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. 

mapj1 said:

Morning Graham,

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

I was being very flippant ...and in no small way divisive ... with the statement!

I do appreciate exactly what you have said.

It is one of my roles to promote the standard and help bring wider understanding of how it is developed.

The purpose of my seemingly ill-conceived comment was, in fact, to wider the discussion and open up fully and clearly, that there is a 'process behind the process' where, as part of Eurpoean Harmonization, the UK were 'signed up' to international development work, and mandated to take on board what comes from that, unless we sort it out at the time it's being developed.

The IET, at least, does NOT hide this, and in fact published the following article by Steven Devine in Wiring Matters a few years back to explain the process: https://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/years/2019/77-september-2019/setting-the-standard/

This process has not changed due to BREXIT, and a couple of years back, the government signed us up to continuing with harmonization of standards with CENELEC.

It is the case, that if a change is in Amendment 4 has been agreed in an HD (CENELEC harmonized document), which has previously been out for DPC in the UK, any comments on those areas that propose to change the technical intent of the HD need to wait until work is done in the future on the HD ... that is, unless there is a real safety or compatibility issue in which case we can open that up and if necessary request particular national conditions for the UK.

Hope this makes sense, happy to answer any questions about the process.

mapj1 said:

Morning Graham,

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

I was being very flippant ...and in no small way divisive ... with the statement!

I do appreciate exactly what you have said.

It is one of my roles to promote the standard and help bring wider understanding of how it is developed.

The purpose of my seemingly ill-conceived comment was, in fact, to wider the discussion and open up fully and clearly, that there is a 'process behind the process' where, as part of Eurpoean Harmonization, the UK were 'signed up' to international development work, and mandated to take on board what comes from that, unless we sort it out at the time it's being developed.

The IET, at least, does NOT hide this, and in fact published the following article by Steven Devine in Wiring Matters a few years back to explain the process: https://electrical.theiet.org/wiring-matters/years/2019/77-september-2019/setting-the-standard/

This process has not changed due to BREXIT, and a couple of years back, the government signed us up to continuing with harmonization of standards with CENELEC.

It is the case, that if a change is in Amendment 4 has been agreed in an HD (CENELEC harmonized document), which has previously been out for DPC in the UK, any comments on those areas that propose to change the technical intent of the HD need to wait until work is done in the future on the HD ... that is, unless there is a real safety or compatibility issue in which case we can open that up and if necessary request particular national conditions for the UK.

Hope this makes sense, happy to answer any questions about the process.