Something Interesting about Ohio code adoption

[cschmid]

this kind of goes with what I posted as I got the same email..Minnesota is in discussion on whether they will enforce on 7/1/08 or if it will be later as they are in debate over the adoptence of the whole 2008 code..

 

[crossman]

It is ALL about the money. $75 for a code book?

 

[charlie b]

Minnesota is in discussion on whether they will enforce on 7/1/08 or if it will be later as they are in debate over the adoptence of the whole 2008 code..

Washington state is having the same debate. We might never adopt 2008, and keep what we have (i.e., 2005 as ammended by state admin code) until 2011 comes out.

 

[sguinn]

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?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN Brother ! ! !


Or when they spend more on the front door than the entire wiring job.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

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?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN Brother ! ! !


Or when they spend more on the front door than the entire wiring job.

But at what point should people have the freedom to make those decisions themselves, instead of having others decide for them? "Sorry, you cannot get the $25,000.00 entryway because you need to spend that on AFCI's and this is for your own good..."

In many markets the front door is far more important than having 2 SABC's or GFCI protection on the garage door opener.

 

[sguinn]

But at what point should people have the freedom to make those decisions themselves, instead of having others decide for them? "Sorry, you cannot get the $25,000.00 entryway because you need to spend that on AFCI's and this is for your own good..."

My point is spending more money on a (door) than the entire electrical job and then complain about the price on the ECs bill. Maybe it's because I live in the mountains, where we are considered backwards but if I gave 25k for a door, then it better be able to drive me back and forth to work.

 

[benaround]

These builders make me sick, they make $25,000-$100,000 and more per

home and now they cry because they are so greedy. I don't see the builders

complaining when everyones' taxes go up for new schools, etc. because of

the 300 new homes that they profited off of, yet, in the sake of forward

progress in the saftey of what THEY build not a dime more will they spend.

Believe me, I'm all for the American way but these people have no shame.

 

[Fire Alarm]

I think it's quite reasonable to say that packing the average service panel chock full of AFCI breakers adds at least $500 in material costs alone.

 

[Fire Alarm]

These builders make me sick, they make $25,000-$100,000 and more per

home and now they cry because they are so greedy. I don't see the builders

complaining when everyones' taxes go up for new schools, etc. because of

the 300 new homes that they profited off of, yet, in the sake of forward

progress in the saftey of what THEY build not a dime more will they spend.

Believe me, I'm all for the American way but these people have no shame.

FWIW, here in Los Angeles, when builders obtain their permits, they must pay a "school tax" which I think is around $1 a foot but I'm not sure. They've already been forced to contribute to a community they don't live in, so I can understand if they lose the ability to care about their impact on the community.

 

[cowboyjwc]

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.

Ok I am amending my answer a little. The Building Standards Commission can amend the code as they see fit, but they usually take the position that the codes are safety codes and minimum safety codes at best, so they probably would not amend it.

I just think that if a state really was worried about what you get for your buck then we would control the outragous price of housing. The $50K starter house that was built in the early 70s that I paid $80k for in 1984 is now listed (same house) for $450K and remember this is simply because somebody said so. The only reason the taxes go up on my house is because somebody decided that my house is worth more.

$1000 more one time for a house with some added safety features? Geez I pay $6000 instead of $4000 a year in property taxes simply because I added on 100 sq ft to my house.

Also remeber that when a developer puts in a tract of homes he's not making near what you think on a house. He has to pay for all of the infastructure, streets, utilities, grading, landscaping and then here there are school fees, permit fees, sewer fees, fire dept fee, park district fees, etc.

Rant over. : )

 

[M. D.]

These builders make me sick, they make $25,000-$100,000 and more per

home and now they cry because they are so greedy. I don't see the builders

complaining when everyones' taxes go up for new schools, etc. because of

the 300 new homes that they profited off of, yet, in the sake of forward

progress in the saftey of what THEY build not a dime more will they spend.

Believe me, I'm all for the American way but these people have no shame.

I don't think it is the builder who is paying for the code change(s) ,.. what ever they may be,.. it is the the consumer who pays,. and yes , there is a breaking point at which some people will be unable to buy a home, should homes be reserved for only those who can afford these outrageous upgrades ?? That is where we are heading ,.. the rich will live in homes the rest of us will be in other than single family dwellings.When I drive from an older housing development into a newer one then on to the newest ,it is evident that homes built today are for the upper middle and wealthy class of people.

Where I work , people and builders encourage me not to pull permits as that will mean fees, inspections and a notice to the tax assessor and an increase in value which will result in an increase in taxes.,..and there are many times I don't pull one.
These kinds of changes in the name of safety can work to undermine the whole process and why it set up to begin with,.. and you can bet there will be more and more H.O. doing more and more "electrical" work.

I'll get off the soap box now thanks for reading I feel much better now

 

[sguinn]

With the house prices the way they are today who can afford one? It's no wonder so many people are losing their homes. Trying to make $1500-2000/month mortage payments for thirty years? BTW when I was in school, the person who lived in a $500,000 house was the president. And what about gas prices...................

