Speaker 1: Welcome to the Master of the Nez podcast, the ultimate
destination for anyone passionate about the electrical trade.
Speaker 2: Whether you're a season electrician, an eager apprentice, or.
Speaker 1: Just someone who wants to dive deep into the world
of electrical work, you've come to the right place.
Speaker 2: Join your host, Paul.
Speaker 1: Abernavi, a true authority in the industry with over thirty
eight years of trade experience, as he electrifies your mind
within depth discussions, expertips, and valuable insights.
Speaker 2: That will keep you ahead of the curve.
Speaker 1: Each episode, Paul will illuminate the complexities of the trade,
decode the national electrical code, and share the latest industry trends,
all while empowering you to take your electrical career to
the next level. So gar up, plug in, and get
ready to supercharge your knowledge because with the Master of
the Neez podcast, the power is in your hands. Now
get ready. Here is your host, Paul Abernavi.
Speaker 2: What Up? What up?
Speaker 3: Everybody?
Speaker 4: Hey, welcome to another episode of Mastering the nec My
name is Paul Abernathy. Thanks for joining me on this podcast.
Remember you can listen to all of our podcasts, and
we have three of them. By the way, on any
of your favorite podcasts listening platforms Spotify, Spreaker, Deezer, iHeartRadio,
Apple Podcast, Amazon Music. All you gotta do is search
for the podcast, and we've got three of them, so
you could search for Master the NEC podcast all separate
words Master the n EC podcast, or you can look
for the Let's Ask Paul podcast just Let's Ask Paul podcast.
And our newest podcast is the Bond and Ground Podcast
that talks about Article two fifty and all things related
to grounding and bonding. We dispill these myths that you
see floating around out there and all those other good things.
But the podcast, we have over a thousand plus episodes
that you can listen to, dating back many years, still
very relevant and so check them out. And if you
want an easy way to listen to our podcast or
stream them to your other devices via.
Speaker 3: Bluetooth, it's just go get our free mobile app.
Speaker 4: It's free, it didn't cost you anything, and we don't
push anything down your throat. You don't have to download
any bloatwear onto your phone or anything like that. Just
go to fasttracksystem dot com and you'll see in the
navigation to say mobile app. That's our main website and
check it out and you load it on your phone
and you can get access to our blogs. We have
some great blogs, really educational blogs as well. It's always
great to learn. I believe reading is still the way
to do it. We watch a lot of videos.
Speaker 3: I get it.
Speaker 4: I do this morning shows every day. I know it's
very visual, but I am still a believer that you
have to be able to read something to comprehend it.
And so that's you know, that's what we got going
on with the blogs. And of course you can watch
Coffee Hour directly from the mobile app, you can listen
to the Blow podcast directly from the mobile app, and
you can access pretty much anything, even our chat feature
for those that have the mobile app only on the
mobile app, so that's pretty cool. You can attack pictures
and upload job site pictures and ask questions on it.
So it's a really great platform. Take advantage of it.
You do have to register separately over on the mobile app. Okay,
so you might be a student, you might be in
one of our other programs, maybe you're maybe you're a
subscriber or a fast Tracks two platform, all of that
type of stuff. But at the end of the day,
you have to register separately on the mobile app. All right,
So let's get to business here, you all folks want
to get to business. So I just recently came back
from the twenty twenty five NFPA Knit MAM conference in
Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm not a big Nevada fan or
a Las Vegas fan, I guess because I've been there
so many times. It's like, really, I'm not a strip guy.
I don't walk out on the strip, hardly ever leave
the hotel. And usually I know I say this before,
Usually when I'm on business trips like that, I am
so business focused. I'm not there for me. I'm there
for the business that I'm representing. So in these meetings,
I was there, and in the meetings I'm trying to
engage in the debate that's going on on these different
cams CAM.
Speaker 3: By the way, it's called certified amending motion.
Speaker 4: They're part of the KNITMAMS process and they're making potential
amendments to the public comments that were submitted during the
code development process.
Speaker 3: You'all all know how that works.
Speaker 4: You got public inputs where any of you can submit
things to the NEC and it'll be reviewed by the
code panels. If accepted, it'll go into the published report,
and then of course you can make comments on those
things that make it through that maybe we didn't get
it right or maybe you didn't like how we did
it okay, and then you get to make comments on that.
And then of course the next stage is once that's published,
you got what's called the nitmams and the nitmams of
notice of intent to make a motion. And then when
you go there, you're actually writing what's called certified amending motions,
and you're amending something to the public comment, and they're
making a motion to either accept the public comment or
reject or fail the public comment, that type of thing.
So they're trying to amend or change or do something
that came out of the public comment stage. And again it's
your third attempt that it fine tuning something for the
NEC because now once this is gone, there's still some
minor voting that takes place correlating committees. Work gets done,
and next thing you know, it'll get published and we'll
be in the next edition of the NEEC, and then
states will start to slowly adopt it, usually within a
couple months, and many states it takes longer but usually
within a couple months or get some of the bigger
states like Massachusetts is not that it's a bigger state,
being where it is, it'll try to adopt it first,
and then you'll get Texas, usually around September of the
year that it publishes, or the year of the book,
which is it's twenty twenty six, so usually around September
twenty twenty six, they'll adopt it in Texas, and other
states will follow some quicker than others. So kind of
your last bite at the apple, if you will. Here
in Vegas this past week, and there were quite a
few cams, not I don't think there.
Speaker 3: Was as many as it used to be. I mean,
it was a little more reserved.
Speaker 4: I think maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like
it wasn't nobody was in a big rush this time,
and that tells me that the.
Speaker 3: Agenda just wasn't as beefy.
Speaker 4: But again, a lot of good things, a lot of
ev s E stuff on the ballot, and of course
the spattering of other things on the ballot that we're
going to talk about a few of them today.
Speaker 3: Obviously I can't talk about them all.
Speaker 4: The cams will come out once it's all said and
done and all the dust clears and everything.
Speaker 3: So I'll talk about a few today to give you things.
Speaker 4: To think about and hopefully encourage you to get involved
in the process. So you might not agree with everything
that that gets done at these meetings, but if you
don't go, or you don't get involved, or you're not
a voting member, you really are just kind of just watching.
And everybody's entitled to an opinion. But again, that's what
I said years ago. If I was going to complain
about something, I had to get involved. So anybody you listening,
you can submit a change to the NEC. You just
need to make sure that it is well founded to
have a good chance of being accepted by the code
panel because these are a panel of experts. Whether you
like it or not, everybody that sits on this panels,
the code making panels, has an area of expertise. They
might not have expertise in everything that is talked about
on the panel that they're a member of, but they
have a good level expertise and it kind of helps
balance out the committees, right or the code panels. So again,
it's a fair process. Can the system be gained a
little bit Yeah, not by any other reason except for
certain people may have certain agendas, but they have what's
called influence. Means that the members of the committee or
the panels actually weigh their opinions very highly, and so
that can sway some of the individuals that may not
be as knowledgeable in a certain topic, but they look
to the people that are at the table that are
again viewed as experts, and so that has influence. Now,
you're not going to get rid of that process. It
just is what it is. It's just the way it works.
