Thank you, I did not find any posts. Please set up a new subject for the 2014 NEC. I am sure some here will want to know about the changes. I also have information concerning my State of Massachusetts revisions now accepted. One interesting item is that 110.24 is deleted.
We had a thread started but not any real activity. My guess is there are so many people still stuck on the 2008 that 2014 seems pretty far off.
California is going to start digesting the 2011 next month. I need to reload the 2011 back on my computer after a restore, & buy a hard copy, much easier to look stuff up in a real book. The 2008 changes got me POed & quit buying them as soon as they came out, need to restart that practice.
110.24 was new in 2011. It is interesting that when we adopt the 11, the 14 will already have voided a rule we adopt.
I have said this many times, they really need to stretch out the NEC cycle to at least 5 years and maybe more like 10. They can fix the glitches with TIAs. We have too many jurisdictions that never even get to see the new cycles before proposals are closed. This is particularly bad when you have a unified state code that incorporates the NEC and the "I" codes, which are on different cycles. Toss in the normal bureaucratic inertia and you have a state being a whole cycle plus a little behind on the day of adoption.
The NEC has been morphed from improving safety to improving the economic performance/ market development of various interests -- the ability to find flaws in the Code is becoming ever more marginal as experience is won.
Perversely, the trade is force feeding technical improvements before they are ready. The smart logic behind AFCI breakers has already evidenced troubles in some devices.
It's better to adopt the medical motto: do no harm.
If there's one ambit that I'd like to see advanced -- it's further expansion of EUSERC.
Founded to stop Poco fatalities -- at the SERVICE -- EUSERC has greatly expanded since 1945.
I hope and pray that its design mandates become ever more widely adopted.
I've lost track of the SERVICES who've been posted here at ECN that are not EUSERC compliant.
Getting too creative with SERVICES -- in an attempt to pinch pennies -- drastically increases risk -- all the way around. So much so, that I am constantly amazed that EUSERC standards have not rolled all the way across the nation.
From this day forward, the single most advantageous change is to shift from overhead to underground residential power distribution. It's outside the Code -- because it's a Poco issue, but it's where many troubles lie. Now that horizontal boring is so cost effective, one can only hope that the shift is finally made -- even in older neighborhoods.
As for Code updates: dang if I have never come across any Code headache worthy of my submission. Millions of man-years of engineering seem to have exhausted all of the obvious mistakes.
I must commend the Committee for cleaning up the Code -- making it much more accessible to rapid resolution in the field.
The international codes are largely written to trip up the North American code writers -- on purely economic grounds.