Shall we discuss the proposed changes in this discussion?
• Stationary Secondary Batteries
• New requirements and restructuring for Medical Locations
• A new section on Functional-Equipotential-Bonding for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Equipment and Systems
• Clarification regarding commercial protected escape routes
• Conductor classes
• Load curtailment
• Firefighters’ switches
• Low voltage generating sets
• Power over Ethernet (PoE)
• Energy efficiency and functional earthing
• An update to ‘Swimming Pools and Other Basins’
• New requirements for camping and caravan parks
• A restructuring of the guidance around Electrical Installation Condition Reports (EICRs)
I am particularly curious about the changes in medical locations. It seems Paul Harris will need to prepare a second edition.

A lot of this has already been out for public comment in the UK as part of international work and ought to be no surprise?

• Stationary Secondary Batteries
• New requirements and restructuring for Medical Locations
• A new section on Functional-Equipotential-Bonding for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Equipment and Systems
• Power over Ethernet (PoE)
• Energy efficiency and functional earthing

Morning Graham,

out for public comment in the UK ..... ought to be no surprise?

I think you are assuming that everyone in the electrical world is as connected to the world of the standards writers as you are, and based on recent conversations, including with a NIC assessor, as well as more or less normal practicing electricians, (for some value of  'normal' that has its usual meaning for electricians) I also think this is not the case.

Very few electricians seem to know there actually is a process for looking at the DPC copies of documents, and that they can and perhaps even should comment.  For many it seems that the first inkling something is being discussed  is when a new AMD or COP lands and they are asked to fork out for it. I don't know about you, but at that point more than once I have found myself in the odd position of explaining the thinking behind changes to rules regarding stuff I don't do for a living to those who actually do.

The audience on this forum is a little odd, and some are well connected both in terms of who they know and the level of tech-savvy, and process awareness, while others have just popped in for one question.  - this level of interconnection is not however the norm, and there are more folk who read this forum and don't ever join in - the noses on the glass looking in as it were.

It is also the reason I often quote a line or two of the relevant text, rather than just the reference or reg number, so that those who have not committed their library  to memory still know what is being discussed.

Anyway, this is only a mild chitter, but please realise that some of your readers may not be as 'with it' in the development process as you imagine, and may indeed not know what has been internationally discussed already (or that may be just me of course )!

Further, I see every reason for those of us that wish to,  to discuss it here - after all, if not here then where would be better? (and if I get involved I may quote very small sections as permitted under copyright law for the purposes of education and criticism, and arguably for the greater good of getting a better standard )

regards, and not intending to ruffle feathers too much,

Mike.

I agree. I wasn’t aware until a received the IET email showing the list of proposed changes. I certainly don’t know any of the details. 

I agree. I wasn’t aware until a received the IET email showing the list of proposed changes. I certainly don’t know any of the details.