You have influence in anything that gets done. So and
we need these people. We cannot have people at this table,
the code panel members, We cannot have people that are
not considered expert in there. So they're going to have
various opinions, agendas, motivated factors, is what it is. It
just can't get any cleaner than that. There's no way
to people say.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not a fair system.
Speaker 4: It's gamed by the manufacturers. It's not gained by the manufacturers.
Now do the manufacturers have influence? Absolutely absolutely, Just like
any other expert that we're to go there and speak
on a certain topic, they've got influence, right, and they
would be foolish not to use that influence if they
have some kind of mission they need to achieve. Now
you would think that at the end of the day
it's all about just electrical safety. We put all that
aside and we're simply voting what's good for the industry.
That does happen. For the most part, most people you know,
do that. Very few people going there with agendas. But again,
influence is going to rule, and if they're very influential.
A lot of manufacturers are very influential. A lot of
people that serve for these manufacturers. They're not foolish. They
put influential people in positions to be influential. It just
is what it is. So whether you like it or
hate the system, get involved in it. If you want
to see chain. If you don't want to see changed,
then sit back, stop bitching and just take what you get.
Speaker 3: But you got to be involved.
Speaker 4: So during this process, there were a few cams that that.
Speaker 3: You know, it raises a few eyebrows on some of
the stuff.
Speaker 4: But again we'll talk about a few of them and
then I'll go just kind of give you a few
things that took place. Now, one of the first ones
I'll talk about this cam or certified. Amending motion was
to accept a public comment which was eighteen fifty four
and they want.
Speaker 3: To accept it. And in this one, this one was
talking about.
Speaker 4: The minimum number of branch circuits in a dwelling or
in dwelling units. So they wanted to establish the minimum number,
as you might have heard, the load calculation under part
three of Article two twenty, which is going to be
one twenty by the way in the twenty twenty six edition,
so it's moving around a little bit. There was a
big push to say, well, since we're lowering it to
two va prespare foot, to do a load calculation and
let that cover all general use receptacles in general lighting,
that we wanted to make sure that we at least
established a minimum number of brand.
Speaker 3: Circuits for the dwelling unit.
Speaker 4: So one dot thirteen UH attempts to do this, and
it was a.
Speaker 3: We're so used to three va.
Speaker 4: Per square foot, and that's what was proposed, and that
what was in there also to establish for the UH
minimum number of brand circuits even though even though we're
dropping it to two va per square foot for the
load calculation.
Speaker 3: When it came to.
Speaker 4: The part two of two twenty, which is now one
to twenty, to establish the minimum number of branch circuits.
Minimum number now again not including small appliance. That's already
covered in two ten point eleven, which which is going
to determine the minimum number of that. And we've got
those rules for the va per square foot covered in
what was to twenty now one twenty.
Speaker 3: We already have that.
Speaker 4: This was really to determine the minimum number of brand
circuits when calculating the required number, and it was supposed
to so it was three va.
Speaker 3: Per square foot. That's what was in the code.
Speaker 4: That's what we pushed forward, that what's going to be
in the twenty twenty six. But then there was this
cam because a public comment was trying to increase it
to four va for calculating the minimum brand circuit required.
And I think at the end of the day, three
va is what we've always used prior to this. You know,
there really wasn't a minimum number of brand circuits. Prior
to trying to establish a minimum number. You knew what
you had to have. You base it on three VA
per square foot, and then of course you include in
there the minimum of two small appliance brand circuits at
fifteen hundred VAEA and in the laundry at fifteen hundred
that type of thing. But really it didn't seek to
demand the minimum number of brand circuits that had to
be that you had to have again, not including the
small appliances in laundry, other circuits. Okay, we're talking the
minimum number just general use general brand circuits. It doesn't
really say general brand circuit. It just says in dwelling units,
the minimum unit loads shall be not less than it
gives you a volt damp here value per square foot
to use. So the effort here was to establish a
number because with the reduced value per square foot for
the load calc, the risk was that it wouldn't be
it wouldn't be something where we had adequate number of
actual brand circuits. So this is an attempt to try
to establish a minimum number of brand circuits, again not
including the already required brand circuits you know, which are
different appliance brand circuits that things like that. So it
was three VA, but in the public comment it was
to increase it to four VA. So this cam was
and it was to accept the public comment of one
eight five four in order to increase it to four
va per square foot for calculating the minimum brand circuit required,
and it passed in the in the CAM meeting here
in Vegas, so they increased that to four va per
square foot. And so again many people were on the forum.
I posted this on social and people are like, it looks.
Speaker 3: Like we're going in the wrong direction.
Speaker 4: You know, they're dropping the overall load to two va
per square foot, but they're increased. So all this was
tried an effort to push to make sure that you
have a minimum number of brand circuits so they're adequate.
Speaker 3: That type of thing.
Speaker 4: For me, it's going to make more brand circuits. This
means more breakers, This means you know, a bunch of
other things, but.
Speaker 3: At least it gives it does give us a value.
Speaker 4: So if somebody asks you a question about, like an
exam question in the future, a minimum number of a
branch circuits, well you have to remember that the general
use is now going to end the twenty twenty six.
It's going to be based on four va per square foot.
You're obviously going to use it outside dimensions of a
dwelling unit, just like you always did.
Speaker 3: But when determining the minimum number.
Speaker 4: You're going to be using that four va per square
foot now, but you also have to remember, based on
the question, you still have your small appliance requirements minimum
of two, You have your laundry, all these type of
other things that you still have to consideration. So in
a question about asking you how many branch circuits are required,
now you got to think there's going to be some
minimums that you have to have. Okay, So now it's
going to be again like I said, based on for
va per square foot.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, so that's that one. Let's see what
else do we got. Okay, the next I guess.
Speaker 4: The next couple we'll look at is expansion of AFCI.
So what we have is in the twenty twenty sixth edition,
we're adding some additional locations uh to the list in
two ten dot twelve B. So the first one that
they discussed in the meetings was is cam cam to
is actually a committee comment seven seven four to three,
and the committee had recommended that addicts be added.
Speaker 3: To the list.
Speaker 4: Okay, So it basically if you have a one hundred
and twenty volt single phase ten, fifteen or twenty brand
circuit supplying outlets or devices installed in the following locations,
shar I be protected by any of the means described
ten twelve A, which is a list of the different
options you have for AFCI protection. But in the the
brand circuits, and this is very much a brand circuit requirement.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's what you know.
Speaker 4: ARC fault is about the circuit, whereas GFCI isn't. T
ten dot eight A and B for example, are about
a receptacle.
