National Electrical Code-enforcing jurisdictions are continuously active with their adoption processes. Entities that adopt and use the latest edition of the Code enjoy the benefits of a document that has been developed and maintained by qualified technical committees through an open consensus process.


When a jurisdiction adopts the NEC, it usually goes through a process that makes it law. Where the NEC is adopted legally, anything less than compliance is illegal. That is an interesting way of looking at it, and it holds true, especially in a court of law. Often, jurisdictions adopt the NEC without amendments because the jurisdiction trusts the NFPA and the Code-development process.


Some jurisdictions adopt the NEC with a few local amendments. Such modifications are necessary because of unique conditions and are usually more restrictive for justifiable reasons. However, modifications to electrical safety rules that lessen the established national minimum requirements can present liabilities and result in less protection for people and property than consumers deserve. The public voice is seldom heard or considered in a Code-adoption process. Consumers and unsuspecting public just expect their electrical systems to work and be safe. Adopting jurisdictions should prioritize safety.


Purpose of the NEC


The purpose of the NEC is evident in Section 90.1, the very first rule: “The purpose of the Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.” Compliance with the NEC results in electrical installations and systems that are essentially free from hazards. The NEC is the minimum set of electrical rules that must be followed for compliance and assurances that occupancies are safe from potential hazards. 


Consumers expect electrical safety, even when they are not aware of the rules that make residences and businesses safe. Jurisdictions should always treat the purpose of the NEC with the highest level of importance and value. 


No compromises


Jurisdictions should not compromise electrical safety with efforts to circumvent NEC adoption. The risk management departments of inspection jurisdictions strongly advise against compromising the minimum requirements of national standards they adopt, especially when the reasons are not safety driven and are usually indefensible. Often, the risk-management departments are unaware of this type of activity.


As safety requirements change, so does the cost of doing business. Successful and reputable organizations understand this concept and know the marketing benefits. When the costs of building materials increase, does the cost typically get passed on to the customer? I believe so. However, when building material costs decrease, does the customer also benefit from these discounts? Probably not. Organizations that are proactive and proficient in business understand the value of keeping current with safety requirements that ultimately affect consumers. 


Integrity of the NEC


When the NEC is adopted and enforced, the consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries. Any requirements deleted from the Code in the adoption process result in a compromise to already established minimums. It is risky business to selectively choose to delete new Code requirements for reasons related to cost (or other reasons that are not related to safety). This results in a compromise in the integrity of the Code. The benefits of improved protection far outweigh the additional cost to meet new or changing Code rules. 


The NEC technical committees have a big responsibility to act in the best interest of people and property. The result is a Code available for adoption and enforcement by building departments that has the integrity of the most extensive and fair development process in the world. Selective adoptions should not compromise the integrity of the NEC and the electrical safety it provides. It must be upheld without compromise to promote electrical safety within the home and beyond.


Summary


New and changing rules in the Code will require more ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) protection, expanded arc-fault circuit interrupter protection and enhanced protection for unsuspecting children from shock and electrocution hazards at receptacles. Efforts to circumvent these requirements are ongoing and should be carefully considered by authorities. There are risks in operating below the minimum electrical safety rules. Reminders through unpleasant statistics are readily apparent.


These minimum requirements for electrical safety are compromised when local adoption processes delete rules selectively and without reasonable substantiation. There should always be justifiable reasons to reduce the requirements of already-established minimums. Consumers deserve responsible leadership that prioritizes their interests and safety.