Selling customers on AFCI protection

[jwnagy]

One of my customers is the owner of a small group of apartments, built in the mid-1930's. Some of the units have been partially rewired, such as when they update the kitchen.

All of us who have been around awhile have had to deal with the problems presented by the old cloth-bound rubber insulation used for wiring from that era.

I would like to see him install AFCI breakers in all of his apartment units, which were upgraded to 100 ampere (before I had him for a customer) panels about 5 years ago. I've been skeptical of the claims made concerning AFCI for new homes, but feel that where they really have use is in older places, such as this.

Does anyone know if insurance companies are offereing any kind of premium discount for installing these devices in older buildings? If this is the case, it would be a great selling point.

Jeff
Master Electrician - Maryland

 

[ceb58]

One of my customers is the owner of a small group of apartments, built in the mid-1930's. Some of the units have been partially rewired, such as when they update the kitchen.

All of us who have been around awhile have had to deal with the problems presented by the old cloth-bound rubber insulation used for wiring from that era.

I would like to see him install AFCI breakers in all of his apartment units, which were upgraded to 100 ampere (before I had him for a customer) panels about 5 years ago. I've been skeptical of the claims made concerning AFCI for new homes, but feel that where they really have use is in older places, such as this.

Does anyone know if insurance companies are offereing any kind of premium discount for installing these devices in older buildings? If this is the case, it would be a great selling point.

Jeff
Master Electrician - Maryland

I personally do not know of any type of break on insurance for upgrading. But I would be very careful trying to up-sell the AFCI's in the older buildings. You may very well spend all your profit chasing down triping breakers. An AFCI is the last thing I would try and up sell on something I did not wire. And unless there were a large break on insurance cost most landlords dont or wont spend the money on something that is not requried.

 

[kwired]

I have heard and mentioned on this forum before that the only way we will know if AFCI's do what they claim they are supposed to do is in a few years - if insurance companies start to give discounted rates for having them installed - then we will truly know that they do what they claim to do. At that time there will be enough statistics to prove what they do. If we never see that happen we must assume that they do not do what they intended. Until that happens we are just in a huge field test, and there will probably be some changes to improve the product as time goes on.

You don't suppose the cost of these things is as high as it is in part to put some money aside in case of a large class action lawsuit some day?

 

[Teaspoon]

I have heard and mentioned on this forum before that the only way we will know if AFCI's do what they claim they are supposed to do is in a few years - if insurance companies start to give discounted rates for having them installed - then we will truly know that they do what they claim to do. At that time there will be enough statistics to prove what they do. If we never see that happen we must assume that they do not do what they intended. Until that happens we are just in a huge field test, and there will probably be some changes to improve the product as time goes on.

You don't suppose the cost of these things is as high as it is in part to put some money aside in case of a large class action lawsuit some day?

I am not convinced that AFCI's are all that great!
I may be wrong. But to me the most important thing is proper wire and Breaker size. I think we all can agree that Breakers do their job when properly sized with the wire. And this provides good protection.
In our area we AFCI protect all bed room circuits.
What becomes difficult sometimes is AFCI protection on old work such as change -outs. If we were not required to use AFCI's on change-outs here,
I would not try to up sell them.But Our A H J requires them.
To me the AFCI breakers are just an extra expense we have to pass on.

 

[augie47]

Here is a link to SquareD's dog & pony show on the product:

http://static.schneider-electric.us...rcuit Interrupters (AFCI)/NFPAJournalCAFI.pdf

 

[cadpoint]

I personally do not know of any type of break on insurance for upgrading. But I would be very careful trying to up-sell the AFCI's in the older buildings. You may very well spend all your profit chasing down tripping breakers. An AFCI is the last thing I would try and up sell on something I did not wire. And unless there were a large break on insurance cost most landlords don?t or wont spend the money on something that is not required.