Speaker 3: So addicts was added to the list.
Speaker 4: And so any of your fifteen, ten, ten, fifteen or
twenty eight brand circuits. And we'll talk why ten is
going to be irrelevant in the future. I'll talk about
that later. But anyway, these brand circuits, if they're supplying
are going into the attic into those locations, then they're
going to be AFC I protected. Now, reality is probably
most of the circuits that were going up and through
an attic anyway, we're probably going to a location that
required a FCI protection on that circuit anyway. So in
probably not a massively impactive change. Will it will change
is that if you are running a circuit up into
the attic for whatever reason, then it would have to
be AFC I protected. So I don't know that this
is that much of a big deal of a change,
but it is adding another thing to the.
Speaker 3: List, which again I don't personally.
Speaker 4: Didn't hear enough justification for it. When somebody says that, ooh,
a house burnt down because of a circuit in the attic,
I sometimes question the data because I'm looking at it
going okay, well, if there was was it installed when
there wasn't a requirement anyway to have it? So it
was complying at the time of installation. But ooh, we
have one fire all of a sudden, Now we're going
to throw addicts in the mix.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: But again, what's the difference in hallways? What's the difference
in closets? Right, what's the difference. So at the end
of the day, addicts has been added to the list.
And for those that are looking these things up, this
is CAM seventy dash eighty eight. By the way, if
you're kind of these are all available on NFPA's website.
This is not inside knowledge. This is all available publicly
available for you to look at. And so again you
can check check that out. But again that the effort
there was to get attics added to the list and
it succeeded. So addicts is now in the list of
two ten dot twelve Buh. So, any branch circuit that's
going to be running ten fifteen or twenty eight brand
circuit that's going to be going into the attic, then again,
if it's supplying outlets or device is installed in the attic, Okay,
not necessarily on a circuit that's not required to be.
I'm give you an example. So the circuit for the receptacles,
let's say for the bathroom receptacle circuit, Okay, that could
go up and through the attic and then down, let's
say into the bathroom. There's nothing in to ten dot
twelve B that lists bathrooms when it comes to like
receptacle applications. Okay, there's nothing in there that says, oh
well it goes through the attic.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no.
Speaker 4: This this says all one hundred and twenty vote nominal
single phase ten fifteen or twenty eight brand circuits supplying
outlets or devices.
Speaker 3: Installed in those locations. So this is going to be
germane to.
Speaker 4: Any lighting outlet that may be installed in the attic,
or any receptacle that's going in an outlet box that's
installed in the attic, that type of thing, which in
all honesty is probably probably being supplied by a circuit
that already has AFC OAR protection like popping off of
the hallway receptacle and just going up in the attic
or or you know, off of a bedroom or living
room or.
Speaker 3: You know, something like that.
Speaker 4: So it's probably already, but it just you know, it's
just making it very clear that it has to supply
now for those that run the home runs. Okay, very
common to people to run a home, run up there
and hit a lighting outlet.
Speaker 3: And also it may power smoke alarms throughout the house
through that circuit.
Speaker 4: And so again if it's going to go up and
hit an outlet, and again let's not confuse outlet. There's
it's old folks, you know, the style cups and the
the whack hackers or the uh, what's his name, Willie
Jackson whatever, Fakerson, whatever the hell his name is, who
believe they don't understand the definition of outlet. They still
don't understand the definition outlet. They try to get that
change that is woefully rejected because it's very important that
we understand that outlet is a very broad term that
we need to understand as professionals how we use it.
A receptacle is a device totally different. So anyway, so
in this case right here, it's just important to remember
that if that circuit stops at an outlet or device
in the attic, then it's going to be required that
that has AFCI protection on it. Again, that's not going
to have anything to do with a cable from a
circuit that's not required to have GFCI. I mean AFCI
excuse me, that passes up through the attic and then
down to wherever it's going to go. That's that's not
what this rule is about. So just kind of keep
that in mind.
Speaker 3: Okay, The next one stick sticking with the AFCI concept
here or the topic of afcis is CAM seventy dash
eighty nine.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 4: The last one again just keeping them together. The last
one was CAM seventy dash eighty eight. By the way,
so this is CAM certified amending motion seventy dash eighty nine.
Speaker 3: Now in this.
Speaker 4: One they seek to add the term bathroom lighting outlets.
So this is again now we're introducing the bathroom, but
we're only introducing the.
Speaker 3: Lighting outlets that are in the bathroom.
Speaker 4: So you're lighting over your vanity, you're lighting in your ceiling,
those type of things. Just the bathroom lighting outlets, not
your exhaust fan, that type of thing. Now, one of
the things here it may not be as impactful to
many people because they say, look, the bathroom lighting outlet,
I just pull it off the bedroom that's next to
it or the hall. Anyway, I don't have to run
anything special for the lighting. Okay, it's not like that's
got to be on a twenty brand circuit. Just like
the receptacles that are in the serving the basin or
the sink in a bathroom, we're not.
Speaker 3: Talking about that. So this is the bathroom lighting outlets.
Speaker 4: Now, how can this impact the receptacles in this room. Well,
how it would impact it is if you're using the
exception where I'm running the ability to be able to
do both the lighting and the receptacles inside of a
bathroom because that circuit doesn't leave that bathroom. Well, if
you're going to run that one circuit and pick up
the receptacles, which obviously have to be GFCI protected, but
it also now picks up the lighting outlets, that's going
to change the story, You're gonna have to go with
a dual function and utilize that which dual function is
going to cover GFCI and FC. That's an easy way
to do it, you know, you can. You can have
an a FCI breaker and have a GFCI receptacle and
still comply.
Speaker 3: They work very good together.
Speaker 4: I think something that was a little unnerving not and
I'm not being picky here and I'm not calling out anybody,
but when a manufacturer who's promoting these things and pushing
these and again the bathroom lighting out I don't you
know some obscure issues somewhere in the country where maybe
one of those circuits calls something and I'm like whatever,
I mean again, we're you know, we can't take one
incident and change everything, and sadly we sometimes do that
or people use it as ammunition to change the code,
and I'm like, dude, it's just one incident or an
isolated things are gonna happen.
Speaker 3: We don't need to change the entire code because of
something like that.
Speaker 4: But anyway, obviously something happened, and so they introduced this
bathroom lighting outlet.
Speaker 3: But what was concerning to me is when.
Speaker 4: The manufacturer a leading manufacturer of these devices came to
the podium and called the AFCI and GFCI devices. He
called them combination. Now, y'all been listening to me for years,
and y'all know that that is not what combination means.
It has nothing to do with AFCI and GFCI. Combination
has to do with the detection of parallel and series arcs.
That's big difference than something that would be like a
dual function that's functioning as a GFCI and also can
simultaneously function as an AFCI.
Speaker 3: Big difference in terminologies.
