I have not heard anything actually.

I think they will also put something in there about back-feeding your house from a vehicle now... There was a Ontario Bulletin about adding additional discos because of this if I recall.

I also expect that you may see some additional wording about "resiliency" in the construct of climate change / weather events (flood, tornado, snow, etc.) similar to the recent "flood plain" comments.

I know it is CEC, but I would like Ontario to get rid of the permit requirements for small device replacement (like-for-like) in non-owner occupied units (apartments, townhomes, rentals, group homes, etc.).

Cheers
John

 

I saw one proposition from lighting manufacturer's to try and limit the use of retrofit LED lamps on hazardous location fixtures. I think they saw that many of the owners of the thousands of fixtures that parts won't be available for soon enough, are finding approved options. The lamps are about $700 versus $2,500+ for a new fixture.

I'll see if I still have the email kicking around.

 

I saw one proposition from lighting manufacturer's to try and limit the use of retrofit LED lamps on hazardous location fixtures. I think they saw that many of the owners of the thousands of fixtures that parts won't be available for soon enough, are finding approved options. The lamps are about $700 versus $2,500+ for a new fixture.

I'll see if I still have the email kicking around.

I saw one proposition from lighting manufacturer's to try and limit the use of retrofit LED lamps on hazardous location fixtures. I think they saw that many of the owners of the thousands of fixtures that parts won't be available for soon enough, are finding approved options. The lamps are about $700 versus $2,500+ for a new fixture.

I'll see if I still have the email kicking around.

Back in the HID days, someone made a Metal Halide retrofit lamp that could be used in an HPS fixture. If I recall correctly, the manufacturer had to state that it could not be used in boom proof fixtures for good reason. This sounds like the same thing only different.

Regardless, I don’t know if this should be contained in our code book. The rules already cover use of approved equipment. This is a maintenance issue.

I understand that manufacturers love to flog their products and that manipulating the electrical code is a great way to meet sales quotas but this one is valid. I just don’t know how you’re going to prevent Joe Coveralls from using the wrong light bulb.

 

Found it..




1 / 2

Proposal to amend the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I
Section 18

Recommendation for Part l Ballot:

Subject 4735, Clarify lamp replacements in hazloc luminaires
(as there has been a significant revision to the Rationale from the original, it is included below the “Recommendation”)

(A) Revise Rule 18-010 as follows:
18-010 Maintenance (see Appendix B)
Special precautions shall be observed as follows:
a) unauthorized repairs or alterations shall not be made to live equipment; and
b) electrical equipment shall be maintained in its original safe condition.

(B) Modify Appendix B note for Rule 18-010
Rule 18-010
Leave existing note as-is and add the following paragraph after existing.
The assessment of luminaires for certification purposes includes the specific types and wattages of lamps permitted to be used in the equipment. Since the use of replacement lamps of different types or wattages (or both) do not form part of the originally certified product, the use of such replacement products would violate the certification conditions applicable to the product. As these lamps alter the original condition and certification of hazardous location luminaires, their use is not acceptable in such fixtures. Hazardous location luminaires are certified to either CSA C22.2 No. 137, CSA C22.2 No. 60079-1, or CSA C22.2 No. 60079-7. These standards exclude the use of self-contained replacement lamps in these types of luminaires. Lamp replacements need to follow the specifications of the manufacturer, which is normally listed on the nameplate. Any alternation of the fixture needs to be completed using a kit by the original manufacturer, certified for that purpose.


Rationale
(A) Rule 18-010 is revised as follows:

• For item a), the existing wording would allow for making unauthorized repairs or modifications to hazloc equipment as long as the equipment is de-energized, i.e. just turning the power off. Deleting “live” corrects this.
• For item b), the intention is to maintain equipment as it was certified and installed. The word “safe” is deleted, as there are several additional factors on maintenance that need to be considered for maintenance, such as operability and corrosion.

Title: Clarify lamp replacements in hazloc luminaires
Subject No. 4735	Chair: T. Driscoll	Updated: 13 January 2023

