Electrical codes - Why the difference?

[djjsr]

This question is for the pro electricians.

I've often wondered why there is a difference in the electrical codes from town to town or city to city. Why is it that what is the best method of doing something is not the standard for everywhere?

Just my experience .........

When I lived in Pennsylvania, I was told by the electrical inspector that I could have a monkey do the wiring on my addition as long as I got a permit and the work passed inspection. The use of Romex was fine as long as it was properly installed.

I moved to a town in Indiana and my new house had metal conduit throughout. The code called for it, BUT also said that the homeowner could add or extend circuits using Romex. That made no sense to me.

I then move to California. Bought a new house and found that there was only 1 outlet in the garage and it was 15A. No problem. The breaker box was right there so one afternoon I ran some 12 gauge, popped in a 20A breaker and I was happy. Eight years later, I'm selling the house to move to Illinois and the home inspector asks me if the garage wiring was done with a permit. Nope, my ignorance of the local code caught up with me. I was told that, even though the job was done properly, the circuit had to be removed or get a permit and inspection.

So I move to Illinois and need more outlets in the garage again. I run down to City Hall for a permit and find that it's not necessary. Oh, ok, how about an inspection because I could be a hack and my work might burn my house down? Nope, it's not required.

Conduit or Romex? Contractor or DIY? Permit/inspection or none?

It seems like whatever are safest, most effective methods and materials in one place should be the same in another place. I always thought that's the purpose of the NEC.

So, why the differences?

 

[KenC]

IMO, it depends on the influence the local tradesmen and there organizations have on the rule makers.

 

[larry_g]

Welcome to the mix of politics and technology.

lg
no neat sig line

 

[Falcon67]

Because they (city) can. Our town is small and we're technically on NEC 2008. But we have no inspector and the city manager can't seem to produce any official docs showing where the council approved. If you want to comply, you schedule an inspection with a guy they use on retainer and he bills the city. The issue there is he's from another city and works from that perspective. He's flexible and after I told him we were on basic codes we got along fine. Most people ignore the hell out of it and the permit process. City brings that on its self - they can't even find the permit on our house that was built in 2001.

Go 20 miles east and they are on 2008 with amendments. One such amendment is that two grounding methods are required on any new construction. I asked a few pro sparky friends why and the answer was above - "because they can". Costs the pro extra time and that costs customers extra money. I have been told that they insist on a UFER ground with attachment to the foundation rebar - without regard to other methods used. No stub and connection to rebar, no pass.

Our house 20 miles west of there was wired by a company out of that same city. There was no grounding at all on the home. None, zip. Figure that out.

When it comes to building codes, those have to be modified for regional issues. Places out here can be on sand, expansive clay, rock - just depends. Foundation requirements have to be modified to fit the type of ground.

Also, some things get put in city codes because the locals see something missing that may apply locally. Once in there, it's hell to ever get out even as national codes change.

Then the inspectors are also human - some come with a bit of flex and practicality built in, some are just hard *** because they wanna.

 

[kbs2244]

Larry G has it.

Sometimes it is union "make work" influence.
In small towns it can be to protect "connected" contractors.
In some places it is a strong private property rights feeling.

 

[cowboyjosh]

About 4 years ago I built 2 houses, exact same floor plans, exactly 8 miles apart, 2 different AHJ's. I bet there were at least 30 things we had to do different on each house, from the footer, to the caisson depth, to one house requiring the UFER the other not. I can tell you that the one house that was built in Castle Rock, Colorado will NEVER fall down or experience structural issues just based on all the stupid **** that they required, that the county didn't on the house 8 miles down the road.

 

[Norcal]

The Ufer (CEE) is a NEC requirement, & the prefered grounding electrode, if somebody is doing new construction & does not coordinate a concrete encased electrode, (Ufer) before pouring, then they deserve to jack hammer acce$$....

 

[Falcon67]

The Ufer (CEE) is a NEC requirement, & the prefered grounding electrode, if somebody is doing new construction & does not coordinate a concrete encased electrode, (Ufer) before pouring, then they deserve to jack hammer acce$$....

True - But from what my friends tell me locally - if you use 20' of #4 copper fully encased (what I did), which is an approved UFER, the locals will still make you cut into the slab to connect to the iron bars.

 

[Roots]

This question is for the pro electricians.

I've often wondered why there is a difference in the electrical codes from town to town or city to city. Why is it that what is the best method of doing something is not the standard for everywhere?

Just my experience .........

It seems like whatever are safest, most effective methods and materials in one place should be the same in another place. I always thought that's the purpose of the NEC.

So, why the differences?

