jar546
CBO
For years, I’ve been against having an electrical section in the IRC, and my stance on this hasn’t changed. The NEC should be the sole standard for electrical work, just as it is referenced in the IBC. Florida takes the right approach by omitting an electrical section in its version of the IRC and instead directing all electrical work to the NEC. The problem with including an electrical section in the IRC is that it creates an unnecessary duplication of code, which not only adds complexity but also weakens the knowledge base of inspectors. Instead of requiring electrical inspectors to have a full understanding of NFPA 70, the IRC allows them to learn just a small portion of one book that only applies to single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes. This creates a situation where an inspector is expected to enforce electrical standards without having comprehensive knowledge of the full code, which is problematic for both enforcement and training.
One of the biggest issues with the IRC’s electrical section is that it does not cover many essential systems. There is little to no guidance on generators, photovoltaic (PV) systems, or battery storage systems, all of which are becoming increasingly common in residential construction. Additionally, there are many residential accessory structures in agricultural areas that fall under the IRC but have more complex electrical systems, including three-phase power, multiple motors, and industrial-grade equipment. The limited scope of the IRC’s electrical section simply doesn’t account for these situations, which means an inspector trained only under the IRC may lack the necessary knowledge to properly evaluate these systems.
Another major flaw is the duplication of effort between the ICC and NFPA. Every cycle, the ICC has to rewrite sections of the IRC to align with the latest NEC, introducing unnecessary room for human error. The NEC is already the national standard for electrical work, and every licensed electrician is trained using the NEC—not the IRC. Yet inspectors are expected to learn electrical requirements from a separate, abridged version that doesn’t always match the NEC exactly. This creates inefficiencies in enforcement and makes it cumbersome for inspectors who are already familiar with the NEC to have to cross-reference unfamiliar sections of the IRC. It also makes it harder to ensure consistency between jurisdictions when some places enforce the NEC directly while others rely on an altered version within the IRC.
As a building official, I’ve seen firsthand the consequences of relying on residential-only electrical inspectors. Many of them lacked the depth of knowledge and experience needed to confidently enforce the code. In some cases, they missed critical violations that posed real hazards. On the other hand, I’ve also seen them nitpick issues that weren’t violations at all simply because they didn’t know the code well enough from practical experience. One instance that stood out to me was when I helped do some electrical work for a relative under a permit. At the time, I was already an experienced electrical inspector and building official, yet when the residential-only electrical inspector showed up to check my work, I was astonished at how little he knew. His questions and comments made it clear that he didn’t fully understand the NEC, and it was a frustrating experience to see someone in an enforcement role who wasn’t confident in their own knowledge. That type of situation should never happen, yet it does because the system allows for a limited, residential-only focus rather than requiring comprehensive NEC expertise.
The reality is that electrical inspections should require a full understanding of the NEC, not just a portion of it. If someone wants to be an electrical inspector, they should have to test under NFPA 70 and demonstrate their knowledge of the entire book. Residential-only electrical inspectors create an artificial divide in enforcement that doesn’t exist for other trades. We don’t train plumbing inspectors to only know a portion of the plumbing code, and we don’t train mechanical inspectors to only handle specific residential equipment. Electrical work should be treated the same way.
This perspective isn’t meant to undermine inspectors who currently work under the IRC’s electrical section. Rather, it’s a call to recognize that a more consistent and comprehensive approach is needed. The best way to improve electrical inspections is to require that all inspectors, regardless of whether they work in residential or commercial settings, be trained and certified under the full NEC. It’s time to rethink whether the electrical section in the IRC is truly serving the industry or if it’s an unnecessary layer of redundancy that should be eliminated altogether.
One of the biggest issues with the IRC’s electrical section is that it does not cover many essential systems. There is little to no guidance on generators, photovoltaic (PV) systems, or battery storage systems, all of which are becoming increasingly common in residential construction. Additionally, there are many residential accessory structures in agricultural areas that fall under the IRC but have more complex electrical systems, including three-phase power, multiple motors, and industrial-grade equipment. The limited scope of the IRC’s electrical section simply doesn’t account for these situations, which means an inspector trained only under the IRC may lack the necessary knowledge to properly evaluate these systems.
Another major flaw is the duplication of effort between the ICC and NFPA. Every cycle, the ICC has to rewrite sections of the IRC to align with the latest NEC, introducing unnecessary room for human error. The NEC is already the national standard for electrical work, and every licensed electrician is trained using the NEC—not the IRC. Yet inspectors are expected to learn electrical requirements from a separate, abridged version that doesn’t always match the NEC exactly. This creates inefficiencies in enforcement and makes it cumbersome for inspectors who are already familiar with the NEC to have to cross-reference unfamiliar sections of the IRC. It also makes it harder to ensure consistency between jurisdictions when some places enforce the NEC directly while others rely on an altered version within the IRC.
As a building official, I’ve seen firsthand the consequences of relying on residential-only electrical inspectors. Many of them lacked the depth of knowledge and experience needed to confidently enforce the code. In some cases, they missed critical violations that posed real hazards. On the other hand, I’ve also seen them nitpick issues that weren’t violations at all simply because they didn’t know the code well enough from practical experience. One instance that stood out to me was when I helped do some electrical work for a relative under a permit. At the time, I was already an experienced electrical inspector and building official, yet when the residential-only electrical inspector showed up to check my work, I was astonished at how little he knew. His questions and comments made it clear that he didn’t fully understand the NEC, and it was a frustrating experience to see someone in an enforcement role who wasn’t confident in their own knowledge. That type of situation should never happen, yet it does because the system allows for a limited, residential-only focus rather than requiring comprehensive NEC expertise.
The reality is that electrical inspections should require a full understanding of the NEC, not just a portion of it. If someone wants to be an electrical inspector, they should have to test under NFPA 70 and demonstrate their knowledge of the entire book. Residential-only electrical inspectors create an artificial divide in enforcement that doesn’t exist for other trades. We don’t train plumbing inspectors to only know a portion of the plumbing code, and we don’t train mechanical inspectors to only handle specific residential equipment. Electrical work should be treated the same way.
This perspective isn’t meant to undermine inspectors who currently work under the IRC’s electrical section. Rather, it’s a call to recognize that a more consistent and comprehensive approach is needed. The best way to improve electrical inspections is to require that all inspectors, regardless of whether they work in residential or commercial settings, be trained and certified under the full NEC. It’s time to rethink whether the electrical section in the IRC is truly serving the industry or if it’s an unnecessary layer of redundancy that should be eliminated altogether.