 

[peter]

I think it's about time for some competion to NFPA and the "NEC". Perhaps one of the building codes. Up until recently, the Code panels created their rules in response to proven problems. But now they are under the sway of hypthetical problems and hypothetical solutions.
What exactly is an arc fault?
Do houses meant for the elderly really need tamper-proof receptacles?
Has any fire resulted from grouping a bunch of Romex cables through a single hole?
I hope the Ohio commission rejects the 2008 Code.
~Peter

 

[brother]

Washington state is having the same debate. We might never adopt 2008, and keep what we have (i.e., 2005 as ammended by state admin code) until 2011 comes out.

I certainly HOPE that WA state never adopts that 2008 code!! Im glad they having a debate about it!! I see this more than just a 'so called' safety concern. If the states give in to the manufacturers money making schemes of under the guise of 'safety' and 'protect the children', then where will it end??!! This is something that all the states need to put a stop to in its tracks!!

I wish i knew where that link was on mike holt that had a letter from one of the guys on the cmp panel that wrote a dissenting letter on the afci issue. Something about spending 1 billion to save 17 million. Just ridiculous! We wont even go into the tamper resistant/weather resistant receptacles cost!!

 

[M. D.]

I think this is what you are talking about.

Lawrence Brown, CMP-2 member, submitted several proposals (or maybe, the same proposal several times) to get rid of the requirement. I would also like to quote his response to his negative vote to the comment:

BROWN, L.: The Panel’s Action to not require AFCI protection only for the receptacles that typically require GFCI protection is backtracking from the Panel’s Actions and Statements shown in the Report on Proposals (ROP). If they felt the entire house should be protected what relevant fire data changed their minds? Please read NAHB’s Comment 2-79. Calling this a “limited approach to the expansion of AFCI” still results in no cost-benefit for society, it just needlessly increases the costs of housing. No jurisdiction should burden its citizens with this unneeded expense.


There was never any fire study or costbenefit study to support installing these devices only for bedrooms in the 1999 NEC. Since then NO data or study has ever been assembled to support the expansion to the whole house. The fact still remains that home buyers in the U. S. will spend approximately 2 BILLION, 130 MILLION, 230 THOUSAND, and 956 DOLLARS per year to cover losses of only $17,720,000. That is a ratio of 119 times the money spent relative to the monetary loss of $17,720,000.


And, that is if the devices work 100 percent of the time. If you break that down by each state, that lack of a cost-benefit becomes apparently clear. All jurisdictions that contemplate adopting the 2008 NEC, especially those jurisdiction that by law must show a cost-benefit in the adoption, are encouraged to look closely at this cost-benefit fact and not adopt the 2008 NEC until all provisions requiring AFCIs is stricken (Section 210.12).

 

[benaround]

These will just be a few more products that another country will take from

us, put them into use until the price goes way down, and then sell them to

us. All the bugs will be fixed and all the reports you could ever want to read

will be available. I don't understand why you oppose the 'latest and greatest'

technology in the field that we represent. I see it as a step in the right

direction, just like when the EGC was put into the Code and later it was

upsized to the match the circuit conductors. Those things cost money too

but it was the right thing to do, I don't remember if the Builders tried to

stop everyone from ammending the cycle of Code at that time or not.

Well, we are all intitled to our own opinion, and that's mine.

 

[Chris6245]

Being in OHIO and the fact that as of 1-1-08 the whole state (according to the jurisdictions around me) has already adopted the 2008 code, i will highly doubt that the State will amend the code. It's just like taxes, once they are inacted they never get removed. By the time they make a decision on this we will already have 2 to 3 months of houses full of AFCI's....who's going to give these homeowners their money back if they amend it?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

NYS
In 2002 NYS was referencing the 2002 NEC.

In 2003, NYS adopted a new code/code cycle and was referencing the 1999 NEC.

As of January 1, 2008 NYS is refering to the 2002 and 2005 NEC


Ya neva kno!!! :grin:

 

[Mike Bean]

I hope as an industry we do not decide to sacrifice saftey for the sake of dollars.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

I hope as an industry we do not decide to sacrifice saftey for the sake of dollars.

I have an inground heated pool, a hot tub, and the beginings of an outdoor kitchen. The town required a 6' fence, with self-closing, self latching and locking gates. Not climbable from the outside of the yard in.

A pool is considered an attractive nuiscense. I do not have a motion sensing alarm system tied to a monitoring service. I do not have motion sensing floodlights. I will not get a dog. I will not hire a guard.

Eventually, some neighborhood kid(s) WILL penetrate the required defenses and trespass. But the trespass will have to occur using extroridnary effort despite taking "ordinary defense measures." (according to the town)

Should I be required, in the name of, and for the sake of safety, to install an electric rollaway cover on the pool, locking cover on the hot tub, and lockable covers on the receptacles, and hire a guard to prevent someone from hurting themselves?

Some people buy into this "if it saves ONE life, it's worth it" but I think it's a crock. It's a sales pitch. Forcing homeowners to spend thousands each, to prevent what is considered the cause of 1% of home fires is NOT worth it.

GFCIs when introduced cost $100.00 and only ONE was required. Code still allows every bathroom convenience receptacle on the same 20a circuit. At most, now a home requires only 4 GFCI'd circuits.