The purpose of the NEC is often misunderstood. The National Electric Code is an open-consensus document for minimizing the risks of electricity as a source of electric shock and as a potential ignition source for fires and explosions. As well as minimizing the propagation of fires and explosions, which is the purpose of it being under the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Article 90.2(B) The Code... results in installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessariy efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use. Which is why building "to code" is a bare minimum requirement.

Article 90.2(C) The Code... is not intended as a design specification or instruction manual...

The NEC in it's self has no legal binding, however in effect, it's absolutely binding as it's formally recognized by the American National Standards Institute and industry consensus. Which grant it's non-adherence as professional negligence and/or violation of general-duty clauses.

With it being non-binding, and local authorities being required to have regulation in place, a version of the NEC is typically adopted as the standard for communities. Due to political, personal, and perhaps local preferences, some communities modify or omit sections of the code to suit their taste. As well as add installation requirements etc. Additionally, the permit/inspection process varies significantly due to different jurisdictions having differing desires of control and budgets. Which is understandable to some extents, as a large apartment fire in Chicago or NYC does pose a more significant risk to the community than an apartment fire in rural Indiana or New Mexico.

 

[djjsr]

Thanks for the explanation, Roots. I certainly did have a misunderstanding of the code. I always thought that it was "law", you had to adhere to those minimum standards and they could not be changed locally.

I live in a small town that seems to be pretty lax when it comes to building and electrical codes. At first you might think this is a good thing because you can probably get away with doing some things without the sometimes hassling procedures of permits and inspections.

Boy, was I wrong.

What I'm finding is that not having strict requirements has resulted in unqualified people doing work that is sloppy and potentially dangerous.

I bought a business that has a lot of equipment and wiring. The previous owner must have been a "jack of all trades" and did a lot of wiring that is not to code. I've spent a lot of time and money having much of it replaced and it's not done yet.

I told an electrician that has done some of the work for me that once everything is complete, I'm going to have an electrical inspection done to be sure everything is ok. He didn't seem to be too crazy about the idea. I think maybe I'm using the wrong electrician.

 

[theoldwizard1]

It is even worse when hiring a electrician to "fix" minor violations found by private home inspectors.

Case in point. My BIL was selling a house and the private inspector caught the fact that there was 2 wires on one breaker screw. The simple solution is splice them with a pigtail to the screw. But it had to be done and signed off by a licensed electrician.

That sparky said "your ground is not to code". It was connected to a cold water pipe and the meter properly jumped which was code when the house was built. He wanted to install a continuous ground back to the meter with a continuous meter jump (current code) before he would "sign off".

BIL, got another sparky to inspect and sign off.

 

[Roots]

It is even worse when hiring a electrician to "fix" minor violations found by private home inspectors.

Case in point. My BIL was selling a house and the private inspector caught the fact that there was 2 wires on one breaker screw. The simple solution is splice them with a pigtail to the screw. But it had to be done and signed off by a licensed electrician.

That sparky said "your ground is not to code". It was connected to a cold water pipe and the meter properly jumped which was code when the house was built. He wanted to install a continuous ground back to the meter with a continuous meter jump (current code) before he would "sign off".

BIL, got another sparky to inspect and sign off.

Honestly, both of those cases make sense to me.

As the OP previously mentioned, he's found unqualified people working as electricians resulting in sub-par work. There are significant variances in municipality requirements for who can perform electrical work. While I'm a proponent of a residential owner being granted an exemption to perform minor electrical work on their primary residence. I also tend to favor requirements that when work is found to be sub-par, that a licensed electrical worker is required to repair it, as a demonstrated lack of knowledge and training has been shown.

Some municipalities have stringent requirements that all electrical work must be performed by licensed electrical workers. Others state that only a certain percentage must be licensed. In the worse case scenarios IMO, are those that only require one licensed person to be at the job or merely on the payroll of the electrical contractor. The few municipalities that don't even require training or licensing are simply inexcusable IMO.

As for the second issue. Some municipalities require that a licensed electrical contractor must bring certain things to the latest code, when work is performed. Some contractors will intentionally ignore some issues, and just hope they're never caught, in order to land a small job or cash. Others are much more concerned about their professionalism, licenses, and certainly their liability/insurance considerations. Than again, they're also businessmen, and an obvious infraction against the latest code is a great up-sell opportunity.

 

[Falcon67]

As for the second issue. Some municipalities require that a licensed electrical contractor must bring certain things to the latest code, when work is performed.

This is the local large city. You start working on a building and ZAP - you've got to add currnet ADD requirements, bring services up to certain code, etc. Kills a lot of jobs that would put food on people's tables. Sup-par stuff needs that for sure, but some things are just a little overkill.