2 / 2
(B) As “safe” has been deleted from 18-010 b), any reference to “safe” in the proposed new text for the Appendix B note has also been removed. Since the certification standards for hazardous location luminaires do not permit the use of self-contained replacement lamps and installation of them invalidates the certification of the original product, their use is unacceptable.
Users often are unaware of this limitation and install compact fluorescent or LED replacement lamps in hazardous location fixtures which typically introduces an unprotected ignition source into the location. While some self-contained replacement lamps have been approved for hazardous locations to other standards, they are not approved for use in certified fixtures. This causes confusion in industry and may lead to an unsafe condition.
The standards require that the lamp type, size and wattage be permanently marked on the fixture. If an LED or CFL replacement lamp that is not marked on the luminaire is installed, it voids the approval of that fixture for hazardous locations and may (or likely) introduce safety concerns.
In explosion-proof or flameproof fixtures, when a LED or CFL is installed to replace an incandescent, there may not be a safety concern as the enclosure will provide a measure of explosion protection. However, if a high-power LED is used for replacement in a fluorescent or HID luminaire, modification of the fixture is necessary to bypass or remove the existing ballast. In addition to voiding the approval, this introduces another issue. The modification is not identified on the permanent label, and if during maintenance later, the originally approved lamp is installed, there is now a problem. Lamp geometry may also be an issue, as there is no way to confirm if the lamp will operate within its temperature limitations. The lamp may not operate correctly, have reduced life, or change parameters such as pressure piling.
For other fixtures, the enclosure does not provide protection as an explosion-proof or flameproof housing, and therefore there is a higher probability that a replacement lamp not identified on the marking, may introduce an unprotected ignition source into the hazardous location. The same issues exist for HID or fluorescent lamp replacements and future maintenance as identified above.
For Ex eb luminaires, the total construction of the fixture is considered, the components and wiring, and wire nuts are not allowed by the standard. In addition to all the above issues, if any modifications such as removing or bypassing a ballast do not use Ex e increased safety terminals, the fixture becomes non-hazloc, and therefore is a significant safety issue.
Note:
There are some LED replacement lamps available that were approved by one certification body as suitable for hazardous locations (some indicate suitability for use in multiple brands of HID fixtures without consulting those manufacturers). There is no data available to support such claims. In all cases, use of these lamps requires field modification which voids the fixture’s approval.
The CB’s response to questions from fixture manufactures in Canada and the US to this was “there is nothing in the CE Code or NEC that explicitly prevents them from certifying such products and it is up to the user to ensure the installation is correct”. Their response conflicts with Rule 18-010 b) since modifications performed in the field that alter the original construction cannot be verified. It also doesn’t address the concerns with subsequent maintenance, which may be performed by someone else that doesn’t understand what was done in the past or the potential of introducing an unprotected ignition source.

 

I've heard that voltage drop is getting an overhaul. Table D3 will be gone or majorly revised.

 

I'm SO mad about that! Our prof gets advanced notice so he can restructure the curriculum, and dropped that tidbit of info on us. On the one hand, it's fairly new info for me. On the other hand....ugh. That's gonna end up being months of work for nothing. 😭

 

I put in a change request to update section 64 to the new (2021) definition of high voltage (> 1060 Vdc). There's a couple places in section 64 that still refer to 750 Vdc like 64-203 and 64-904.

I also put in a change request to remove or clarify 64-210 9):
Type RPV insulated conductors and Type RPVU cables installed inside a building or structure shall be contained in a raceway.

It seems redundant considering 64-062 1):
Except as provided for by Rule 64-210, insulated conductors between dc renewable energy sources and an inverter, installed inside a building or structure, shall be contained in metallic raceways, metal enclosures, or cables with a metal armour or metal sheath.

 

Table 10A will be deleted from the 2024 code and table 6A to 6K will stay

 

They should be doing the opposite IMO.

 

I like the way we did it in the late80's and 90's.

Take 4 of your biggest Electricians with the biggest arms, and when they can't get more wires in the conduit, it's considered filled

🤭

 

Many electricians still do it like that today.

“MORE LUBE!!!!!!”

 

Q. How many #12 T90 conductors can you fit in a 3/4” EMT pipe?

A. One more

 

There's always room for 1 more

 

This amendment will require a pony panel for secondary suites, unless the main panel is in a common area.

Page Not Found | CSA Public Review System

publicreview.csa.ca

 

I like this one. It’s a good idea that a person living in a dwelling has access to the breakers feeding their space.

 

Heard today that the 2024 CEC will not be available until March of 2024. Pre-order starting November 2023

 

If the technical committees can learn lessons from Europe, we won't be seeing large batteries in dwelling units anytime soon.

German home destroyed by 30 kWh battery explosion

The German authorities have attributed the recent explosion of a 30 kWh storage battery in a private home to a likely technical defect. The incident has left the home uninhabitable, and property damages will likely be substantial, according to investigators.

www.pv-magazine.com

 

Canadian code says ESS can only be outside of a dwelling or in a detached garage, but Ontario allows them inside a dwelling unit. Single units no larger than 20kw but can have a total of up to 40kw. See bulletin 64-8-1

 

Pre sale now available.

Product

Canadian Electrical Code, Part I (26th Edition), Safety Standard for Electrical Installations

www.csagroup.org

 

It looks like high-voltage DC is going from 1060 V dc to 1500 V. Nice. It was 750 V in the 2018 code, so its doubled in 2 code cycles.

Guide to the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I: Section 36 - Electrical Industry News Week

Section 36 – High Voltage Installations applies to installations operating above 750 volts, which require special rules and conditions because high voltage arcs can travel through free air and along the surface of some materials.

electricalindustry.ca

 

They should slow down because the quebec version for 2021 isn't even out yet.

 

Quebec is always behind by a couple of editions. They have not even adopted the Canadian 2018 book yet.

The Quebec 2018 code is actually the Canadian 2015 edition with a few Quebec amendments at the beginning.

 

We are at the other end of the spectrum. Ours is adopted on publication.

 

@joe-nwt

We are at the other end of the spectrum. Ours is adopted on publication.

Ontario typically adopts the new Canadian book one year after publication. Of course they make their own book that is the Canadian code with Ontario amendments built in.