Speaker 4: But when you're going for credibility in the manufacturer is
the one that's at the mic pleading for expansion, you
would think that they would take the time to understand
that there's a difference between a dual function. There's a
difference between combination and they're they're not the same. And
in the context of the way he was speaking, he
was talking about AFCI and GFCI and he called it
a combination. Again, could be just a Freudian slip of
the tongue, But when you're a manufacturer and you're in
a room of experts, you you do lose a little
bit of credibility when you hear that, because you're like, dude,
you're supposed to be the expert for your manufacturer and
you're you're not sure what a combination really does. So
I'm just saying it out there. I didn't mean, I'm
not mean. I'm just saying it. You know, most people
just it would say, yeah, we know what they're talking about.
We're not going to argue that, I get it. But
some of us that are, you know, looking at these
type of things really kind of focus on that type.
Speaker 3: Of rhetoric and it's it's important.
Speaker 4: Okay, let's see here, what's the what's the next one
we want to look at. Okay, there were a couple
cams that were submitted to add a new conductor to
for things like the concrete and cased electrodes, and that
was a forty percent copper clad steel conductor that was
to be added to one of the to be the
actual connection. So y'all are familiar. When we use concrete
case electrodes, we use either four gauge copper twenty feet
in length, or we do rebar half inch diameter rebar right, okay,
so not less than half inch and one of the
one of the other methods was we could use bear
copper and before gauge and at least twenty feet. Well,
they had there was an introduction here to try to
get forty percent copper clad steel as a conductor to
be used with the connection for these concrete case electrodes,
or to be used as twenty feet of forty percent
copper clad steel conductor of four gauge, and that was withdrawn.
So that was a seventy dash thirty eight and again,
so that was for a concrete cased electrodes.
Speaker 3: The ability to be able to use.
Speaker 4: Twenty feet of forty percent copper clad steel no smaller
than four that was withdrawn. So that's not going to
be in our code for that, okay, So that one, that.
Speaker 3: One took place. Same thing for ground rings, there was.
Speaker 4: A proposal to introduce whereas ground rings you have to
have at least twenty feet of bear copper not smaller
than two gauge. Well, there was an introduction of a
CAM seven dash forty one that was going to introduce
forty percent copper clad steel as a conductor that could
be used as a ground ring. That was withdrawn as well.
So you're not going to see that it's going to
be just copper. Uh, and it's not smaller than two gates,
so we're talking about ground rings. That is two fifty
fifty two A four by the way, for those that
are following along, And that was based on a public
comment one ninety three, but the CAM was withdrawn at
the last minute, so you're not going to see that
in there. Let's see here, what else do we have? Okay,
the next one that we'll look at was a quite
lengthy debate that went on talking about search protective devices,
and I think the crux of this argument was that
the code panel feels that the if you had a
dwelling unit, whether it's a single family dwelling or not,
that two thirty sixty seven A requires that you have
SPDs at the service, right, So this one is under
two fifteen ninet eighteen A. So this means that if
I have a even if it's a single family dwelling,
and I have a remote service, means it's away from
the structure.
Speaker 3: It doesn't have to be on it or in it.
It can be remote.
Speaker 4: And I've done that before, and so you end up
having a feeder that's going to the dwelling, okay, but
the SPD is out at wherever the service is located,
that type of thing. And so the submitter during the
public comment stage nineteen thirty eight was the home builders
and they were like, well, we wanted to say surge
protection on the feeders to dwelling units of multifamily buildings,
so it could only be required for those multi family
which is three dwelling units and more that those were
the only ones that required the surge protection on the
feeder application. Now, remember two thirty sixty seven already requires
SPDs at the service. So his attempt, or the submitter's attempt,
was to say, look, you only need the SPDs for
the dwelling units that are supplied with a multi family building.
So basically, if I have a single family dwelling and
the service requires an SPD that they wanted at the
dwelling and in the code panel members or this. They
rejected this and said, look, if you add that of
the multifamily building, then that means it's going to leave
out those folks that have this single family dwelling that
has the surge protected device at the service which may
be remote from the dwelling and they're supposed to monitor
it and look at it and check it and do
all this kind of stuff. But if you did it
that way and you added that of a multifamily building,
then they would not be putting the surge protection device
at the feeder location at the dwelling unit, and then
they were worried that would raise.
Speaker 3: A safety concern. So here's my thing.
Speaker 4: I would prefer to have a search protected device out
there wherever the service is, even if it's remote. If
a SPD does its job properly, then I will know
every homeowner's responsibility to know where their service is it is.
You know, there's really nothing that they do to that.
It's it's just it's responsible ownership. Hell, they don't even
know what to look at when they go in their panels.
So really, so we already have a requirement for the
SPDs to be on the service and just because on
a dwelling unit it may be remote, because maybe it's
a large single family dwelling and it's not mounted on
or in, maybe it's a remote if it's required to
be in two thirty dont sixty seven to service. The
whole issue here is, I don't think and you already
have an allowance, by the way, in two thirty donts
sixty seven, to not do it at the service. You
can do it downstream, so you could already do it
at the feeder location. Obviously, if that service is supplying
that feeder is supplying the entire dwelling because it's remote,
then you do have options to do this under two
thirty dots sixty seven.
Speaker 3: So that's already covered.
Speaker 4: So the pro one that we have in two fifteen
eighteen A is is so much confusion where people send
me all the time and go, okay, it says feeder
dwelling units.
Speaker 3: So what happens, Paul?
Speaker 4: If I have a service outside and I'm feeding a
feeder panel inside, do I now have to put it
also on the panel inside? And so I think it
just becomes confusing for people, I'd be honest with you.
In the code panel, when they rejected this, their response
was that just like gfcies, just like breakers, they have
to reset, just like replacing batteries on smoke alarms, the
occupant has to have the responsibility.
Speaker 3: Well, I also.
Speaker 4: Believe that the homeowner has the responsibility to know to
where the hell their service disconnect is and if it
is remote behind a board twenty feet from the house,
behind a wall because they don't want it to be
in view. That's where the SPD goes, and they use
the exception to put it downstream at the at the
feeder panel downstream if they want, they use the two
thirty sixty seven allowance to do this, and that is
up to the designer. They can put it in the
service equipment or they can follow the exception. This, to me,
two fifteen needed to be more addressed to those situations
where the occupant does not necessarily have access to these things,
whether they're supposed to or not. For example, in multi
family dwellings where they really don't have access to their
service disconnect. They have access to what's in their unit,
but they can't get down into a locked equipment room
which is still accessible to qualified persons because.
Speaker 3: It's behind a key.
Speaker 4: Okay, those that need to get there, But I don't
think it, and I've seen it. Tenants do not have
access into those rooms. They have access to the panel
that's in their unit. So I think that it just
personally we missed the boat on what was trying to
be done here. I think if you're own a single
family dwelling. It is incumbent on you to whether your
panel service is not on your structure or in your
structure or remote And if that's where the SPD is,
then search protected device. Then it's on you to understand
where that is. It's your home. You need to be
fully aware of the systems that are in your home.
