NFPA70/NEC committee contemplates a complete renumber

The Code Making Panels for the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code met for
the last couple of weeks (Jan 15-26, 2024).

One proposed change for 2026 is "Keeping the NEC Relevant - Is Now the
Time to Modernize?"

https://peg.atis.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NEC-Correlating-Committee-White-Paper-4-6-2023.pdf

It mostly just renumbers/reorganizes the NEC. Old time electricians will
grumble because almost every code number changes.

However,the proposed change also takes data systems out of Chapter 7 -
Special Conditions and separate Chapter 8 - Communication Systems.
Chapter 8 is currently a stand-alone section traditionally maintained by
communication utilities.

In the U.S., for the last 40 years code enforcement officials mostly
ignored Chapter 8 and communication wiring installation practices. POE is
changing that. Power over Ethernet has morphed data networks into integrated
power, lighting, emergency, life-safety and communication systems.

It will be interesting to see how code enforcement officials reacts to
moving the stand-alone communication wiring installation practices into
the general enforcement part of the NEC.

Click to expand...

Jay Ashworth said:

Stolen from Sean Donelan's post to my network backbone cabal mailing list:

Click to expand...

MNicolai said:

Would be great if they provided a spreadsheet or something so you could run a search on the prior citation and easily pull up its new section -- assuming the citations are generally the same and just in different spots. If they're fundamentally rewriting chunks of code as part of this effort to reorganize, then things could get out of hand quickly. I would be a little concerned that with a major restructuring, municipalities may try to put it off to avoid confusion and kick the adoption can down the road. Hopefully they plan on engaging with municipalities so this doesn't instigate delayed adoption of the updated codes.

Re: Communications cabling
Low-voltage cabling is definitely the step-child and historically ignored by AHJ's. They'll check that it's adequately supported and appropriately rated for the environment, but beyond that it doesn't get a lot of attention unless it's an egregiously poor quality installation. Lot of systems also fly under the radar -- like every high school football field where the speaker cabling from an interior rack room is supposed to be surge-protected out to the speakers but almost never is. That's somewhat out of necessity though because it's nearly impossible to find large enough surge protection for stadium-grade loudspeakers and the alternative is running fiber to a remote amplifier in a conditioned, outdoor enclosure.

POE has been under the spotlight for the last couple code cycles and it's time for a proper reckoning. Not a lot of people look that closely at it because bundles of data cabling have been the norm for years, but there's a growing risk that the bundles are drawing so much power (and heat) that if you bundle too many POE cables together, you could melt the bundle. PoE++ is becoming more common and supports up to 100W per port or 71.3W to the endpoints over...23AWG...pairs of conductors. Making the requirements for bundled POE cabling more prominent and clearly defined within the code has value in spite of whatever moderate pain and suffer the reorganization of Chapters 7 and 8 would inflict.

Click to expand...

STEVETERRY said:

This change will be a reorganization of the chapters and articles for the 2029 edition of the NEC. No technical changes will be created by this reorg. Technical changes for 2029 will only occur through the current system of Public Inputs and Code Panel actions. The "entertainment articles" (518, 520, 522, 525, 530, 540) will remain under the control of Code Panel 15, even though they will have new numbers.

It will be a pain for a while as we learn the new structure, but will be a net positive for an NEC that needs to cover a huge number of new technologies into the future.

Click to expand...

Jay Ashworth said:

I just reread the PDF, and while it never *quite* says there will actually be substantive change, it sure tries really hard to imply it; you're saying that's all that is? They want me to think that the payoff for the restructuring will be substantive, but it won't, really?

Click to expand...

STEVETERRY said:

Substantive change will come over the next 20 years or more, enabled by the structural updates.

Click to expand...

Jay Ashworth said:

I just reread the PDF, and while it never *quite* says there will actually be substantive change, it sure tries really hard to imply it; you're saying that's all that is? They want me to think that the payoff for the restructuring will be substantive, but it won't, really?

Click to expand...