I really have to agree with Ceb58 here? It wasn?t required when the panel changes and rewire happened, it was good the day the service went in. Each State is (from reading here) requiring this one requirement differently. It frankly missed the tamper resistant receptacles as well. (I believe)

The insurance will be maintained but is that odd moment where they check paper work for records of events, later if something happened. They might well be more interested since this is rental property but I'm sure they are very thorough just the same.

 

[iwire]

Another thing to keep in mind is that due to the GFCI component in each AFCI the AFCIs may trip all the time when put on old circuits due to issues with the use of common neutrals, tying neutrals of different circuits together, neutrals hitting grounded metal etc.

 

[kwired]

Another thing to keep in mind is that due to the GFCI component in each AFCI the AFCIs may trip all the time when put on old circuits due to issues with the use of common neutrals, tying neutrals of different circuits together, neutrals hitting grounded metal etc.

And I think that those are the reasons for most of the "false tripping" that everyone complains about. There are problems with the wiring in the first place and people don't want to believe that. It is the classic "it worked before now this stupid thing causes all kinds of trouble", when in fact it is just doing what it was designed to do. The wiring problems that it uncovered although may have gone a long time with no noticeable problem with regular overcurrent devices are still a potential accident waiting to happen.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If the AFCIs are really as good as the manufacturers want us to believe they are, why are the insurance companies not offering discounts for homes with them installed? Many offer disconnects for fire and burglar alarm systems the automatically notify the authorities and for fire sprinkler systems.

 

[kwired]

If the AFCIs are really as good as the manufacturers want us to believe they are, why are the insurance companies not offering discounts for homes with them installed? Many offer disconnects for fire and burglar alarm systems the automatically notify the authorities and for fire sprinkler systems.

read my post #3 in this thread.

The day there is enough data to show that AFCI's save lives or property the insurance companies will then know it is worth offering discounts for their installation. That is when we will know that they are doing the job they were intended to do.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

read my post #3 in this thread.

The day there is enough data to show that AFCI's save lives or property the insurance companies will then know it is worth offering discounts for their installation. That is when we will know that they are doing the job they were intended to do.

If the data that AFCI manufacturers used to get the AFCIs into the code is not good enough for the insurance companies to offer a discount for their use, then it was also not good enough to show a need for the device.

 

[kwired]

If the data that AFCI manufacturers used to get the AFCIs into the code is not good enough for the insurance companies to offer a discount for their use, then it was also not good enough to show a need for the device.

I think the insurance company data is going to come from claims or lack of claims. Kind of like cars with airbags or in states where seatbelt use the law. The insurance rates will start being adjusted for the people who present a lower risk for the insurance company. That risk is usually based on number of claims and not the equipment itself, although the equipment is potentially the reason for the change in number of claims.

With AFCI's we will not see any change in insurance rates until the insurance companies start seeing that AFCI's are a reason why they are seeing less claims on places that have them - if they never see that then maybe they are not doing what the manufacturers claim they will do.

As far as data to get AFCI's into code the manufacturers have representives that are either on code making panels or have pushed code making panels very hard to get their product into the code.

Why else would they have had a date to start complying with the requirements written right into the code both when AFCI's were introduced and when the combination type were first introduced?

Because they did not want to wait for another code cycle to start selling them, and they figured it would give them some time to finish developing and manufacturing or at least give enough other manufacturers time to get a product line out there that may not have one - it is hard to make us install something that does not exist type of thinking so we will give it time to exist.

Can you think of any other product to be developed that actually had a date published in the code that said you will start installing this after that date? There had to be some big money at stake for someone.

 

[electricmanscott]

Anything I can do to stay AWAY from AFCI's is my goal in life.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think the insurance company data is going to come from claims or lack of claims. Kind of like cars with airbags or in states where seatbelt use the law. The insurance rates will start being adjusted for the people who present a lower risk for the insurance company. That risk is usually based on number of claims and not the equipment itself, although the equipment is potentially the reason for the change in number of claims.

With AFCI's we will not see any change in insurance rates until the insurance companies start seeing that AFCI's are a reason why they are seeing less claims on places that have them - if they never see that then maybe they are not doing what the manufacturers claim they will do.

