All -

I am under the impression that the NEC is not a "leagal" document nor is it enforceable unless it has been adopted (codified)by the local municipality (city/town, county, state).

While most do, I do not believe that it is "required" by any law that the various municipalities do so.

Please, this is not a question as to the merits of the NEC, just a question as to what force of law it has.

If there are references to the contrary I would be interested in taking a look at them.


Thanks

Steve

You are right. The NEC is just a standard. Until some AHJ adopts it as law it has the same legal standing as the Boy Scout Motto.

Here in CA, (as are you skingusmc) Title 24 part 3, (with some enery related crapola in part 6) is the law of the land for the 2004 California Electrical Code, in the very least, effective 8/1/05. (2002 NEC with some changes) Cities and towns may further adopt or change things in that.
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24.html

I think in most, if not all jurisdictions, the NEC is adopted by local or state law.
For example, here's the NYC code http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/sec4a_ll_81_2003.pdf

Here in Virginia, we have the VUSBC (VA Uniform Statewide Building Code) which adopts the different model codes as ammended by the state legislature. We just recently adopted the 2003 VUSBC and have a year grace period to get used to it.

Some of the users I have run into on forums have said that where they live the NEC has never been adopted.

Other areas, like Baltimore County MD have local code that has been adopted along side the NEC, and modifies the code in specific areas.

Some areas have adopted the most recient version of the code, other areas on behind in addopting the most recient version.

The difference betweel model legislation and a standard is the AHJs right to reproduce and publish.
Model legislation is given away with all rights to use the language in a law. Things like the NEC get adopted but the language still belongs to NFPA.

Here in NJ the state will adopt the NEC, but they will make a few changes. The state doesn't change much and some of it is very small changes. For example, the state will remove the wording every where in the NEC where it mentions the AHJ and instead insert, "The electrical sub code official". That is a minor change. A major change is that the state does not require the use of AFCI's yet. Also we are still working on the 2002 NEC right now.

Under our system, nothing is a "law" unles it has been adopted by a governmental body; then it is "law" only as far as that body is concerned. For example, something being adopted in California has no bearing here in Reno.
Nor is any body required to adopt something complete; in the case of the NEC, most places have their own ammendments that they add to it; one common example is the prohibition against using armored cable.

The NEC is likely the most widely adopted code. At least one edition of it has been adopted by OSHA, so it has near universal application- at least as far as OSHA is concerned.

As a practical matter, if your work complies with both "trade practice" and almost any edition of the NEC, you're pretty sure to be in compliance with whatever the actual code is, wherever in the USA you are. The areas where you wuold be affected by recent changes, or local ammendments, tend to be fairly narrow in scope- and arguably of minor impact.
(As an example, our local code requires a 10 ft. ground rod. Put in an NEC compliant 8 foter, and not only are you unlikely to get caught- but you almost certainly have an adequate ground).

Generally, governmental bodies are independent of each other, and may not impose their views on other such bodies. That's why "funding" is used as a lever.

Once a code has been adopted as law anywhere, it effectively enters the public domain, and "belongs" to everyone. This matter, which has been the point of some recent court actions, is of some distress to the multitude of "model code writing" groups- who have managed to make quite a decent living publishing frequently updated codes.

All -

Thanks to everyone for your comments and thoughts.

e57 - I knew that CA had adopted the 2002 code and was wondering if it "applied" to cities/counties. It seems that these localities may choose to adopt it or not.

"Notwithstanding, the national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies."


Like this one... (Note it has not been changed to the current 2004 CEC with additions, the webmaster is slow...)
SF Code

Apparently they have switched over to the new code, but don't have it widley published yet. (Outside of thier office) So on my last inpsection, I asked what changed? The answer was "Oh, I don't know, but I can't hold you to them unless it becomes more available anyway, but simular to the same type of changes we made in years past."

Hillsbourogh hasn't up-dated thiers either... (Electrical starts on page 14)

Hillsborogh Code

(Expect Electure to pop in soon on this... Notably a pet peev of his in the past.)


From what I understand the State adopts a code and it is mandatory Statewide, (Spare Federal facilities) and Cities and Counties have to enforce it, but can add, delete, or change parts of it for local reasons. Like Hillsborogh says they have banned romex because they have a "Rat Problem". But MC is not allowed either... Conduit wiring methods only... IMPO They try to artificialy drive up building costs to keep undesirable people from building there...

SF has been sued and won about thier own state superceding codes. But has also given in on long standing arguments they have had in the past. Like 2 hour rated property line walls, one cable per hole in framing, and 10' ground rods only.

In my area (Chesapeake, VA), NEC is considered "law" in a roundabout way.

Chesapeake invokes VA state Uniform Statewide Building Code.

VAUSBC invokes IBC 2003 code.

And IBC 2003 references NEC 2002.

So, by law, NEC 2002 is required here, but it's far removed from actual state code.

"Any city, county, or fire protection district may establish more restrictive building standards than those contained in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), if the amendment is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions [Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5(b)]."

They must:
"Make an express finding that each change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions."

With a couple of hundred different local jurisdictions here in So CA, I welcomed this addition to the CA Code. It provides some consistency. What was required in one city could be a violation 10 feet away in another.
That was supposed to change.

The "Sovereign City of San Francisco", among others, believes it is above the law.

edited for typo




[This message has been edited by electure (edited 12-12-2005).]

"That was supposed to change."

Scott,
What makes you think its going to change? "change is reasonably necessary" - "climatic, geological, or topographical" Language like that gives them permission to do whatever they want!

Unless you sue them, and have 20X's more "Experts" than what they think they have in the courtroom on your side, nothing will change. Hillsborogh will still ban NM due to thier non-existant "RAT Problem", and demand conduit methods only, because they claim it can "be re-pulled after a fire". (I Had to scape myself off the floor when thier Inspector told me that...)

"Sovereign City of San Francisco", will still say NM, and NMC is an un-nessesary toxic hazard to firefighters in commercial buildings due to buling density, and higher fire-rating requirements for those buildings with zero clearance property lines. NMC will still be banned for all but in concrete slabs in all residences as well for the same reason. Etc, etc...

Towns (Some) along the coast of San Mateo will still outlaw Flex, MC, and AC due to "Corrosion" when it is concealed in an inslated weather proofed wall...

They'll all have they're own regional excusses.... And an "Expert" to justify it....

Bigger cities often have enough political power to make their own rules. Here in Illinois, there are a lot of laws and rules that say, "xxxx, except for municipalities of over 500,000 population"...that means Chicago can do what it wants to in many cases.
Don

Fortunately for skingusmc and myself, Los Angeles (population more than 3.5 million, nearly 5 times that of San Francisco, and more than 340 times the size of Hillsborough)) didn't make a bunch of stupid amendments of their own.

[sarcasm] San Franciscans should rest well and feel safe at night knowing that the high-legs of their delta systems are marked purple, instead of orange, as required by the "menial" NEC.[/sarcasm]
A violation could in its extreme result in an EC being fined, imprisoned, or both.

Instead of "going with the program" and cooperating with the State, SF's elected officials are busy doing things like THIS
It's no WONDER everybody thinks that Calfornians are all crazies.

Ridiculous and absurd



[This message has been edited by electure (edited 12-13-2005).]