly allows an architect from one company to accept completed plans that were developed by another architect company, perform just such a review as you mention, and take on legal responsibility for that design. It only requires that there be some manner of contractual relationship between the two companies. Our state law explicitly forbids engineers from doing this same thing.

I have worked with engineers who were willing to seal documents that were performed by others, treating their own review as constituting supervision. All I can say is that each PE has to live with his or her own conscience on this point.

Are you a PE?

 

[dkidd]

Are you a PE?

He has P.E. after his name in the signature line.:dunce:

 

[ggunn]

He has P.E. after his name in the signature line.:dunce:

I see that now. I am a PE as well and we disagree. So be it.

 

[gadfly56]

I am not incorrect. Every state in which I have had a license includes, in their state laws, a statement to the effect that a PE is forbidden to seal documents for which the related work was not performed or supervised by that PE. I don't think you are disagreeing with this. We seem to be disagreeing on the notion of an after-the-fact review constituting "supervision." I believe it does not.

As supporting evidence for my viewpoint, I offer the following information from Washington state law. It explicitly allows an architect from one company to accept completed plans that were developed by another architect company, perform just such a review as you mention, and take on legal responsibility for that design. It only requires that there be some manner of contractual relationship between the two companies. Our state law explicitly forbids engineers from doing this same thing.

I have worked with engineers who were willing to seal documents that were performed by others, treating their own review as constituting supervision. All I can say is that each PE has to live with his or her own conscience on this point.

Interestingly, I put very nearly the same case to the New Jersey Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors and received an "OK" on it. The caveats were that I would independently confirm the design (fire alarm device placement) and the client would make any changes I'd require.

 

[ggunn]

Here's a scenario:

There is a company that designs and installs PV systems. The PE who had been sealing their designs (not an employee of the company) decided to retire, and he gave them my name. I have my own firm and carry my own O&E insurance, so I took over that responsibility. For a year or so I reviewed, revised, and sealed their designs, working in my home office. Then one of their designers left, so I interviewed for and accepted a position with them as a design engineer. There are two other designers in the group, and I review, revise and seal their designs, the same as I always have, only now we work in the same office.

What's the difference? I submit that there is none. I don't look over their shoulders, "supervising" them because they do not need it (one of them is now technically my boss); they are professionals and know what they are doing. I don't see their work until it's ready for my review, the same as when I was doing it from home. My conscience is clear.

 

[dkidd]

What's the difference?

Logic vs regulation? :angel:

 

[charlie b]

I don't look over their shoulders, "supervising" them because they do not need it. . . .

“Supervision” does not mean looking over their shoulders. It also doesn’t mean they have to do things your way. Supervision can mean many things. It could mean chatting with the designer early in a project, so that you are both on the same page regarding the design approach and the nature of the design deliverables. It could mean that you have a basis for being confident that they are applying the right design standards and taking the right things into consideration. That confidence can come from past experiences with the designer, as appears to be the case in your current company.

At the very least, I can’t claim to supervise another person’s work unless that person is aware that they are working under my supervision. That means that they know they can (and should) come to me with any questions they may have, inform me of any issues that arise, and offer me an opportunity to voice an opinion when there are significant choices to be made. If none of those things are needed, then perhaps I won’t see the package until the end. This does not seem to me to be much different than what you are describing.

Most of the projects I have signed and sealed were issued to the client at least twice beforehand, for example at a 50% completion level and a 95% completion level. So I would have had plenty of opportunity to insert my own professional experience into the process long before applying my seal.

Here is where I draw the line: If a project was completely designed by another person, and if I had no knowledge that the project was even underway until it is handed to me for a review/signature/seal, meaning specifically that the person(s) doing the design work had no knowledge of who was eventually going to take responsibility for having supervised the work, then I would call it a violation both of law and of professional ethics for me to agree to sign and seal that package. The most I could do, and the law explicitly allows this, is to perform a review, write a report of the results of my review, and sign and seal that report.

 

[ggunn]

“Supervision” does not mean looking over their shoulders. It also doesn’t mean they have to do things your way. Supervision can mean many things. It could mean chatting with the designer early in a project, so that you are both on the same page regarding the design approach and the nature of the design deliverables. It could mean that you have a basis for being confident that they are applying the right design standards and taking the right things into consideration. That confidence can come from past experiences with the designer, as appears to be the case in your current company.

