Electrician (ELE)

Date: 1/1/2019 12:00:00 AM
Module: 030202f
Version: 6
Page: 11
Comment: On page #11 the modules states "A power factor between 85% and 90% is usually considered to be a good power factor. It is not often economically sound to correct the power factor beyond 90% due to the larger size of capacitors required." I feel that this is a misleading statement as at the start of the objective on page #10 it says "Generally, a power factor below 0.9 results in higher charges." Since the supply authority is going to penalize me if my power factor is below 90%, I am going to target my power factor correction to a value above 90% typically 92-93% or so, not 85 to 90%. Can we please consider this change?
Status: Implemented

Date: 3/27/2023 4:03:06 PM
Module: 030203a
Version: 24
Page: 34
Comment: The answer to self-test question 1 should be b) a controlling device. The answer is backed up on page 19, first paragraph, second sentence. It should be noted that on page 16 in the bullet points near the bottom it says "Connect the control devices to load devices, which respond to those changes, on the right hand side." Using the word "respond" in this sentence can also be thought of as "react" which would change the answer to the above question to d) load device (currently the answer, but in my opinion incorrect). To reduce confusion I would recommend changing this sentence on page 16 to "Connect the load devices on the right hand side of the schematic." The details about load devices are already correctly written in the load device section.
Status: Implemented

Date: 11/27/2023 1:23:06 PM
Module: 030203c
Version: 24
Page: 20
Comment: Top paragraph CEC should read CE Code Figure 22 this photo identifies 10 V terminals as low voltage and not extra-low and the other connection wires that are likely 120 V as high voltage when as in Section 0 of the CE Code these would be low voltage. It does not seem to me to be over 1000 V.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 11/27/2023 1:34:19 PM
Module: 030203d
Version: 24
Page: 17
Comment: Table 1 uses the term 'low voltage' for what appears to be referencing a 24 V thermostat. This should be 'extra-low' as indicated in CE Code Section 0.
Status: Declined

Date: 11/7/2022 1:44:38 PM
Module: 030205a
Version: 24
Page: 24
Comment: The answer to question 11 of the self test is incorrect. The answer given is if they used the smaller range for the purposes of 8-200 1) a) iv) where we should be using the larger range for this and the smaller range being treated as an additional load. The correct answer should be 36 950 W.
Status: Implemented

Date: 9/27/2022 4:26:22 PM
Module: 030205a
Version: 24
Page:
Comment: Self test question: spelling error by electric vehicle energy management system page 24: question 11 and 12 answers should be 36'950 Watts and 154 Amps
Status: Implemented

Date: 9/27/2022 4:14:46 PM
Module: 030205a
Version: 24
Page: 15
Comment: 2 parts to this. Question 1.b should be changed and structured the same as question 2.b. to include 'calculated' and 'according to Rule 8-200(1)(a)' Also I would maybe remove the word 'minimum' from both portions of the questions as the main question is asking for the minimum ampacity of the service conductors.
Status: Implemented

Date: 1/1/2019 12:00:00 AM
Module: 030205a
Version: 7
Page: 17
Comment: On this page it is caimed that if all conductors of the same size are used the only table you use is 6. However, I think it should say " the only table you need to use is 6". This is because in appendix b for rule 12-910 it claims that an alternative method may always be to actually calculate with tables 9 and 10. The problem is that nowhere in the code book does it say you must use table 6, it simply says it is permitted. In the field, in a rral world situation, you eould always calculate off tables 9 and 10. 6 is simply a shortcut.
Status: Implemented

Date: 11/23/2023 9:24:26 AM
Module: 030205b
Version: 24
Page: 4
Comment: Figure 3 - The combination panelboard should be showing 4 spaces for future overcurrent devices according to 8-108(1)
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 11/23/2023 9:22:33 AM
Module: 030205b
Version: 24
Page: 3
Comment: Figure 2 - The combination panelboard should be showing 4 spaces for future overcurrent devices according to 8-108(1)
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 11/21/2022 1:56:00 PM
Module: 030205c
Version: 24
Page: 13
Comment: Figure 1 does not show enough empty spaces for the revisions to 8-108, and requires some grounding and bonding edits as follows: -Remove the two unidentified branch circuits near the bottom of the right hand side of the panel and replace the breakers with empty spaces. -Use the correct ground symbol instead of a triangle. -Move the grounding conductor to a different screw than the brass (orange coloured) screw. -Move the service raceway bonding conductor from the neutral bar to a separate bonding connection.
Status: Implemented

Date: 9/27/2022 4:57:41 PM
Module: 030205c
Version: 24
Page: 3
Comment: Does figure 1 fulfil the requirements of 8-108(1)? I'm wondering if the module can be better written to more clearly explain how tandem-style breakers relate panelboard spaces or branch circuit positions. Tandem-style breakers have become ever more popular with larger homes. Especially for lighting and general receptacle circuits. The 5th sentence on the page states that a tandem-style breaker allows two circuits to be connected to a single space. Does that mean 2 spaces = 4 spaces for overcurrent devices (to me it doesn't). It just seems a little confusing with regards to two-pole spaces and figure 1.
Status: Implemented