If not, you hire a licensed electrician.
Speaker 3: To do this stuff. You don't go screwing with it.
Speaker 4: Okay, if the SPD gets taken out, then again you
know you're gonna call an electrician. It's not something you're
gonna mess with anyway. Plus, again, you can negotiate this
with your electrician installs it. He could decide to put it.
If it's a remote service equipment, you have an allowance
into thirty points sixty seven to put it downstream.
Speaker 3: You do have the ability to do that.
Speaker 4: So to me, this one really should have been reserved
for the dwelling units that are where the occupant can't
really get to where the service would be. In my opinion,
so again, probably could have been a little bit better.
But we had a lot of people come up to
the mic passionate about.
Speaker 3: If my house burned down, if it wasn't for the
SPDs on the dwelling units.
Speaker 4: It was No, this was not removing the SPD requirement
for the dwelling unit.
Speaker 3: This was just clarifying the application. You already have SPD
requirements into thirty sixty seven and an exception to allow
it to be downstream in the case that they brought up.
Speaker 4: For the feeder. You already have that allowance in there.
So I didn't see this. This didn't make sense to me.
I guess somebody can explain why it's a big deal,
but to me it we already have the requirement forrespds.
Speaker 3: At dwelling units.
Speaker 4: So I think we needed to focus on where we
probably aren't going to have SPDs, and that is in
the individual dwelling units of multi family buildings. That's probably
where we're not going to have any SPD. I'm just saying.
So anyway, we already have that covered in my opinion,
But anyway, it's what it is, what it is.
Speaker 3: So that was CAM number seventy dash seventy.
Speaker 4: Nine for those that are following along, and so all
it did was just revert back to the way it
is was in the twenty twenty three no big change.
It just was trying to clarify what maybe the intent
of it was, but it just didn't make it.
Speaker 3: So is what it is? Okay.
Speaker 4: The next one that was quite a lengthy debate on
was talking about the EVSs and ground fault circuit interrupter
as well as special purpose ground fault circuit interrupters, whether
it's cordon plug or even hardwired. So y'all all are
familiar with what the code says right now, right with
ev s C. If I'm gonna let's just use a garage,
just keep it simple. If I'm putting a receptacle in
a garage, again to ten point eight, A is going
to require to be gfc I protected, okay, if you
put a receptacle in there, and so in this case,
it also says that all receptacles in six twenty five
fifty four have to be gfc I protected.
Speaker 3: So we get this question all the time.
Speaker 4: If I put an e VSE electric vehicle charger, let's
just say in a garage, let's just talk garages, keep
it simple, sweet, and I put a receptacle in their
in it needs GFCI.
Speaker 3: Protection on that recept for that receptacle.
Speaker 4: It does not matter what's built into the evse E,
whether it's CCID or whether it's its own ground fault protection,
it's typically not going to meet the Class A requirement,
which is the four to six million amps. And because
the NEC demands the protection of the receptacle, that means
that nothing you plug into it can take the place
of the requirement of the GFCI to be for the receptacle.
This makes sense, So that's why it doesn't matter what
the EVS E has. This is a receptacle rule, okay.
And so again all to ten doint eight a's are
receptacle rules. Uh six fifty four is a receptacle rule, okay.
So in the twenty twenty six provision it was introducing
to have the GFCI requirements to apply not just to
the cord and plugs for the receptacle, but also for
the hardwired ev SS Okay. So significant change because you
hear manufacturers all the time say we don't want our
ev S one a GFC I a typical Class A
gf C I because inner noncompatibility issues. But it really
has to do with the circuitry of the ev S
E and what it's looking for and its technology is
a little different, and I won't get into the minutia,
but what I will tell you is that you had
the major manufacturers of these ev s s there advocating
to say, look, we got problems with putting ev s
hardwiring it. We have real problems with the fact that
if you're going to require GFCI on it, then it
could cause issues. And we already know that charge point.
I've got a called the other day from a guy
says it just will not hold. It will not He's
trying to meet the code, and it says right in
there to hardwire it, not to put it on a GSCI,
because if you hardwire it, you don't have to comply
with the GFCI requirement because it's not a receptacle in
the garage, right, it's hardwired. So currently, in the twenty
twenty three edition of the NEC six twenty five fifty
four says all receptacles installed for the connection of an
EV charger, okay, electric vehicle chargers shall have ground fault
circuit and reprotection for personnel. That means again that nothing
built into the EVS can take the place of this.
This is a receptacle protection rule. Can people lose a
lot of sight of this.
Speaker 3: This is clear.
Speaker 4: If it's going to be a cord and plug to
a receptacle, ev S is going to require ground fault
circuit interrupted protection for personnel. The GFI or the GFP
or the CCID or whatever it is that's built into
an EVS cannot take the place of the four to
six million amp class AGFCI requirement that is governed by
two ten dot eight A as well as six twenty five
dot fifty four. Okay, So the attempt in the twenty
twenty six NEC was to expand this now and say, okay,
wait a minute, So let's give rules for cordon plug
connected for those receptacles. Obviously, cordon plug that are eight
one hundred fifty volt or less to ground. Okay, that's
your one twenty two to forty volte. That's all qualify
under that to have GFCI for personnel protection. So that's personnel,
not equipment protection like a GFP or something like that.
This is for personnel protection. Now, that's a typical class AGFCI.
Four to six million amps with the five millionamp nominal
is what we're all familiar with.
Speaker 3: That's what that's calling for.
Speaker 4: Now, you do have receptacles that might be greater than
one hundred and fifty volts to ground. Okay, well, that
is where they introduce what's called the special purpose ground
fault Circuit interrupter. Now, the thing to remember about those
is the millionamp threshold, okay, or not to exceed twenty
million amps for personnel protection on those. Okay, So the
ground fault trip current can exceed twenty million amps. That
remind you that they do make some that do google these.
They do have like class B type GFCIs that'll go
higher than twenty million ams. But this isn't critical because
it says it, look, if it's greater than one hundred
fifty volta ground, all receptacles rated greater than one hundred
and fiftyvousa ground shall have SPGFCI And basically that's just
a higher million am threshold.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: So you have these two requirements for the court and plug. Okay,
it's not a it's not dictating anything to do with
the amps or anything like that. It's very specific, okay.
