14/2 14/3 romex in residential construction

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
It's called FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT, which is about the same thing and has to be considered for each bill where there is a cost burden that the bill will place upon the affected people or person or state or local government, below is just one I could find fast which is not any building code bill:


HB 1056
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
hurk27 said:
Wow here there is an economic cost burden analysis that has to be presented on any law set to be adopted by the house or senate, it is in every house bill presented if it applies to the bill. I'll see if I can did one up that shows it.
Click to expand...

hurk27 said:
It's called FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT, which is about the same thing and has to be considered for each bill where there is a cost burden that the bill will place upon the affected people or person or state or local government, below is just one I could find fast which is not any building code bill:


HB 1056
Click to expand...

Even if not required, cost impact will be a concern of any opposition to a bill and it will come up during legislation anyway.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
hurk27 said:
It's called FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT, which is about the same thing and has to be considered for each bill where there is a cost burden that the bill will place upon the affected people or person or state or local government, below is just one I could find fast which is not any building code bill:


HB 1056
Click to expand...
So is Indiana one of the states that took the AFCIs out of the NEC? There is no way that the AFCI rule would be supported by a real cost benefit analysis.
 
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
don_resqcapt19 said:
So is Indiana one of the states that took the AFCIs out of the NEC? There is no way that the AFCI rule would be supported by a real cost benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

There are a few things that were removed as un necessary cost burdens on home owners like TR receptacles since not everyone had at home children, receptacle by HVAC equipment in a location where one is already required such as outside or basements, they felt that HVAC guys can drag out an extension cord like everyone else, still required in attics and crawl space if they have HVAC equipment in them.

As far as AFCI's yes they were removed back in the 2002 cycle mainly because the manufacture could not prove to the state they functioned as advertised, again an added cost with very little to nothing in benefits, from what I'm being told at state level is we will most likely jump from the 2008 to the 2014 for the next cycle, so the above amendments will be with us for a while unless a mid-term adopting happens.
 
Last edited:
S

Strife

Senior Member
480sparky said:
Always been allowed in Iowa. I know Chicago prohibits all NM specifically, not just 14.
Click to expand...
I know, I know, no unions comments.
But here it is glaring us in the face: the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.
Chicago doesn't allow NM and/or MC (from what I heard) because....... GUESS WHAT?
The unions.
Obviously it takes longer to pipe than it is to install MC, so...., more job security for union workers.
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Strife said:
I know, I know, no unions comments.
But here it is glaring us in the face: the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.
Chicago doesn't allow NM and/or MC (from what I heard) because....... GUESS WHAT?
The unions.
Obviously it takes longer to pipe than it is to install MC, so...., more job security for union workers.
Click to expand...

My only response to that is - if it is true I am not suprised. If a group is willing to spend enough lobbying legislators they have a good chance of getting what they want. What kind of group is going to oppose this and have enough knowledge to present a convincing enough opposing legislation?

My understanding is that has been the rule for quite some time. If it were to be introduced today how easy do you think it would be to pass it? It was likely a big accomplishment for those that favored it when it was passed whether it was union or not.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Strife said:
I know, I know, no unions comments.
But here it is glaring us in the face: the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.
Chicago doesn't allow NM and/or MC (from what I heard) because....... GUESS WHAT?
The unions.
Obviously it takes longer to pipe than it is to install MC, so...., more job security for union workers.
Click to expand...
The code in Chicago does not limit who does the work...like all codes they apply to everyone. It will take any electrician a bit longer to do an EMT install as compared to an NM install. I fail to understand how a rule like this is only a benefit to union workers....it adds manhours to both union and nonunion jobs.

In the overall cost of the house, the NM rule adds a couple of percent, at most. The cost increase runs 15 to 20 percent over NM for the electrical portion of the cost. I know you non-pipe guys don't want to believe this, but it is fact. They do take some liberties with the EMT support rules.

