Correct way for second "Off Peak" meter

Originally Posted By: John Steinke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe T. thanks for the quick posting


As for others, I apologize for being "incredibly stupid," but we all have our faults ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

Without getting off on another tangent, well, "grandfathering" is the law, as our forfathers established in the very beginning.
Case in point: the house in the pic I submitted would fail in the following areae, if today's standards were applied retroactively to it:
-No receptacle in bathroom;
-No GFI in bathroom;
-no convenience receptacles in kitchen;
-no GFI in kitchen;
-No dedicated circuites to kitchen;
-No equipment ground;
-No ground rod;
-Only 60 amp service.

While claiming "safety" as an over-riding concern, that is a matter of opinion, with widely varying interpretations. For example, many countries ban all bathroom receptacles....while we require them...in the name of safety. Emotional appeals are unprofessional and make for bad law.

I'm sure that, deep in your heart, you agree with me.....or do you really advocate that everyone tear down their homes, and start over, every time the code changes?

If so, perhaps it should be pointed out that the "updatte it when it's worked on" doctrine is also a specific part of the UBC, with many parallels in other codes.
I'm also sure that you are not arguing that the "inspector" has free reign to ignore any code, law, regulation, or constitution, and replace it with his own doctrine, as long as its' in the name of "safety."


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
I'm sure that, deep in your heart, you agree with me.....or do you really advocate that everyone tear down their homes, and start over, every time the code changes?


I neither stated or implied that every house should be torn down every time the codes change. There are however, portions of the code which should be updated with change of ownership to ensure the safety of the occupants.

While maybe this is not the case in your area, around my area, the AHJ does require those upgrades when a change in ownership takes place.

Quote:
Without getting off on another tangent, well, "grandfathering" is the law, as our forfathers established in the very beginning.


Not really sure where you are getting your information on the legality of grandfathering but I can assure you that not only is it legal around here, it is a part of life.

I believe you are confusing law, with codes. First and foremost would be that not all state, counties and/or municipalities follow the NEC. The NEC is not law, it is code. Grandfathering does not have anything to do with law, it has to do with past installations according to the codes and such installations would be grandfathered according to the codes, not the law.

Further, the codes are the minimum standard, many of those same governments choose to improve those minimum standards. By choosing to improve those standards, I am certain they do it for the sake of safety, not to improve the financial status of local electricians or just so homeowners have to spend more money for homes.

Quote:
If so, perhaps it should be pointed out that the "update it when it's worked on" doctrine is also a specific part of the UBC, with many parallels in other codes.


As I stated, what you are referring to are codes, not laws. Sure the codes can grandfather past installations but as far as the AHJ is concerned, they can require past installations to be brought up to current standards.

Quote:
I'm also sure that you are not arguing that the "inspector" has free reign to ignore any code, law, regulation, or constitution, and replace it with his own doctrine, as long as its' in the name of "safety."


To be honest, I am not sure what that means. Could you please clarify what that means?


--
Joe Myers
A & N Inspections, Inc.
http://anii.biz