Something Interesting about Ohio code adoption

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pierre C Belarge

Pierre C Belarge

Senior Member
Location
Westchester County, New York
I was just reading something that some may find interesting, even if you are not from the great state of Ohio.

"...at the next Ohio Board of Building Standards Meeting scheduled for February 11th, 2008 in Toledo OH. This meeting is in conjunction with the Ohio Building Officials Association Conference and is scheduled from 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm at the Hilton Hotel/Dana Conference Center, Toledo OH. The Ohio Board of Building Standards confirmed that the Home Builders Association (HBA) has petitioned for a rule change to rescind the 2008 National Electrical Code. Attached is a portion of the petition which is claiming a 22% price increase for the electrical installation based on a 1747 square foot home. The Ohio Board of Buildings Standards will be addressing this matter at the joint conference, but will probably refer it to a committed for review. Ultimately it would have to go to a public hearing before the act/vote on it."




(I took this from an email I got from NEMA... I left out what I thought was not necessary for this thread...if you want to see the rest, go to

www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/codealerts/20080124oh.cfm )
 
I would be interested in seeing the way the 22% increase was calculated. Are they rescinding the whole 2008 or just the portions that directly affect residential construction?

- Greg
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
I was just reading something that some may find interesting, even if you are not from the great state of Ohio.

"...at the next Ohio Board of Building Standards Meeting scheduled for February 11th, 2008 in Toledo OH. This meeting is in conjunction with the Ohio Building Officials Association Conference and is scheduled from 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm at the Hilton Hotel/Dana Conference Center, Toledo OH. The Ohio Board of Building Standards confirmed that the Home Builders Association (HBA) has petitioned for a rule change to rescind the 2008 National Electrical Code. Attached is a portion of the petition which is claiming a 22% price increase for the electrical installation based on a 1747 square foot home. The Ohio Board of Buildings Standards will be addressing this matter at the joint conference, but will probably refer it to a committed for review. Ultimately it would have to go to a public hearing before the act/vote on it."




(I took this from an email I got from NEMA... I left out what I thought was not necessary for this thread...if you want to see the rest, go to

www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/codealerts/20080124oh.cfm )
Click to expand...

Sounds like the 'protesting' has begun ;) I hope other states follow and NOT adopt the 2008 code. Also look at who is upset that they dont want to adopt the 2008 NEC, Its the national MANUFACTURERS Association!!

they upset that they are going to loose all that money, (ie AFCI'S, tamper resistant) cause the 2008 NEC makes it required but the 2005 NEC does not. ;)
 
Last edited:
The National Association of Home Builders was very vocal in trying to supress AFCI protection in NY State, too. This was back in 2005. I testified on behalf of AFCI protection as it appears in the 2002 NEC and was able to prevail.
Of course, $$$$$$ was the concern. When you consider a 300 home subdivision and the costs associated with a CB package with afci breakers compared to standard breakers....Wow!
I can understand the NAHB's concerns, but when push came to shove I campaigned on the side of additional protection. :smile:
 
My thoughts went along a different line of thought.


If the changes in the NEC result in a 22% increase, I think the original pricing of the electrical work in homes is on the low side to start with.


Plus
I am interested to see how this will pan out.
 
Pierre, I just saw this today aswell.

I totaly agree with your comment on the priceing being low.

So with the 22% increase, we should still be about 35% below what it should cost?

Great!! A new way to loose MORE money!:roll:
 
A whole bunch of people spent a whole bunch of time, in the interest safety, to draft the 2008 NEC. A much smaller group of lawmakers in Ohio, in the interest of cost savings, are deciding whether to forgo the bare minimum electrical safety requirements as they have been drafted for this code cycle. Nice.
 
mdshunk said:
A much smaller group of lawmakers in Ohio, in the interest of cost savings, are deciding whether to forgo the bare minimum electrical safety requirements as they have been drafted for this code cycle.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in principle, I also believe in state's rights to amend, adpot, or ignore the NEC and adopt some other codes as they see fit.
 
---A whole bunch of people spent a whole bunch of time, in the interest safety, to draft the 2008 NEC.--

For that we all appreciate their efforts.
How ever there are financial ramafications to these decisions. These must be considerd aswell.
I personaly have no problem charging more, after all we are in it for the money.
Perhaps with this new code people will be more strapped and do more DIY work. This promotes safety how? I see only more hazard than already exists with DIY.
I feel a well balanced plan would be nice.
 