I am a member of the electrical commission for our town. Our code does permit NM for houses, but not for commercial occupancies and we had a engineer for a large commerical job (electrical of about $2,000,000) try to get us to change the code so they could use MC cable. They had the contractors bid the job with both MC and EMT. There was less than 5% increase to move from MC to EMT. We did not change our code.
 
lefty

lefty

Member
Location
Oklahoma
OKC

OKC

John120/240 said:
Did OKC petition the NFPA to disallow 14 AWG ? I don't know for sure, but my gut says OKC

just does their own thing. In another thread about AFCI's Wayne-hurk27 states that Indiana

has omitted requirements for AFCI. Did Indiana consult with NFPA ? Probably not. Does Indiana

have a higher percentage of home fires vs other states ? This reminds me of speed limits.

Eastern states had a maximum on interstates, Nevada & Montana were safe & prudent my .02
Click to expand...

Yep, OKC just does their own thing, their other one is an EGC in conduit of any kind is required. I believe it should have left well enough alone, and adopted the code as is.
 
I

iblittljn

Member
14 gage vs 12 gage for residence

14 gage vs 12 gage for residence

I don't recommend using 14 gage NM, even though permissible.
Excluding the NEC requirements for 12g/20Amp circuits, the choice of using 14 gage vs 12 gage might be economic. In my area of virginia 14-2 is $0.19 per LF while 12-2 is $0.29 per LF. 14 gage wire is perfectly fine. But: If one assumes a minimum steady-state flow 24/7/52 in all 120v circuits (due to modems, computers, instant-on TV's, clocks, microwave clocks, surge strips, VCR's, music centers, games, battery charges that are always plugged in etc), one can the use Ohm's Law to calculate power loss/wasted energy comparing the 2 wiring methods. Resistance per foot can be obtained from manufacturer specs. I did a back of the envelop analysis and found that in my scenario the extra cost of 12 gage cable versus 14 gage was returned in less than 8 years. And since the longevity of a house could be 30 or 40 years or more, lots of money will be saved over the life of the house - just in wasted energy due to resistance.
 
Minuteman

Minuteman

Senior Member
Location
The Sooner Nation
Oklahoma City #12 AWG

Oklahoma City #12 AWG

As stated earlier, OKC has had a code supplement with a minimum of #12 for years. THHN and NM. I'm so use to it that I use #12 even in jursidictions where I could us #14, unless I'm compeating on a bid. Funny though, the Big Box Stores sell a lot of #14. I guess to the hacks and DIYs.

It stands to reason that a house with #12 would have fewer circuits than one with mostly #14, less home runs, less AFCIs, so I would say that I could wire a house with #12 cheaper than one that has both.
 
Last edited:
stickboy1375

stickboy1375

Senior Member
Location
Litchfield, CT
Minuteman said:
As stated earlier, OKC has had a code supplement with a minimum of #12 for years. THHN and NM. I'm so use to it that I use #12 even in jursidictions where I could us #14, unless I'm compeating on a bid. Funny though, the Big Box Stores sell a lot of #14. I guess to the hacks and DIYs.

It stands to reason that a house with #12 would have fewer circuits than one with mostly #14, less home runs, less AFCIs, so I would say that I could wire a house with #12 cheaper than one that has both.
Click to expand...

You only gain 600 watts using #12 vs #14AWG per circuit... using # 12 is simply a waste of material, money and time...
 
G

Greg1707

Senior Member
Location
Alexandria, VA
Occupation
Business owner Electrical contractor
I like 14/2

I like 14/2

Perhaps, I should not admit this. I prefer to work with 14/2. It is easier work with and reduces issues with box fill. It is easier to connect the wires to switches and receptacles. Do this make me a hack?
 
mccayry

mccayry

Senior Member
Location
Tennessee
#14 is ok here. If Im not mistaken sweetwater, tn does not allow #14. I personally only use #12 for new construction, but I only do custom homes. No specs here. The only time I use #14 is if Im adding smokes in an existing home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top