Which will probably never happen. If you look closely at all of the fire cause and origin data, you will find that even if the AFCIs are 100% effective, a claim that even the manufacturers do not make, you could expect to prevent less than 7000 fires over the first 5 years of full compliance with the current AFCI code rule. This would be less than 0.5% the total number of dwelling unit fires that would be expected over that same 5 year period. (this is dwelling unit fires from all causes)

As far as data to get AFCI's into code the manufacturers have representives that are either on code making panels or have pushed code making panels very hard to get their product into the code.

Yes the manufacturers have representatives on the code making panels, but by NFPA rules, they cannot make up over 1/3 of the panel members. The rules also require that a proposal receive a 2/3s majority vote of all of the panel members to be accepted. So the manufacturers have to have some help. Although they did provide data that was out right fraudulent to get the proposals passed. Their original proposals, some 13 years prior to the introduction of the combination type AFCI, said that the device they had back then would do everything that they now tell us the combination type device will do.

Why else would they have had a date to start complying with the requirements written right into the code both when AFCI's were introduced and when the combination type were first introduced?

Because they did not want to wait for another code cycle to start selling them, and they figured it would give them some time to finish developing and manufacturing or at least give enough other manufacturers time to get a product line out there that may not have one - it is hard to make us install something that does not exist type of thinking so we will give it time to exist.

The future effective date had to do with letting more than on manufacturer get an AFCI product ready for the market. The code cannot require the use of a single sourced product.

Can you think of any other product to be developed that actually had a date published in the code that said you will start installing this after that date? There had to be some big money at stake for someone.

This is very common in the code. There was the same wording used for the florescent light disconnect rule. (410.130(G) in the 2005 code) There was also 3 year in the future language for new ampacity tables (tables 310-20 through 310-30 in the 1984 code). These tables were in the 1984 code with an effective date of 1/1/1987. When the 87 code came out these ampacity tables were moved to the annex and became non-binding. I know that there are other examples that I can't think of right now.

 

[btharmy]

Anything I can do to stay AWAY from AFCI's is my goal in life.

Just move to Indiana. :grin:

This is a quote from Indiana's ammendments to the NEC. Just one of many items repealed.

675 IAC 17-1.8-9 Section 210.12(B); dwelling units
Authority: IC 22-13-2-2; IC 22-13-2-13
Affected: IC 22-12; IC 22-13; IC 22-14; IC 22-15; IC 36-7

Sec. 9. Delete Section 210.12(B) without substitution. (Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission; 675 IAC 17-1.8-9;
filed Jul 27, 2009, 10:39 a.m.: 20090826-IR-675090140FRA) NOTE: Agency cited as 675 IAC 17-1.8-10, which was renumbered
by the Publisher as 675 IAC 17-1.8-9.

TR recepts too! :grin:

675 IAC 17-1.8-19 Section 406.11; tamper-resistant receptacles in dwelling units
Authority: IC 22-13-2-2; IC 22-13-2-13
Affected: IC 22-12; IC 22-13; IC 22-14; IC 22-15; IC 36-7

Sec. 19. Delete Section 406.11 without substitution. (Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission; 675 IAC 17-1.8-19;
filed Jul 27, 2009, 10:39 a.m.: 20090826-IR-675090140FRA) NOTE: Agency cited as 675 IAC 17-1.8-21, which was renumbered
by the Publisher as 675 IAC 17-1.8-19.

 

[electricmanscott]

Just move to Indiana. :grin:

Just one more reason to love the state the brought us Larry Bird. :grin:

 

[electricguy61]

Anything I can do to stay AWAY from AFCI's is my goal in life.

AMEN! (dang, I always forget about the 10 character rule)

 

[kwired]

Just move to Indiana. :grin:

This is a quote from Indiana's ammendments to the NEC. Just one of many items repealed.