How many times have you been on a residential job where the homeowner will spend more money on the fixture package - provided by the designer- and complain about the electrician's price?

How many times have you been on a residential job where the plumber can get more for the bathroom faucet than the electrician can get for wiring the house?

Okay, I may have exagerated a little about the plumbing, but you all know what I am saying.

How about the HVAC contracts...that is something the homeowner can feel/touch, etc...
 
peter d said:
While I agree with you in principle, I also believe in state's rights to amend, adpot, or ignore the NEC and adopt some other codes as they see fit.
Click to expand...
Of course they can, and they don't even need a good reason. It just puzzles me why they feel compelled to do so sometimes. In this case, the why is known, and by knowing that it troubles me even more.
 
mdshunk said:
A much smaller group of lawmakers in Ohio, in the interest of cost savings, are deciding whether to forgo the bare minimum electrical safety requirements as they have been drafted for this code cycle.
Click to expand...
Another aspect of this is, if it gives the CMPs a moment of pause before the next wave of questionable and expensive decisions, then it is a good thing. If they consider the voice of the opposition and actually respect it for a change, then perhaps they will more thoroughly defend their decisions and explain them to the satisfaction of those opposed.

There were many good substantiations in argument of not expanding the role of the AFCI this cycle, and the CMP turned a deaf ear to them. Perhaps a dozen states overriding their decision would open their ears.

They say money talks - the roar of the money is overpowering the rest of the voices in this case, IMO.
 
georgestolz said:
There were many good substantiations in argument of not expanding the role of the AFCI this cycle, ....
Click to expand...
Which is a near identical repeat of what happened in the 70's, and we all accept GFCI's now. I predict that AFCI's will remain and their coverage will expand over time, and the states who formerly rejected them will adopt them. It doesn't affect the NFPA one way or the other what states think. They'll just keep doing what they've been doing forever, I feel certain.
 
The homebuilders association decided not to fight the residential changes on the floor of the NFPA meeting, opting instead to mount state and local adoption fights like this one. They did not think that they could win on their issues at the NFPA meeting but expect to win at the adoption level.
Don
 
peter d said:
While I agree with you in principle, I also believe in state's rights to amend, adpot, or ignore the NEC and adopt some other codes as they see fit.
Click to expand...

I will not speak for every state because I do not know and I may amend this answer later in the day, but according to our state law you must adopt something and if you don't adopt the NEC, what are you going to adopt? The IRC? Do you really want a bunch of Building Officials telling you how to wire a house?

Here in CA the local jurisdictions have the right to make the code more restrictive, but not less restrictive. I'm not sure that the law gives the California Building Standards Commission the right to do so either.

I agree with Marc. Most people complained about having to put in GFCI's and now I see many EC's putting them in even where they're not required. Not that there are that many places any more. Why? Because it makes it makes for a safer installation.

We will never know how many lives are saved because of a GFCI or AFCI. We will never know how many children will not visit the ER because of TR outlets. I just believe that it is a sad state of affairs when money outweighs safety.
 
cowboyjwc said:
We will never know how many lives are saved because of a GFCI or AFCI. We will never know how many children will not visit the ER because of TR outlets. I just believe that it is a sad state of affairs when money outweighs safety.
Click to expand...
We will also never know how many lives would be saved because of locked out CBs. We will never know how many children will not visit the ER because of unpowered outlets. Is it a sad state of affairs when the convenience of plugging in a vacuum cleaner outweighs safety?
Of course there is a cost to safety. This doesn't mean money outweighs safety. It just recognizes that warm, fuzzy feelings about safety do not justify spending money on it. If you cannot put a price on the worth of a safety device then the only true alternative is the complete removal of the threat, not reduction of it.
It may not be humanistic but cash is the unit of scale we have for safety. The "priceless life" model would leave us all homeless. Every aspect of the NEC is based on a "margin" of safety not an absolute. Build me a truly safe house and I'll show you a house you can't enter or afford to buy.
A state that allows a mandatory 22% price increase must be responsible enough to ask what they get for the bucks. Which really means determining whether the increase in safety justifies the increase in cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top