ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Recent Posts
Stray voltage in Bait tanks ?
by gfretwell - 06/24/21 01:08 PM
Where is Everyone?
by Jim M - 06/23/21 10:04 PM
Happy Father's Day!
by Bill Addiss - 06/19/21 04:16 PM
A Risky Setup
by timmp - 06/18/21 08:08 PM
Conduit over Vinyl Siding
by Jim M - 06/16/21 08:30 PM
New in the Gallery:
2020 - 2021 Winter Project
2020 - 2021 Winter Project
by Bill Addiss, April 29
Garden 2021
Garden 2021
by Bill Addiss, April 26
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 9 guests, and 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Here is the present 2008 Revision Cycle Information:

Proposal Closing Date:

Report on Proposals (ROP) Date:

Comment Closing Date:

Report on Comments (ROC) Mailing Date: 2/23/2007

Revised Edition Date: 2007


1. Get rid of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" throughout the NEC, they violate the NEC Style Manual

2. Put all FPN's in a separate ANNEX. Not enforceable anyway

3. Change the term "Grounding" and "Grounding Methods" in most Titles of Parts to "Grounding and Bonding Methods", etc., to catch up with the new Article 250 Title

4. Change the word "unless" to except throughout the NEC.

5. Put all Residential requirements in a separate Article, like Article 212.

6. Change NM, NMC, and NMS to NM-B, NMC-B, and NMS-B everywhere in the NEC, currently this is the correct way these products are identified.

7. Add 70E for "Electrical Safety in the Workplace" as a NEW Article in the NEC entirely!

I am willing to go anywhere to sit with any group to discuss these and other items that have been suggested in the past, let me know.

Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 354
pdh Offline
Joe: Would the residential requirements you suggest going into a new Article 212 include the existing 210.6? If so, how would you reword it?

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
210.6 Branch-Circuit Voltage Limitations. The nominal
voltage of branch circuits shall not exceed the values permitted
by 210.6(A) through 210.6(B).

(A) Voltage Limitations. In dwelling units the voltage shall not exceed 120 volts, nominal, between
conductors that supply the terminals of the following:
(1) Luminaires (lighting fixtures)
(2) Cord-and-plug-connected loads 1440 volt-amperes,
nominal, or less or less than 1⁄4 hp
(B) 120 Volts Between Conductors. Circuits not exceeding
120 volts, nominal, between conductors shall be permitted
to supply the following:
(1) The terminals of lampholders applied within their voltage
(2) Auxiliary equipment of electric-discharge lamps
(3) Cord-and-plug-connected or permanently connected
utilization equipment

Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 354
pdh Offline
So you would delete (C) and (D)?

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749

The voltages in (C) and (D) are not used in a dwelling unit, so Yes they would be deleted when 210.6 was used in any residential areacode.

I did have a copy of the 2005 One and Two Family Electrical code published by NFPA, but gave it away. I am not sure if it is available on line as a download.

I would use it exclusively for electrical inspections on those properties instead of the others now available.

Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 354
pdh Offline
Neither (A) nor (B) (because they refer to 120 volts between conductors) permits circuits or loads with 240 volts between conductors (120 volts to ground). So that leaves (C) as the only means to permit that. Leaving out (C) would thus be making those circuits not legal.

Additionally, some very large homes do have higher voltages. I've heard of a few being supplied 480Y/277 by the utility (obviously reducing it down to 120 volts to ground with a transformer for the majority of branch circuits), and tapping the 480 for a few things, such as large water heater systems (25 kW and up). Is there a good reason to restrict these to 240 or 208 volts?

Also, if this is going into a new article just for dwelling units, why not just merge (A) and (B) together? They only seem to be separate now so (A) can apply only to dwellings while (B) applies everywhere.

[This message has been edited by pdh (edited 05-10-2005).]

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 138
I use the 2002 NEC Handbook. I like the FPN's right where they are. They may not be enforceable, but they are great for clearing up confusion.

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
Are you supporting the change that would replace the term equipment grounding with equipment bonding? Will the term ground fault be simplified to fault with a definition of fault as unintended contact between current carrying conductors and non current carrying conductive elements of the structure?
Tom Horne

Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749

No. I will continue to stay with the work that was written by Soares.

Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
Heres my input on the new book.

Put the table they are explaining on the same page!!!!!!

You read a page about a table, and the table they are talking about is 2 pages before or after. How hard is that to proofread?


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman


Member Spotlight
Belmond Iowa US
Posts: 44
Joined: August 2005
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 10
Popular Topics(Views)
280,481 Are you busy
213,569 Re: Forum
200,439 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5