675 IAC 17-1.8-9 Section 210.12(B); dwelling units
Authority: IC 22-13-2-2; IC 22-13-2-13
Affected: IC 22-12; IC 22-13; IC 22-14; IC 22-15; IC 36-7

Sec. 9. Delete Section 210.12(B) without substitution. (Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission; 675 IAC 17-1.8-9;
filed Jul 27, 2009, 10:39 a.m.: 20090826-IR-675090140FRA) NOTE: Agency cited as 675 IAC 17-1.8-10, which was renumbered
by the Publisher as 675 IAC 17-1.8-9.

TR recepts too! :grin:

675 IAC 17-1.8-19 Section 406.11; tamper-resistant receptacles in dwelling units
Authority: IC 22-13-2-2; IC 22-13-2-13
Affected: IC 22-12; IC 22-13; IC 22-14; IC 22-15; IC 36-7

Sec. 19. Delete Section 406.11 without substitution. (Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission; 675 IAC 17-1.8-19;
filed Jul 27, 2009, 10:39 a.m.: 20090826-IR-675090140FRA) NOTE: Agency cited as 675 IAC 17-1.8-21, which was renumbered
by the Publisher as 675 IAC 17-1.8-19.

The following is my understanding, I may have some facts wrong but is what I understand to be how things happened where I live.

Nebraska has had amendments that deleted the AFCI rules because of the politics that may have been involved with placing the requirements in the code back in the first (2002?) edition that contained AFCI requirements. They have also had very limited number of amendments to NEC in the past so basically NEC is law with limited amendments including AFCI amendments before the 2008 code came out.

Before the 2008 code came out the State Electrical Division decided they were going to adopt the 2008 code with no amendments - period. The AFCI issue they felt was here to stay and there had been enough time since the original questionable insertion of this requirement to work out some of the problems it may create.

The way the adoption of a new version of the NEC has worked in the past is there has to be a bill introduced in the State Legislature to adopt the new NEC and the lawmakers have to approve the bill. In the past it was fairly automatic - the bill would be passed in March or April depending on other priorities and would become law 90 days later.

2008 NEC had a lot of opposition mostly from Homebuilders association(s)
and not necessarily many (organizations) from the electrical industry. The last two legislative sessions the bill was stalled and never passed and most are not expecting it to pass next year either. We may never have the 2008 NEC enforced here, who knows maybe not the 2011 either at least not without amendments.

The State Electrical Division has removed the amendment that deleted the AFCI language in the 2005 NEC after the 2008 was not passed into law. So we now do have to install AFCI as required in 2005 code.

The question becomes if there is ever a death where the possibility exists that the AFCI could have prevented it and a nationally recognized standard could have been put into law to require it, how ugly can the pending lawsuits get? Can they come after the State Senator(s) that are responsible for stalling the bill? How about other jurisdictions that elect to not enforce these sections of the code? One accident where it is at least plausible that the device could have made a difference can open a huge can of worms.

I did not necessarily like the AFCI requirements at first, and am still not entirely sure the devices will do what they claim, but it is a step toward more safety. There will probably be more improvements to this product as time passes.

A lot of people thought GFCI was unnecessary when they were fairly new. Now they are not too big of a deal to most and are seen as very important by many. Non electricians do not understand what they are for and most never will. I have noticed people avoid plugging things into GFCI receptacles if they can not realizing that the receptacle right next to the GFCI is really no different because it is protected by the GFCI.

 

[e2me2]

afci suck

afci suck

If the AFCIs are really as good as the manufacturers want us to believe they are, why are the insurance companies not offering discounts for homes with them installed? Many offer disconnects for fire and burglar alarm systems the automatically notify the authorities and for fire sprinkler systems.

Afci Suck and nothing else be said.
New and old locations they all generate nothing but 100s of free service callbacks about. Any product made before 2000 trips them. Fans, vacuums, fluorescent lights, TV, freezers its ridicules .If we all lived in a perfect world and owned all brand new stuff in brand new houses all would be fine oh wait I guess we wouldn?t need them then would we. It?s nothing more than a large kickback program for manufactures to sell high priced breakers
Under a new required code man this sounds like today government.

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

Does anyone have info on what we should expect for the new code (2011) for installation requierments AFCI's?