I was reading another post and see that one of our members is a member of code making panel no.10 which is Articles 240 and 780. Article 780 Closed-Loop and Programmed Power Distribution is in my 2005 NEC but not in my 2008 NEC. I have the first writing and was wondering if it was deleted or relocated? It's still listed with code making panel no.10 in the 2008 NEC.
What happened to Art 780?
- Thread starter SEO
- Start date
- Status
From the May 2001 ROP:
programmed power systems running on ?smart-house? cabling (Type
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
ARTICLE 780 ? CLOSED-LOOP AND PROGRAMMED
POWER DISTRIBUTION
POWER DISTRIBUTION
(Log #4271)
10- 88 - (780-3): Accept
10- 88 - (780-3): Accept
Note: At the recommendation of Code-Making Panel 10, the
Technical Correlating Committee is recommending that Article 780
be deleted from the 2002 NEC and invites Public Comment. The
Technical Correlating Committee directs that this Proposal be
forwarded to Code-Making Panel 7 for information.
SUBMITTER:
Technical Correlating Committee is recommending that Article 780
be deleted from the 2002 NEC and invites Public Comment. The
Technical Correlating Committee directs that this Proposal be
forwarded to Code-Making Panel 7 for information.
SUBMITTER:
Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delete the phrase ?of a closed-loop power
distribution system? from Section 780-3(a) and the phrase ?in a
closed-loop power distribution system? from Section 780-3(b)(1).
distribution system? from Section 780-3(a) and the phrase ?in a
closed-loop power distribution system? from Section 780-3(b)(1).
SUBSTANTIATION:
This is a resubmittal of a 1999 proposal. This
wording went into the 1996 NEC to create a distinction between
programmed power systems which are not closed-loop and ?smarthouse?
systems that are. They are indeed distinct, as distinct as day
and night. The problem is that they are so distinct that programmed
power systems are outside of the scope of Article 780. This change
created the wholly unwarranted inference that Article 780 protects
wording went into the 1996 NEC to create a distinction between
programmed power systems which are not closed-loop and ?smarthouse?
systems that are. They are indeed distinct, as distinct as day
and night. The problem is that they are so distinct that programmed
power systems are outside of the scope of Article 780. This change
created the wholly unwarranted inference that Article 780 protects
programmed power systems running on ?smart-house? cabling (Type
NMS) from other restrictions in the Code that assume true closedloop
power. Barring a change in the scope of this article that
inference is false and needs to be corrected.
The 1999 Panel rejection statement failed to address the article
scope issue, and the TCC should direct acceptance of this proposal on
that basis alone. The subject it did address, the suitability of NMS
cable, is outside of its responsibilities. In fact, Article 336 does restrict
this cable to closed loop purposes. Section 336-30(b), third
paragraph, requires the signaling conductors to comply with Section
780-5. That can?t happen if those signaling conductors are being used
beyond the scope of the article, and that brings us back to square one.
There is a much more fundamental issue here. In the 1987 code
cycle, closed-loop allowances went all over the code book. Section 240-
20(c) and Section 300-15(m) are just two examples. Every Code
Making Panel that was inserting these allowances thought they were
addressing closed loop systems. If the scope of Article 780 gets
effectively broadened in this way, it will threaten to unravel code rules
that have been fought over and perfected throughout the history of
the NEC. It could allow an end run around system separation rules in
Article 725, for example. All the system installer would have to say is
that they?re not using a Class 2 signaling system, they?re an Article 780
system instead.
I?m sorry that true closed-loop distributions appear to have failed in
the market, and that less sophisticated systems are filling the niche. I
wish them well. However, they belong in Article 725 and not Article
780. Perhaps the TCC might organize a small task group between
CMP 7 and CMP 16 to squarely address correlation issues around
Type NMS cable.
power. Barring a change in the scope of this article that
inference is false and needs to be corrected.
The 1999 Panel rejection statement failed to address the article
scope issue, and the TCC should direct acceptance of this proposal on
that basis alone. The subject it did address, the suitability of NMS
cable, is outside of its responsibilities. In fact, Article 336 does restrict
this cable to closed loop purposes. Section 336-30(b), third
paragraph, requires the signaling conductors to comply with Section
780-5. That can?t happen if those signaling conductors are being used
beyond the scope of the article, and that brings us back to square one.
There is a much more fundamental issue here. In the 1987 code
cycle, closed-loop allowances went all over the code book. Section 240-
20(c) and Section 300-15(m) are just two examples. Every Code
Making Panel that was inserting these allowances thought they were
addressing closed loop systems. If the scope of Article 780 gets
effectively broadened in this way, it will threaten to unravel code rules
that have been fought over and perfected throughout the history of
the NEC. It could allow an end run around system separation rules in
Article 725, for example. All the system installer would have to say is
that they?re not using a Class 2 signaling system, they?re an Article 780
system instead.
I?m sorry that true closed-loop distributions appear to have failed in
the market, and that less sophisticated systems are filling the niche. I
wish them well. However, they belong in Article 725 and not Article
780. Perhaps the TCC might organize a small task group between
CMP 7 and CMP 16 to squarely address correlation issues around
Type NMS cable.
PANEL ACTION:
Accept.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:
12
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
- Status