It's just dealing with one hundred and fifty volts or
less to ground and then greater than one hundred fifty
votes to ground. Both when you're dealing with receptacles, you're
gonna have either regular class AGFCI or you're gonna have
to have a special purpose GFCI, which has a higher
millionam threshold. It's just not exceeding twenty million amps. Okay, Well,
what was introduced here for the twenty twenty six is
to try to introduce in the second draft stage here
was trying to introduce permanent wired AVSS, so it has
the same provisions that one hundred and fify volts are
less to ground and of course greater than one hundred
and fifty volts to ground. But these rather than talk
about receptacles, this one's now talking about outlets. And again
this is where I try to explain to people in
those those people that listen out there to these podcasts,
who are other educators who want to try to change
the terminology of outlets. I think it is very clear
here in six twenty five fifty four that when they
talk about receptacles, they're talking about devices. When they're talking
about outlets, they're talking about the actual EVSE even if
you hardwire it, because that is a point in the
system where the brand circuit is being run to this
piece of equipment which is an appliance, and that is
the outlet. Now that's where the power is being taken
from the building wiring to supply an appliance in this scenario,
the evsse okay, So that is a permanently wired hardwired appliance.
Speaker 3: Now you have two provisions here.
Speaker 4: It was permitted permanent wiring one hundred fifty votes or
less to ground.
Speaker 3: That says all outlets.
Speaker 4: Then that basically slang for saying hardwired EVSs rated one
hundred and fifty votes or less to ground. Installed for
the connection of EV charging shall have GFCI protection for
personal protection.
Speaker 3: That is not something built into the unit.
Speaker 4: That's not CCID, that is not the GFP or equipment
protection or something that may be.
Speaker 3: Built into it.
Speaker 4: This is requiring it for the permanent wiring. Okay, So
it all has to be protected in this case. So
there and also unless the manufacturers change something in how
they produce their protection, even in hardwired scenarios, they're going
to have to make sure that they have something that
is equivalent to a Class A for personnel protection built
into it. So it just means the manufacturers going to adapt.
Now greater than one hundred and fifty volts to ground again,
same language, same concept, same SPGFCI with the not exceeding
twenty million amps has to be built into the system.
Speaker 3: Okay. Now we do have some exceptions.
Speaker 4: This again is not going to be required for the
where you have DC charging, it's not going to require
the SPGFCI. That's a very high level. They don't really
have any device that's going to do that, okay. And
then of course outlets that are installed for electric vehicle
bi directional charging shall not require s p s p
g f c I.
Speaker 3: So you have some of these new equipment like the.
Speaker 4: I can't think of the name of the company that
makes these things, but they have the ones that are
designed now to be hardwired that are bi directionals not
only charging the vehicle, but can actually be used as
an energy storage system. Okay, those would not be required
to be s p g f c I, and typically
they're going to be obviously greater than one hundred and
fifty bolst to ground in those type of systems. Okay, uh,
the way they the way they get utilized.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: So anyway, at the end of the day, we have
these provisions now for hardwired applications. Now fast forward to
the NTMAM. So the NTMAM was saying, wait a minute,
manufacturers are very aware that there is this possibility that
they're not going to work, and that they're that that
the they're the inner connection or the compatibility between the
EVSESE on these permanently wired units are going to potentially
cause a problem that they are not ready to overcome yet.
This is CAM seventy dash one, seventy eight, by the way,
and there was quite a few of these that were
lumped together, so they're all pretty much targeting the same thing.
So basically, the motion was to reject the second revision,
which was seventy eight seventy eight seventy five if you
want to go look that up, and it was for
six twenty five fifty four.
Speaker 3: The CAM again is.
Speaker 4: Seventy dash one seventy eight, but it wanted to strike
the permanent wired provision. It wanted to lead the receptacle
application for all receptacles, but it wanted to strike all
of this other information.
Speaker 3: Now the reason for this and a lot of the manufacturers,
TESLA different ones came up to the MIC and said, look,
we know there's issues and the GFCI standards, which is
UL nine forty three, is working on a high frequency,
a bunch of other things, you know. The manufacturers of
the GFCI says, we already have the special purpose. Basically,
that's just.
Speaker 4: A higher million threshold by the way, they're just calling
it special purpose, but it's really kind of a like
a kind of like a limited threshold class B GFCI,
if you will. So anyway, they already have that. So
they were passionate about, look, we already have this.
Speaker 3: This is fine.
Speaker 4: The problem with it was that the manufacturers of the
EVSs came to the MIC and said, look, we are
going to tell you that our units if you hardwire them,
which is now a way you can do it without
GFCI protection currently in the twenty twenty three, if you hardwire,
you're going to have problems in our literature states not
to put it on GFCI if you hardwire it. So
it's one of those situations where we're going to create
possible issues here because the manufacturers a major manufacturers say they're.
Speaker 3: Not ready yet.
Speaker 4: I mean they won't work, but because of some different
it's not so much of an incompatibility thing. It is
how the evs's function and how they work and how
they work in the system that's causing the problem. They're saying,
it's not so much stop calling it an incompatibility thing
or or something like it. It's part of the way
that these evscs work.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 4: The Code Panel sent the message to them and said, well, no,
you're going.
Speaker 3: To fix it.
Speaker 4: And any permanently wired evs C in the future is
going to have to have gfc I protection or spgfc
I protection, depending on the volts one hundred and fifty
voltes or less to ground or where you exceed one
hundred and fifty volts or less to ground, whether it's
you know, permanently wired, you're going to have GFCI or SPGFCI,
and for the receptacles you're going to have GFCI or SPGFCI.
That's it. And so that was what was accepted. So
that's what they got. So it means that the manufacturers
of these evs e's are going to have to scramble
because once this twenty twenty six, they didn't put a
sunset date.
Speaker 3: They didn't say as.
Speaker 4: Of September first, twenty twenty nine, they didn't do any
of that. So that means that in the future it
resolves that question of whether or not you have to
have GFCI on A on the EVSs. The answer is yes,
and yes, you're gonna have to have it, whether it's
a normal Class A or an SP GFCI depending. Okay,
you're gonna have it, whether it's receptacles or hardwired. That's
where you're going. Okay, So those that want to look
that up, that is CAM seventy DASH one seventy eight
when it comes up, But that does encompass quite a
few other ones as well, so keep you in mind.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: So the next one that was important, I guess for
everybody out there is the ever controversial the GFCI requirement
on outdoor outlets. And remember, for those out there don't
know what an outlet is, it's a point in the
system where you take power from the building. It is
not a receptacle. That is a device that mounts in
an outlet box. But that does not mean that a
piece of equipment and appliance mounted on like an EVSE
or even a disconnect, which people could argue that's different.
It's still a point where you're taking it from the
building system. And then you're supplying some piece of appliance
or utilization equipment that is considered an outlet by definition. Okay,
so a good example of this was in two ten
dot eight F outdoor outlets. Again, don't confuse that with
receptacles alone. There's already requirements for receptacles in two ten
dot eight A outdoors as well as in B for
other than dwellings. Outdoors for receptacles already have that requirement.
This was where the people were. The one that's the
biggest about this is the HVAC equipment. So you come
out of the building and you hit a disconnect and
then it whips down to your HVAC equipment.
