# Idaho's opposition to arc fault protection



## Sonny1027 (Mar 20, 2009)

*Code Alert: Idaho, 02 February 2012*

NEMA > Standards > Field Representative Program > Code Alerts > Code Alert: Idaho, 02 February 2012 

*State of Idaho: Electrical Code Adoption effectively killed.
*
What appeared to be a positive move by the Idaho Electrical Board last August has turned into a dead end. At that meeting, after taking testimony from several individuals, the Board voted to forward a recommendation to the Legislature to adopt the 2011 NEC without amendment. There was a proposal to send two recommendations, one for full adoption, and one deleting the expanded requirements for AFCI protection. The intent was to give the elected officials the option of selecting either one. The second option was rejected because the Board did not want to be seen as being unsupportive of AFCI protection.

On January 31, 2012, the Idaho House Business Committee took up the adoption of the 2011 National Electrical Code. Previously, sub-committees from both the Idaho House and Senate took testimony on the proposed adoption, and both voted to reject the new electrical code. Because the Committees had only the single proposal, it was faced with either accepting or rejecting it in its entirety. With testimony in opposition from several contractors that grossly exaggerated the financial impact of expanded AFCI protection, plus stories of nuisance tripping, the sub-committees turned down the entire code. The primary testimony was from several electrical contractors and a few homebuilders.

At the Full Business Committee hearing, the Chairman asked for the recommendation of the subcommittee and the reason for that recommendation, immediately calling for a vote. There were several individuals in attendance whom had signed up to testify on the issue, mostly in favor of adoption, but were never given the opportunity to be heard. The vote was overwhelming to reject the Boards recommendation.

While it is still possible for the full Legislature to adopt the 2011 NEC, the reality is that it is a dead issue for at least another year. The Board can take this up again later in 2012, but the opposition to arc fault protection will likely not be less. In the meantime, Idaho will be without all the additional benefits and safeguards embodied in the latest and most up-to-date electrical code available.​*Submitted by Joe Andre:* [email protected]


----------



## btharmy (Jan 17, 2009)

Indiana also rejected arc fault, and they rejected TR requirements too. Indiana had the option of only rejecting portions of the code, just like Idaho, and that's what they did. I don't understand why Idaho culdn't make ammendments to portions of the code like other states and jurisdictions do. It's not like they would be the only ones to do it. There has not been any backlash from Indiana's decision as far as I am aware. I'm not sure Idaho's reasoning is sound in this matter.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

Good for both Idaho and Indiana!!

Maybe if a few other states actually had the backbone to outright reject these idiotic new requirements, the manufacturers might possibly see that purchasing legislation is not the way to higher profits.


----------



## Cletis (Aug 20, 2010)

*Smart*

Idaho is smart. I didn't know that:thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

micromind said:


> Good for both Idaho and Indiana!!
> 
> Maybe if a few other states actually had the backbone to outright reject these idiotic new requirements, the manufacturers might possibly see that purchasing legislation is not the way to higher profits.


truer words have seldom seen ascii....

~CS~


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I think it's just stupid when states don't adopt the code as is. I also think it't stupid when states adopt more stringent rules than the code. Things like chicagos EMT rules are just ludicrus.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

It screws the customer, not me. Actually, afci requirement is forcing people to do more work than they want, which is just profit for me. I dont see the problem.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> I think it's just stupid when states don't adopt the code as is. I also think it't stupid when states adopt more stringent rules than the code. Things like chicagos EMT rules are just ludicrus.


And mandating that the end customers test a product that is not ready for public use is a good use of the code making power???

As far as the Chicago area pipe code, it makes more work and profit for ECs, ...the same thing that many say about AFCIs. 

I expect that a real investigation into how many fires are prevented by the use of EMT and how many are prevented by the use of AFCIs would show that the EMT does a much better job and does not have side effects (nuisance tripping). Yes the cost of EMT is more than the cost for the AFCIs, but not by a lot.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm wiring a wood frame single family dwelling in emt right now

the owner is an old farm boy who has this thing about rats chewing wires

his new home sits not far from his old homes charred ruins / cellarhole

he's insistent rats were the cuplit

so how many fires do rats start?

one wonders.......

~CS~


----------



## mbednarik (Oct 10, 2011)

I was at a code update the other day and the instructor had a good point. You call your home one co and tell them you have deadbolts on your doors they will give you a discount. Tell them you have smoke detectors you get a discount. This is because they work and are proven. They don't give a discount for afcis. Probably because they don't work.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

One K&T biz found a ins co that signed off over an afci i had suggested in liue of an S type fuse

one afci for the whole 2nd flr apt, kitchen, bath

the inspector gave me a look much like this when i told him>>>>


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

mbednarik said:


> I was at a code update the other day and the instructor had a good point. You call your home one co and tell them you have deadbolts on your doors they will give you a discount. Tell them you have smoke detectors you get a discount. This is because they work and are proven. They don't give a discount for afcis. Probably because they don't work.