Date: 11/23/2023 9:31:14 AM
Module: 030205c
Version: 25
Page: 11
Comment: In Figure 4, they are showing number of conductors between devices. Rule 4-022(2) should be included in this figure and also show that the identified conductor is required at the switches.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/14/2024 3:22:44 PM
Module: 030205c
Version: 25
Page: 17
Comment: I made an error in my comment on this ILM regarding the self test question about panel spaces. 28 ccts is not enough, you need a minimum of 31 not 29 as my earlier comment suggested. I was thinking it was an apartment not a house which made the number of spaces required even higher.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 3/13/2024 12:55:51 PM
Module: 030205c
Version: 25
Page: 17
Comment: Question #1 self test Either the answer is wrong, or some justification is needed for the number of spaces required in the panel. The text at the bottom outlines the need for (17 total) circuits for the counter plugs (3 ccts) as well as all the other receptacles, lights, and dedicated circuits listed. The appliance schedule lists 3 - 240V appliances which each need 2 spaces (6 total) The fridge, and washing machine, each require their own ccts based on rule 26-654 a) and b) (2 total) This adds up to 25 circuits so far A microwave and dishwasher are also listed in the appliance schedule but in order for the answer given (28) to be correct there is only one circuit left for us to use and still have the 2 remaining spaces required by code. The dishwasher should generally get it's own circuit because a) most are direct wired and the breaker is used for the disconnect for that appliance and b) based on it's demand it would not be connected to any of the circuits listed. The microwave could be a counter top model and plug into one of the counter receptacles already listed but most microwaves have their own enclosure which would not allow them to be connected to a counter plug, and again because of its demand, it is not feasible to connect it onto a general use receptacle circuit. If the location of the microwave was given as a counter top model the answer given could be correct but this is such a rare occurrence in new construction that it needs to be stated. There is not code that specifically states that the dishwasher and microwave need their own circuits, however when we are given a number of general use receptacle circuits already accounted for we have no idea what the loading of those circuits is, and therefore adding 11.7A or 13.3A to one of those circuits could easily overload them, it also would not be feasible to put them together on a circuit unless you either interlocked them so you couldn't wash dishes and microwave at the same time, or connected them to a 30A circuit which would again be unrealistic.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 11/21/2022 2:02:11 PM
Module: 030205d
Version: 24
Page: 15
Comment: In Figure 11, move the service raceway bonding conductor connection from the neutral bar to the bonding bus, as per Figures 9, 10, and 15 in this module.
Status: Implemented

Date: 3/30/2022 8:55:00 AM
Module: 030205e
Version: 22
Page: 25
Comment: This comment was posted 5/26/2021 with a status of "implemented" but same mistake exists in newer Version 22. ILM refers to 4-024 2) b) which is now 4-018 2) b) in the 2018(24th edition) and 2021(25th edition) CEC.
Status: Declined

Date: 9/27/2022 5:16:48 PM
Module: 030205e
Version: 24
Page: 33
Comment: Objective two activity answer 1.c is incorrect as is. It suggests that the termination temperature of 90 deg.C is based on the conductor insulation. Either the question on page 10 should state the termination temperature as 90 deg.C or the answer should be AWG #1/0 as per default termination temperature of 75 deg.C (rule 4-006).
Status: Implemented

Date: 9/27/2023 12:11:57 PM
Module: 030205e
Version: 24
Page: 13 & 33
Comment: Pg13: Question is based on objective 3 and should read "Calculate the total demand load for the parking lot feeder." Pg33: The answer is calculating the EV demand towards the service and main feeder conductors (as would be used in objective 4). T-38 is only used when calculating the service and main feeder conductors. The calculation should add all EV loads at 100%. 10 x 4000w.
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 9/26/2022 11:24:03 AM
Module: 030205f
Version: 24
Page: 7
Comment: Bottom of figure 6 refers to a rule removed in the 2018 code book 10-624. The better rules to refer to would be 10-210 d) or 6-406 and 6-408
Status: Declined

Date: 9/26/2022 11:19:51 AM
Module: 030205f
Version: 24
Page: 7
Comment: Figure 6 is an out of date image referring to a 2015 code rule 10-624 4). There is no longer a code rule 10-624. The better code rules to refer to may be either 10-210 d) or 6-406 and 6-408
Status: Implemented

Date: 10/11/2022 9:15:53 AM
Module: 030205g
Version: 24
Page: 3
Comment: typo halfway down the page. 'Tap conductors from Table 2 No. 10 AWG RW75 @ 30A' should read be "No.12 AWG RW75 @ 25A" as per the explanation below on the page.
Status: Implemented

Date: 12/5/2023 9:31:51 AM
Module: 030205g
Version: 25
Page: 19
Comment: Question #10 - The answer should be "d) within sight and within 9 m" from Rule 26-212 (2)
Status: Approved for Review

Date: 10/14/2022 9:55:51 AM
Module: 030205h
Version: 24
Page:
Comment: Update needed. Page 4, 9 (question 8) and 29 (answers to question 8) refer to rule 22-102 for the definition of 'watertight', or when watertight-marked equipment is required. There is no longer such a definition in the 2021 CEC, or it may have been moved somewhere where I have not found it yet.
Status: Implemented

Date: 10/14/2022 10:03:38 AM
Module: 030205h
Version: 24
Page: 16
Comment: All information prior to page 16 is referring to RV installations and even the diagram is of an RV lot receptacle, yet the rule at the top of the page refers to 72-106 (mobile homes) instead of rule 72-104 (RVs).
Status: Implemented

Date: 11/23/2023 9:34:34 AM
Module: 030205h
Version: 25
Page: 16
Comment: Figure 13 should be referring to Rule 72-104, not Rule 72-106
Status: Approved for Review