FYI
Ontario (ESA) is a non for profit, but it’s interesting that every three years when they come out with their code book they make record amounts of $$$$🤔🤔

 

Ontario typically adopts the new Canadian book one year after publication. Of course they make their own book that is the Canadian code with Ontario amendments built in.

FYI
Ontario (ESA) is a non for profit, but it’s interesting that every three years when they come out with their code book they make record amounts of $$$$🤔🤔

From what I understand a non profit can pay whatever it wants in salaries as long as it conforms to the financial transparency laws for non profits. I was told that there are a number of other convenient loopholes. I saw in a google search that many non profits are exempt from paying income tax as well.

I agree that they should probably skip the 2018 code.

 

Here's a couple changes from the Consolidated Memorandum of Revisions:

Revise Rule 12-116 to read:
5) Fine-strand conductors shall terminate in
a) connectors identified for use with fine-strand conductors; or
b) standard connectors with the use of ferrules.
6) Ferrules shall not be used on solid conductors.

Revise Rule 12-304 to read:
12-304 Location of insulated conductors and cables
1) Insulated conductors and cables supported on or in close proximity to the exterior surfaces of buildings shall
a) be installed not less than,
i) 4 m above finished grade across driveways to residential garages;
ii) 5m above finished grade across driveways to commercial and industrial premises; and
iii) 3.5m above finished grade normally accessible to pedestrians only b) have a clearance of not less than 1 m from the windows, doors, balconies or porches;
c) not pose a hazard to persons, and
d) be suitably protected where exposed to mechanical damage.

There's a large number of changes to section 64, that I'm still digesting. The disconnecting means requirement in 64-060 has been completely rewritten. Most of it seems good, and some ambiguities and contradictions have been clarified, but I'm already seeing ambiguities and redundancies that create new questions.

The full memorandum can be downloaded after registering a CSA account.

Sign in | CSA Communities

community.csagroup.org

 

Here's a couple changes from the Consolidated Memorandum of Revisions:

Revise Rule 12-116 to read:
5) Fine-strand conductors shall terminate in
a) connectors identified for use with fine-strand conductors; or
b) standard connectors with the use of ferrules.
6) Ferrules shall not be used on solid conductors.

I have already run into this a couple of months ago. I was planning on using #4/0 welding cable to bridge a gap between two lugged devices because welding cable already existed in the panel and I had it on hand, but the inspector told me that if I want to use fine-strand cable I would have to either put a ferrule on it or tin with solder before putting it in the lug.

 

When ferrules are not available will it still be acceptable to use copper tape like a 3m 1181? It's typically used in mining applications so I'm told. It was a specific request made by esa on some DLO the terminated to a mechanical lug on one project we had above ground that was subject to the federal mine regulations. Never got a chance to ask the code ref.

 

This has basically already been code for years. I noted 12-406 about 10 years ago and have been using copper shim around DLO in mech lugs and on the portable power cable cam lock ends ever since. I have come accross several inspectors here in alberta that check for this. It does not get inforced on small conductors like MTW but most definately on big power cable. you should be using crimp lugs, ferrules or the copper shim to wrap the strands in mech lugs.

 

 

Ya i got the Alberta bullitin email this morning that Alberta would adopt 2024 on April 1, 2025

 

Will take a while for Ontario because they like to make their own book $$$$$$$$$$

 

Index?

 

Of course.
last time that was just an error and only on the first print. They quickly fixed it on the second print and the 2021’s all came with an index from that point on.

 

Couple things I noticed so far.
-No table 10
-No table 11, new table 11A and 11B (similar to table 19’s layout)
-new rules for bonding conductor size for service equipment. Shall be based off of the ampacity of the conductors using table 16.
-New rules in section 12-500 area for Non-metallic-jacketed-cable other than NMD and NMWU. This pushes all the old NMSC rules up with different numbers.
-26-724 changes to “outdoor and garage receptacles for single dwellings”. Single dwellings now need at least 2 outdoor receptacles on opposite sides of the dwelling.
-68-072 from the Ontario book is now in the CEC. Disconnecting means for pool pumps, spas and hot tubs
-table D3 completely changed

 

-table D3 completely changed

"pf" designations in the columns isn't defined overleaf. I can only think "power factor" (?)

 

I just received two copies today.
That came as a surprise, because I had cancelled the order in November when I realized that I had ordered the Canadian code and not the Ontario code. Ooops. So I cancelled it, and they gave me back my money, but they still sent it to me. I called them up and they are in the process of deciding whether it is worth the courier charge to get them back. If I don't hear from them before tomorrow then I will open them up and check them out.

I was STARTLED to find they each came with a Quick Reference. I thought that was an Ontario thing because we don't have the handbook.

 

They have all (both CEC and OESC) come with the quick reference since 2006.

Ontario doesn’t have a handbook because the amount of different codes in the Ontario book compared to the Canadian book is very low. Definitely not worth making a handbook for.

I wouldn’t expect Ontario to come out with their code book for at least a year from now.

 

Why do you have 2 and I have none? I’m a Canadian too.