That doesn't make sense. Arc fault breakers work. Maybe the lack of training or education by some is the real issue.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Don, what makes you say the don't work and are untested. I've put in a ****load of AFCI's and had trouble with a few. I always found some type of problem. Normally a ground and noodle touching.


----------



## local134gt (Dec 24, 2008)

sbrn33 said:


> I think it's just stupid when states don't adopt the code as is. I also think it't stupid when states adopt more stringent rules than the code. Things like chicagos EMT rules are just ludicrus.


Chicago has nearly 4 times fewer residential electrical fires than the national average. And what's the biggest difference between our installations and the rest of the country? EMT


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> One K&T biz found a ins co that signed off over an afci i had suggested in liue of an S type fuse
> 
> one afci for the whole 2nd flr apt, kitchen, bath
> 
> the inspector gave me a look much like this when i told him>>>>


Is that Lieutenant Kert?


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

local134gt said:


> Chicago has nearly 4 times fewer residential electrical fires than the national average. And what's the biggest difference between our installations and the rest of the country? EMT


I would love to see the study on that. Most residential fires are caused by overloaded ext cords and faulty appliances. A home properly wired in NM cable is pretty darn safe in my opinion.
Let me guess, the study was done by the union.


----------



## local134gt (Dec 24, 2008)

sbrn33 said:


> I would love to see the study on that. Most residential fires are caused by overloaded ext cords and faulty appliances. A home properly wired in NM cable is pretty darn safe in my opinion.
> Let me guess, the study was done by the union.


The former Chief electrical inspector for the city of Chicago compiled data from the NFPA and presented it to try and get an exception to the NEC requirement for AFCI's. He wanted it to say that you could pipe a house in EMT and be allowed to use standard breakers rather than AFCI's. I'll see if I can get a copy of the data, I have it on paper but I don't care enough to type it all out for you


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> Don, what makes you say the don't work and are untested. I've put in a ****load of AFCI's and had trouble with a few. I always found some type of problem. Normally a ground and noodle touching.


 
http://www.combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf

~CS~


----------



## mbednarik (Oct 10, 2011)

My point was if they work the ins people would recognize them. Every house fire around here would be prevented by properly enforcing other codes already in place.


----------



## kbatku (Oct 18, 2011)

Washington State exempts them except in bedrooms.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

This is pretty much a repeat of the GFCI objections in the 1970's. The may reject AFCI's and TR's now, but eventually they'll adopt them. As the technology matures, and becomes more accepted as the normal practice by everyone else, they'll fall into line. Mark my words.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

kbatku said:


> Washington State exempts them except in bedrooms.


I believe (if I'm remembering correctly) that WA will be considering adopting some additional AFCI stuff next code cycle. But I didn't pay much attention in my RCW/WAC class.

In Oregon we're still on the bedrooms-only thing until July of this year, and then we're on with the normal 2011 NEC. Except dining rooms protected by a GFCI don't have to be arc fault protected. And extending or modifying existing non-AFCI circuits doesn't require them to be upgraded.


----------



## kbatku (Oct 18, 2011)

Yeah, I've heard rumors of that too. I haven't seen anything in print so I'm still holding out hope.


----------



## MarkyMark (Jan 31, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> This is pretty much a repeat of the GFCI objections in the 1970's. The may reject AFCI's and TR's now, but eventually they'll adopt them. As the technology matures, and becomes more accepted as the normal practice by everyone else, they'll fall into line. Mark my words.


I don't think it is quite the same thing. Evidence that GFCI's reduced the number of electrical shock injuries came out fairly quickly, as well as evidence they actually did what they purported to do.

The main similarity is the high rate of failure seen with the new technology, and the problems with installers troubleshooting a new technology. You are right, that these problems will go away with time.

Until evidence comes out that AFCI's save lives, and actually function as intended outside of the laboratory, it is going to be hard to convince people they are worth the extra $500.00 per house. The cost/benefit ratio is just not worth it to anyone except the breaker manufacturers.

In the 70's and 80's, I'm sure you had a lot of people bitching about GFCI's, but I do not think you had the type of lobbying by home building associations, against adopting the code, that you see now.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

MarkyMark said:


> I do not think you had the type of lobbying by home building associations, against adopting the code, that you see now.


I am sure they did, the 70s were not the middle adges. :laughing:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

BBQ said:


> I am sure they did, the 70s were not the middle adges. :laughing:



We'll ask Harry and B4T how the 70's were when they return.:laughing:


----------



## MarkyMark (Jan 31, 2009)

BBQ said:


> I am sure they did, the 70s were not the middle adges. :laughing:












Oh......really?