Speaker 3: We had a.
Speaker 4: Relaxation, an exception to two ten dot E F that
came about in order to say that look, GFC our
protection shall not be required for listed HVAC equipment. This
exception shall expire September first, twenty twenty six. Well, the
manufacturers of these HVAC systems, which generally have some kind
of effect where they generate a very high frequency and
they're uniquely designed in order to handle what some of
these HVAC units are generating. And then they were talking
about the hazards of an HVAC system shutting down and
all this kind of stuff. I all thought it was
kind of bogus because nobody's reported any type of issues
from that scenario that I'm aware of. Again, they try
to do some studies, but at the end of the day,
the question really was they wanted to extend this out
to the September first, twenty twenty nine and let you
not have to put GFCI protection on these HVAC units
outside under this exception number two.
Speaker 3: That was the crux of the of the change, right.
Speaker 4: And of course introducing other, you know, another exception in there,
trying to introduce that when it comes to listed Class
c SP GFCI protection, shat I be permitted for HVAC
the special class. Yeah, yeah, so there was, and there
was an informational note that talks about HF HF plus
do not trip it.
Speaker 3: So it's based on frequency. So that's what they wanted, right.
Speaker 4: Well, I tell you, the folks at the NIITMAM were
not buying any of it. The big argument was that
for three cycles now they've kicked this can down the road,
saying give us three more years, give us three more years,
give us three more, you know, give us another cycle.
Speaker 3: We'll solve this thing. We'll solve this thing.
Speaker 4: Understanding that UL nine forty three is still in the
works and they believe they have some resolutions to this,
but nobody knows when that updates come out. Nobody knows
if and when. So they really the members that were
voting drew the line in the sand and says, you
know what, we're not going to kick that can anymore.
You better solve this thing by September one, twenty twenty six.
So again they're going to have to solve it by
September first, twenty twenty six. They did not get an
extension for that exception to go through a one more cycle.
Speaker 3: It has to take place.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: They may appeal this. They still got time to appeal.
Speaker 4: I guess they could appeal it, because look, if they're
saying they can't do it, they can't do it.
Speaker 3: We have a problem.
Speaker 4: So and then we're back to where we started, where
the gscis keep tripping, and then people have to local
states will have to write amendments on their own to
try to give them time, and we nearly don't want
to go that direction. But anyway, the voting members said no,
I'm sorry. September one, twenty twenty six, get you acted together.
We're tired of in the can down the road. So
that's what you got.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 4: By the way, for those that are following along in
that one, that is that was let's see here which
CAM was that, by the way, that was seventy dash
one sixty. Okay, so seventy dash one sixty was the
one dealing with that application.
Speaker 3: So if you want to go look it up.
Speaker 4: And and by the way, it is in the NEC
two ten dot eight f the the committee comment that
this amendment is to this CAM is to is seventy
five eighty four and that that's a committee comment, by
the way, So if you're in link or or not
Link Terror View and you're looking up these different things,
that's the one that it's addressing. That's what the CAM
was trying to address. And it was all about the expansion.
Right now, we're still going to have the exception number three,
we still have the they're going to have the allowance
I believe for the Class C spgfc I protection for
listed HVC equipment.
Speaker 3: I believe that is in there.
Speaker 4: If it's Class C SPGFCI provided that type of thing,
and it's got to have a marking on it says
warning Class C SPGFC I protection provided for ACE HVAC units.
Speaker 3: So again that's not going.
Speaker 4: To be misconstrued, okay, as something else for something else,
So they're kind of making that very clear in that
application what's going on.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Now again, if you want to check that out in
your codebook, it's two ten point eight. And when you
get into the looking at the significant changes or you're
looking at what was proposed, that.
Speaker 3: Exception number three is gonna make it okay.
Speaker 4: So they do have an avenue here, and the manufacturers
will have to use a listed class C and it's
got to be marked as such so that doesn't get
used in something else because obviously this is going to
have a higher million threshold. It's obviously going to be
uh basically HF for HF plus in that type thing,
and it's not frequency specific that type of thing.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, so look for that.
Speaker 4: But other than that, September one, twenty twenty six is
when that exception basically the exception on all listed HVAC
equipment in general, the exception to not put it on
GFCI in.
Speaker 3: General is gone.
Speaker 4: Okay, so manufacturers will have to sort that out, I guess.
So again, that was CAM seventy Dash one sixty in
case you want to go read a little more into
the details of it. Okay, let's see what else do
we have here that we want to look at. Okay,
Another very high profile CAM that was submitted was CAM
seventy Dash one zero six, and this one was to
change the minimum size of conductors in the NEEC. As
you know, we have typically for decades now it's a
minimum of fourteen gauge copper in twelve gauge aluminum and
things like that. So there was an effort in the
code and so this was a CAM was to accept
the public comment one three nine five.
Speaker 3: Now one three nine five was a.
Speaker 4: Public comment to move it back to traditional minimum sizes
of conductors.
Speaker 3: That we've had for decades, right, y'all are familiar with.
Speaker 4: Minimum size was fourteen copper, twelve aluminum and twelve copper
claud aluminum. And so in the twenty twenty six second
draft they actually reduced it down to allow sixteen gauge
copper and to allow fourteen gauge copper claud aluminum in
the minimum size of twelve gage aluminum. So they reduced
the size of copper claud aluminum for the minimum sizing
used in a dwelling, and they red use the fourteen
down tow at sixteen, which would basically be utilized for
those tenamp brand circuits. And everybody's been talking about the
edition of the ten, fifteen, and twenty when you see
a lot of code references where it's now talking about
overcurrent protection and we're talking about protecting of conductors that
are you know, ten that can handle ten amps, right,
and so that's what a sixteen gauge copper and that's
what the fourteen gauge copper cloud aluminium, those type of
things as far as minimum circuits, well, then went to
the committee and so the room had a very spirited
debate debate on this, and ultimately it was very close
a two thirty six to two thirty one vote, but
they chose to revert it back to what it has
been forever, and that would be.
Speaker 3: It actually passed.
Speaker 4: The motion passed and it puts it back to require
that the minimum sizes are fourteen gauge copper and twelve
gauge copper claud aluminum and twelve gauge aluminum. So basically
it pretty much nullifies any anything that would allow you
to use smaller sizes on the normal.
Speaker 3: Branch circuits that are in a dwelling.
Speaker 4: So we're pretty much back to a fourteen gauge fifteen
amps application. And if you want to do it in aluminum,
you're going to use a twelve, and if you want
to do it in copper claud aluminum, it's going to.
Speaker 3: Be a twelve.
