Public Meeting Notice  Electrical Interpretation Code Committee Meeting 3/17/26

Please be advised that recording meetings, by any means, including the use of any A.I. applications, without prior permission is strictly prohibited.

Microsoft Teams Meeting

Join on your computer, mobile app or room device

Click here to join the meeting

Meeting ID: 228 177 731 347 
Passcode: cWCe5U

Download Teams | Join on the web

Or call in (audio only)

+1 857-327-9245,,160763968#   United States, Boston

Phone Conference ID: 160 763 968#

Find a local number | Reset PIN

1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Agenda items:
   1. Review Meeting Minutes from February 17, 2026.

      1. Review response for item xi. 527 CMR 12.00, 110.26 A1, submitted by Brian Leary received February 9, 2026.

         Question #2:

         In Regards to 110.26A1 would the working clearances change if the wiring compartment is less than required and blocked by another heat pump?

         Response: Yes.

         Motion to answer ‘No’ made by Charlie Palmieri, seconded by Jim Rogers.  All in favor.  Motion Approved.

   2. Requests for interpretation:

      1. 527 CMR 12.00, 90.3, 706.16, 710.15(A), 702.4 submitted by Ray Stanford, received January 28, 2026

         Question #1: Section 90.3 NEC 2023 speaks to a hierarchy within that code, specifically when sections in other articles conflict with information in an article that pertains to special occupancies, equipment or other special conditions. 90.3 states “Chapters 1,2,3 and 4 apply generally. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 apply to special occupancies, special equipment, or other special conditions and may supplement or modify the requirements in Chapters 1 through 7”. Is it correct that when sections in an article that applies generally conflict with information in an article that pertains to more specific conditions – be they special occupancies, equipment, or other special conditions -- the latter information should be understood to supplement or modify the generally applicable requirements of the former?

         Question #2: Chapter 7 Article 706 pertains to Energy Storage Systems (ESS). Article 702 pertains to Optional Standby Systems. Following the logic in 90.3, for the purpose of an ESS installation, is it correct that information specific to ESS in article 706 supplements or modifies any conflicting information in Article 702?

         Question #3: Chapter 7 Article 706 pertains to ESS. Section 706.16 includes information regarding the connection of the ESS to other energy sources. That information includes reference to section 710.15. Section 710.15(A) states that the “power supply to premises wiring systems fed by stand alone or isolated microgrid power sources shall be permitted to have less capacity than the calculated load.” This language in Section 710.15(A) conflicts with language in 702.4, the latter of which applies more generally to all categories of Optional Standby Systems. For the purposes of identifying the appropriate load calculation for an ESS installation, following the hierarchy described in 90.3, is it correct that the information provided in 710.15(A), which is incorporated by reference into the ESS-specific Article 706, should apply instead of information from the more generally applicable Article 702 where information in those articles conflicts?

      2. 527 CMR 12.00, Rule 3, 110.26, 110.26(A)(3) submitted by Tony Alfano received February 24, 2025.

         Question #1: When installing PV on the supply side of the service in a tap box, does Rule 3 stand and not require changing existing tandem breakers in a service panel not rated for them? The PV installation complies with the code.

         Question #2: When interconnecting solar ahead of the service panel that is a violation due to existing tandem breakers, does NEC 2023 Article 110.3(B) prevent us from interconnecting solar.

         Question #3: When interconnecting solar ahead of a service panel that is a violation due to existing tandem breakers, does this increase the magnitude of an existing violation?

         This is a separate question.

         Question #1: If a 1'' conduit is installed on the wall below a recessed service panel does this violate the working space according to 110.26?

         Question #2: If a 1'' conduit is installed on the wall below a recessed service panel does this violate the working space according to 110.26(A)(3)?

      3. 527 CMR 12.00, 215.18 submitted by Paul Cormier received March 11, 2026.

         Question #1 On a service supplying a single dwelling unit, where a surge protection device has been installed on this service per 230.67, does 215.18 require a feeder from this same service supplying a single sub panel, in which this sub panel will only supply a portion of the load of the same dwelling unit, to have a surge protection device installed on this feeder circuit?

4. Items not anticipated 
5. Adjournment