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

AFCI's are a waste of money. If you want to increase the safety in new houses we need to have inspectors actually inspect and enforce workmanlike installs along with really looking for violations.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Unfortunately, I also think the genie is out of the bottle, and the odds of these stupid things being universally adopted is much higher than the odds of them being repealed.

I've bitched about them here before, so no point rehashing it, but I still think they're a sham.

And if we _really_ wanted to increase safety we would require residential sprinklers. There are mountains of evidence to show they save lives. This isn't about safety, it's about profit.

-John


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> Don, what makes you say the don't work and are untested. I've put in a ****load of AFCI's and had trouble with a few. I always found some type of problem. Normally a ground and noodle touching.


Because they are not designed to detect and open the circuit for the most common type of electrical fault...a high resistance connection. The older ones at least had a chance to detect this type of fault when the heat caused enough damage to create a ground fault and the ground fault part of the AFCI would open the circuit (the part of the device that would detect your grounded to grounding conductor fault). At least one brand of AFCI no longer has a ground fault detection circuit. 

In addition even though we have been told that the combination type of AFCI detects and opens a "series arcing " fault, there is nothing in the UL standard that calls for any testing of the ability of the device to detect series arcing faults. There is also evidence that it is not possible to have a series arcing fault at dwelling unit voltages. We have a high resistance or "glowing" connection that the AFCI cannot directly detect. And lastly, the AFCI, doesn't even look for at the arc signature unless the current exceeds 5 amps.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> I would love to see the study on that. Most residential fires are caused by overloaded ext cords and faulty appliances. A home properly wired in NM cable is pretty darn safe in my opinion.
> Let me guess, the study was done by the union.


The fire cause stats that were used to show the need for AFCIs said that ~40% of the dwelling unit fires that were said to be of electrical origin were caused by faults in the fixed electrical wiring of the dwelling unit.
It is my opinion that most of these are from a high resistance or glowing connection...something an AFCI cannot directly detect.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

*The 'spin'*



Big John said:


> And if we _really_ wanted to increase safety we would require residential sprinklers. There are mountains of evidence to show they save lives. This isn't about safety, it's about profit.
> 
> -John


Consider the source.

http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/Resources/Fact-Sheets/Myths-vs-facts.aspx

Another industry initiative.
(Fine with me- I'm in the business )

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/research/firesprinklercostassessment.pdf


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

BBQ said:


> I am sure they did, the 70s were not the middle adges. :laughing:


Yes, but if you remember them, you damn sure are middle aged... Or maybe old aged.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> Yes, but if you remember them, you damn sure are middle aged... Or maybe old aged.








:whistling2:


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

"This is pretty much a repeat of the GFCI objections in the 1970's"

I really object to that line of reasoning. Such an assertion can be made against every opposition to every idea, good or bad, and is simply false logic.

Only recently, co-incidentally at the same time as the debate over the AFCI, has there been this push to adopt the NEC "without ammendment," and to adopt the "latest edition." For some reason, over my career, the various groups never felt the need to push for such blanket acceptance - until now. 

One gets the feeling that they don't want you looking too closely at the changes, or having to make their case to every AHJ. Well, dammit, that's the AHJ's job.

As for the AFCI .... that issue is far from dead- especially with the recent revelation that simple physical laws prove that there cannot be such a thing as an 'arc fault detector' at household voltages, any more than there can be 'anti-gravity' paint. (See the IEE paper on the topic).

As inconvenient it may be that we are divided up into so many jurisdictions, things were deliberately set up that way, and for a reason.

The reason was simply to limit the harm caused by a government that acted either in error or from malice. The drive towards "uniform" codes is directly opposed to this limitation on powers.

There are also the inherent weaknesses of 'one size fits all' reasoning. There are often different approaches, different ways, to the same result.

I applaud Idaho for not just 'rubber stamping' the request by some special interest groups.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Geez Leland, I had to sit thru six and a half minutes of that before the Foghat....:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

The homebuilders association of Minnesota filed a lawsuit back when the 2008 code was being adopted. They wanted to block the additional requirements for arc faults. It was strictly a financial issue. The association didn't want the added cost of the arc faults in a new home. They lost the fight. I suspect with Idaho it's the samething.


----------



## kbatku (Oct 18, 2011)

Chris1971 said:


> They wanted to block the additional requirements for arc faults. It was strictly a financial issue.


That is precisely why they were not fully adopted in Washington. Housing was in a slump (remember that, the housing slump?) and the builders were having a fit over anything that would add to the cost of a new house.


----------