At the very least, I can’t claim to supervise another person’s work unless that person is aware that they are working under my supervision. That means that they know they can (and should) come to me with any questions they may have, inform me of any issues that arise, and offer me an opportunity to voice an opinion when there are significant choices to be made. If none of those things are needed, then perhaps I won’t see the package until the end. This does not seem to me to be much different than what you are describing.

Most of the projects I have signed and sealed were issued to the client at least twice beforehand, for example at a 50% completion level and a 95% completion level. So I would have had plenty of opportunity to insert my own professional experience into the process long before applying my seal.

Here is where I draw the line: If a project was completely designed by another person, and if I had no knowledge that the project was even underway until it is handed to me for a review/signature/seal, meaning specifically that the person(s) doing the design work had no knowledge of who was eventually going to take responsibility for having supervised the work, then I would call it a violation both of law and of professional ethics for me to agree to sign and seal that package. The most I could do, and the law explicitly allows this, is to perform a review, write a report of the results of my review, and sign and seal that report.

Likewise, I do not think we are that far apart. For one thing, most PV designs are pretty simple and there are generally accepted design methodologies in place that most competent designers follow. Most of the designs that I sealed as a freelancer were pretty cut and dried. A few were not done well at first, and in those cases I pretty much completely redid the design. By the same token, a few came from better designers than I am who just weren't PE's and try as I might I could not find a single thing to change.

There are, or so I hear, PE's that will stamp just about anything that comes across their desk without diving deep into the design, but I am not one of them. I carry insurance but I don't take unnecessary chances.

 

[GoldDigger]

Given that we have two P.E.s and two state licensing agencies that seem to take opposite sides on the question, I propose that, as in many things, the opinion of the licensing and enforcement board of your particular state will have to take precedence.

You can then confine any residual discussion to the issue of whether or not it is a good idea.

 

[ggunn]

Given that we have two P.E.s and two state licensing agencies that seem to take opposite sides on the question, I propose that, as in many things, the opinion of the licensing and enforcement board of your particular state will have to take precedence.

You can then confine any residual discussion to the issue of whether or not it is a good idea.

I don't see it that way. It's not black or white, but shades of gray. For example, I would not be nearly so quick to agree to a review, revise (if necessary), and seal a megawatt+ PV system without being in on the design process as I would for a 6kW residential system in a jurisdiction that requires a stamped electrical drawing. Not even if the TBPE said it would be OK with them.

Texas may indeed be different; for one thing, there is no separation here of PE licenses by discipline into electrical, civil, structural, etc. A Texas PE may stamp any design of any type he or she feels qualified to certify. "Supervision", though required, is not defined explicitly.

 

[dkidd]

"Supervision", though required, is not defined explicitly.

Is so

(10) Direct supervision - The control over and detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared under the engineer's supervision. The degree of control should be such that the engineer personally makes engineering decisions or personally reviews and approves proposed decisions prior to their implementation. The engineer must have control over the decisions either through physical presence or the use of communications devices.

 

[charlie b]

Here is where ggunn will likely see some gray space, and I might see it too:

(10) Direct supervision - The control over and detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared under the engineer's supervision. The degree of control should be such that the engineer personally makes engineering decisions or personally reviews and approves proposed decisions prior to their implementation. The engineer must have control over the decisions either through physical presence or the use of communications devices.

The question becomes, does a personal review after all design work is completed satisfy this definition?

By the way, where did this come from?

 

[dkidd]

THE STATE OF TEXAS
TEXAS ENGINEERING PRACTICE ACT
AND RULES CONCERNING
THE PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING
AND
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING LICENSURE

 

[ggunn]

Is so

(10) Direct supervision - The control over and detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared under the engineer's supervision. The degree of control should be such that the engineer personally makes engineering decisions or personally reviews and approves proposed decisions prior to their implementation. The engineer must have control over the decisions either through physical presence or the use of communications devices.

Well, there you are. When I review, revise (if necessary), and seal engineering drawings via pdf documents through email, I personally review and approve decisions prior to their implementation through the use of a communications device. Thanks for digging that out.