Speaker 4: So that's what took place, and that was CAM seventy
dash one zero six and that was three ten dot
five A And that's really about the minimum size of
conductors within the scope of the NEEC, So you're not
going to have branch circuits that are going to be
smaller than a fourteen gauge copper. Now, again, obviously there's
exceptions to this. When we're talking about the fixture wire
going down to illumina air. That's different we're talking about
when it comes to the building wiring. So you're gonna
have fourteen coppers a minimum for copper, twelve is a
minimum for aluminum, and twelve is a minimum for copper
claud aluminum, and that's how the vote went. It was
very close, but that's what it went in the for
the twenty twenty six. That's what you've got there. Okay,
all right, let's see what else. Oh, there also was
one I think it was submitted as well. This one
was for table three ten sixteen. This was CAM seventy
dash one zero five and this again was going to
challenge the the opacity tables and remove the sixteen and
the fourteen gauge copper claud aluminum in the sixteen copper
to remove those. And so I think what happened is
three ten three ten dot five A came up first,
and since you know, excuse me, yeah, the three ten
dot five A, which is CAM seventy dash one zero
six came up first. And since it requires that the
fourteen is the smallest for copper and twelve is the
smallest for copper clad aluminum and aluminum, that it made
the vote on the seventy one zero five irrelevant. Okay,
So there was no need to change the opacity table
because it's it's pointless.
Speaker 3: You could still it still might.
Speaker 4: It's still going to tell you that that a sixteen
copper is good for ten amps possibly it's might still
you tell you that a copper clad aluminum fourteen is
good for ten amps, but for use in building wiring,
it's irrelevant because we know what the sizes are now.
It can't be for copper, it can't be smaller than
a fourteen, and when it comes to copper clad illumino
or aluminum, it can't be smaller than a twelve.
Speaker 3: So it really makes it a moot point.
Speaker 4: And be honest with you, all those other areas that
talk about ten amps circuits really makes it a moot
point there. Anyway, moving forward with that. So that's the
significance of that one.
Speaker 3: And lastly we'll talk about the one that you heard
me talk about. This was CAM seventy dash ninety three.
Speaker 4: When it comes to that four to twenty two five
B list of where you're going to have the protection,
the GFCI protection on things like ranges, walmount ovens, countermounted
cooking units, clothes dryers, and microwaves. Okay, so kind of
convoluted in what happened here, it actually got kicked back
to Code Panel seventeen.
Speaker 3: We have to do a vote. I don't know the
reasoning for this.
Speaker 4: I actually missed this one because I had I had
a call I had to be on for one of
our customers. But my understanding is this has been kicked
back to Code Panel seventeen to review. But I also
heard that they also kicked it back to Code Panel
two and possibly them retain jurisdiction over it. And if
it does, is one of the things that's always a
problem is if two ten dot eight D says that
you have to supply these these branch circuits with GFCI protection,
then it really doesn't matter what we say in four twenty.
Speaker 3: Two dot five does it?
Speaker 4: Because if it's in one place and it's not in
the other, then it's always going to be an issue
where the AHJ is going to say, well, it's right
here in two ten dot eight. So the argument in
who has the jurisdiction over this? So I'm believing here's
what I'm believe. Here's what I'm thinking is the rationale
behind this one is I think that they want Code
Panel seventeen to agree with Code Panel two. They want
Code Penal two to be able to say, yes, we
want these appliances to be GFCI protected. And I don't
believe I still believe there's compatibility issues. I still believe
that UL nine forty three is a ways away from
giving us guaranteed non compatibility issues. Uh, and so I
can't really forg CAST right now where that's going to go.
So right now, you just have to assume that you're
going to have to protect those locations. Obviously you're in
the twenty twenty three you're going to have to provide
GFCI protection to those things.
Speaker 3: You're going to have to.
Speaker 4: Provide them to the ranges walmounted ovens, countermounting cooking units,
closed dryers, microwave ovens. You're just going to have to
do it until we get this all sorted out. And
I expect Code Panel seventeen to have to vote here
in the.
Speaker 3: Next couple of weeks on this.
Speaker 4: I would think based on the chair who submitted a
letter that they believe that there is significant compatibility issues
and we cannot get the answers from any individuals that
are on UL nine forty three. When it comes to
GFCI and what it's going to be, we don't know
when it's going to be published. So Code Panel seventeens
has a problem with putting things into the code where
we know that there's issues. Whereas Code Panel two, which
iviusly a lot of the manufacturers of these devices sit on,
they're like, no problem, it needs to be there. I
don't know if they're ignoring the compatibility issues they just
don't want to acknowledge them. I don't know, but we
know there's issues because, look, we have very knowledgeable people
that sit on these panels, and on seventeen we have
some individuals that are on those task groups that are
working on UL nine forty three and they say they're
not ready yet. They're just they're not there yet. There's
still the issues of this potential compatibility issue. But the
people on Code Panel two say, no, no, we're manufacturers.
We can handle this. We know we got the breakers
that'll do this or the devices that'll do this.
Speaker 3: But for some.
Speaker 4: Reason, that information is not making it to us at
seventeen with any validation.
Speaker 3: So again where we at on this one.
Speaker 4: We still are going to get a vote Code Panel
seventeen members voting members are going to vote and see
how that shakes out. And then it's hard to say
what's going to happen in Code Panel two, whether they're
going to retain that or not. H but we'll keep
you posted, all right, folks. On Coffee Hour, we'll be
talking about answering questions. If this generated any questions for
you that you want to ask me, please do me
a favorite. Join us every morning at eight am Monday
through Friday, Eastern time for Coffee Hour. We we'll chat
about this this week. We'll talk about changes. I can't
talk about some of the other ones here. You might
ask for other ones. If I wasn't in the room. Again,
Kevin Porter was with me. He's voting as well. I
was in and out because I had customer issues that
I was dealing with, and so it's just, you know,
kind of having to do business. So I'm voting as
I can, trying to make sure I voted on ones
that were very significant, and in and out and in
and out and trying to juggle many hats.
Speaker 3: But we did the best we could on this.
Speaker 4: So hopefully I covered the majority of the of the
key topic ones today and you know, we'll see what'll happen.
All right, all right, folks, till next time, stay it's safe,
God bless them.
Speaker 3: We'll catch you on another episode of Mastering the nec Piece.
Speaker 1: Thanks for tuning into another electrifying episode of the Master
of the ANEC podcast. We hope you're feeling more powered
up and ready to tackle the electrical world with the
knowledge and confidence you need to succeed. Remember, in the
electrical trade, knowledge is power, and we're here to make
sure you stay plugged into the latest insights, tips and
code updates. If you enjoy today's episode, don't forget to subscribe,
leave us a review, and share the podcast with your.
Speaker 2: Fellow electricians and industry pros.
Speaker 1: Until next time, keep your tools sharp, your circuits clear,
and you're my focused because here at the Master of
the NEEC podcast, we're all about sparking your success. Stay safe,
stay smart, and keep mastering the trade. From all of
us here at Electrical Code Academy, thank you for all
your support, and we will see you on the next
amazing mass through then EC podcast episode.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm