Proposed Amendments to the Administrative Rules under the Ontario Electrical Safety Code An Application for Inspection Not Required

Transcription

1 Proposed Amendments to the Administrative Rules under the Ontario Electrical Safety Code An Application for Inspection Not Required A CONSULTATION PAPER Electrical Safety Authority June 2011

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary Introduction Objective and purpose of this paper Context and rationale for current proposals Changing global regulatory environment Alignment with ontario government open for business objectives Response to changes in the regulatory environment Harmonization with other canadian jurisdictions Alignment with esa s five year strategic plan Questions for public consideration Background The electrical safety authority Esa s mission and vision Electrical safety codes Canadian electrical code (cec) Ontario electrical safety code (oesc) Requirements under the oesc being considered Application for inspection requirements (rule 2-004) Application for inspection not required (rule 2-005) Factors to consider Your turn Privacy and personal information Specific proposals under consideration & impact analysis Clarify utilization equipment & include dwelling units Proposal Background and rationale Impact on safety and industry Current practice Jurisdictional analysis Allow Changing Light Fixtures & Switches In Owner-Occupied Single Dwelling Unit Proposal Background and rationale Impact on safety and industry Current practice

3 Jurisdictional analysis Include wiring from power supplies within owner-occupied single dwelling unit Proposal Background and rationale Impact on safety and industry Current practice Jurisdictional analysis Replacement of appliances within single dwelling unit performed by certain persons Proposal Background and rationale Impact on safety and industry Current practice Jurisdictional analysis Allow Repair or installation of certain electrical equipment in specific circumstances Proposal Background and rationale Impact on safety and industry Current practice Jurisdictional analysis Extension of a single branch circuit in certain circumstances Proposal Background and rationale Impact on safety and industry Current practice Jurisdictional analysis

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) as the regulator of electrical safety in Ontario is reviewing the current electrical safety requirements to ensure the regulatory framework continues to provide the appropriate balance between the need to ensure safety while supporting modernization and eliminating unnecessary impediment on industry. Ontario Regulation 164/99 adopts, by reference, the Canadian Electrical Code together with the specific Ontario amendments; which together are referred to as the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (the OESC). Once adopted by the provincial government, the OESC is law in Ontario, and as such defines the legal requirements for safe electrical installations and products/ equipment in Ontario. The OESC is updated every three years. ESA will be providing recommendations to the provincial government regarding potential amendments to OESC for approval. The consultation paper is being presented to provide the background and rationale for consideration prior to moving forward with proposed amendments to the current administrative requirements set out in the OESC. Rule of the OESC sets out the circumstances when an application for inspection (commonly referred to as permits) is to be filed for all electrical installations, including new wiring installations and repairs or maintenance work on existing electrical installations; including a requirement for the inspection of like-for-like replacements. In 2007, ESA introduced amendments to the OESC which created specific exemptions to Rule Specifically, Rule set out circumstances where an application for inspection would not be required under certain circumstances, (e.g., it eliminated the need for an application for inspection where a switch plate, the replacing of a fuse, or when door bells are wired when undertaken by a licensed electrical contractor). These amendments were undertaken to deal with the unnecessarily restrictive wording of Rule and recognized the changed regulatory marketplace given the creation of a province wide electrical contractor licensing regime. The current proposals consider expanding the circumstances where an application for inspection would no longer be required. They expand upon the original exemption created under Rule by further recognizing the limited resources and unnecessary burden the current requirements pose on the regulated community and ESA without adding adequate safety benefits. Stakeholders are being asked to provide their feedback on six separate proposals to exempt certain types of electrical work from the current requirements to obtain an application for inspection (also known as a permit) set out in Rule (Inspection) of the OESC. Each proposal, if approved, would result in amendments to Rule (An application for inspection not required) of the OESC and would result in a further expansion of the current circumstances under which an application for inspection is not required. 4

5 The factors that led to the proposed amendments would ensure that: the regulatory framework continues to provide the appropriate level of safety given the changing global regulatory environment within which ESA operates; the regulatory framework includes appropriate risk management approaches given limited resources allowing ESA to reprioritize its resources to focus on those areas of greatest risk; ESA aligns with the objectives of creating smarter and streamlined government-to-business services through the establishment of a more modern regulatory system; Ontario s regulatory system aligns with the requirements in other Canadian jurisdictions and it is not unnecessarily restrictive; ESA is able to implement new approaches beyond inspection to support its five year strategic goal of reducing electrical contact and damage; and ESA continues to provide public value within its current means as it strives for an Ontario free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss. Each proposed amendment is considered separately and was analyzed to ensure the reader understands its implications, its potential impact on safety and the impact for industry. The current practice will also be described where possible, as well as ESA s current compliance experience. Finally, a cross jurisdictional analysis will be described to provide the reader with an opportunity to assess how each proposed amendment aligns with the practice in other Canadian jurisdictions. The following feedback is being sought for each proposal using the attached template: 1. Stakeholder views/comments on each proposal with rationale provided. 2. Stakeholder support or opposition to each proposal and rationale. 3. Specific suggestions on how each proposal could be improved and rationale. 4. Alternative proposals for ESA s consideration and rationale. Specific proposals under consideration would expand the current exemption set out under Rule to: 1. Clarify the meaning of utilization equipment and expanding the application to an owner occupied dwelling unit in certain circumstances. 2. Allow the replacement of light fixtures and switches rated not more than 20 amperages and 130 volts in owner occupied single dwellings Allow the installation of wiring from an approved class-2 power supply within an owneroccupied single dwelling unit, provided it is not part of a lighting installation in certain circumstances. Allow the repair and replacement of certain equipment rated at not more than 30 A and 240 volts, in single dwellings if performed by specified qualified persons. Allow the repair or installation of electrical equipment if performed by certain qualified persons if the equipment is rated at certain amperages and voltages. Allow a licensed electrical contractor to extend a single branch circuit for an associated piece of equipment not to exceed 20 amperages, and 240 volts. 5

6 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER The objective of this paper is to consult with affected stakeholders on several proposals being considered by the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) regarding the current administrative requirements set out in the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC). Specifically, feedback is being sought on six separate proposals to exempt certain types of electrical work from the current requirements to obtain an application for inspection (also known as a permit) set out in Rule (Inspection) of the OESC. Each proposal, if approved, would result in amendments to Rule (An application for inspection not required) of the OESC and would result in a further expansion of the current circumstances under which an application for inspection is not required CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR CURRENT PROPOSALS CHANGING GLOBAL REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT The proposed amendments are being considered at this time in response to the changing nature of the regulatory environment within which ESA operates. Globally, governments continue to be concerned about regulatory effectiveness and its impact on economic competitiveness; forcing regulators to reassess their regulatory frameworks within this new political and economic reality. The pressure for Better or Smarter Regulation continues to push regulators to review their current requirements to ensure they continue to provide adequate public safety and provide public value without unnecessarily impeding economic growth. ESA, as the regulator of electrical safety in Ontario, is reviewing the current electrical safety requirements to ensure the regulatory framework continues to provide the appropriate balance between the need to ensure safety while supporting modernization and eliminating unnecessary encumbrance on industry. Relatively speaking, all of the proposals under consideration are considered to be low risk. Either the work being undertaken is relatively simple or the persons undertaking the work to be exempted have sufficient knowledge rendering the risk of harm significantly mitigated. Moreover, in many circumstances, there is significant non-compliance related to this type of work; that is, people undertaking the work described are not presently applying for an application for inspection. As a result, much of this work is already being undertaken without inspection and the impact of eliminating the requirements would be minimal. 6

7 ALIGNMENT WITH ONTARIO GOVERNMENT OPEN FOR BUSINESS OBJECTIVES In addition, ESA is attempting to align with the Ontario government policy objectives of its Open for Business initiative. This initiative aims at creating smarter and streamlined government-to-business services through the establishment of a more modern system of government. It is a key part of the government s commitment to make the province more attractive to business while continuing to protect the public interest. The specific proposals being considered support the Open for Business objectives. Individually, each proposal represents specific types of electrical work that technically and legally require an application for inspection but are either of such a low risk, the inspection process fails to add any additional safety value, or they have been rendered redundant due to the changing marketplace and/or other changes within the broader regulatory framework RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Specifically, the implementation of a province-wide contractor licensing regime in 2007 has provided ESA with another regulatory tool to manage the safety of electrical installations throughout the province. The mandatory licensing program has eliminated a patchwork of municipal licensing systems thereby creating a provincial standard to which licensed electrical contractors are evaluated. Not only are electrical contractors required to maintain a valid certificate of qualification, but business owners are required to designate a master electrician who is responsible for not only the adherence to the requirements of the OESC, but is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable provincial laws. The advent of this system aids in ensuring that those who operate an electrical contracting business are qualified to undertake electrical work safety. The success of this system not only increases the overall competency and legal liability for the industry, but it also provides an opportunity for ESA as a regulator to leverage the licensing framework to eliminate the requirement for ESA inspections in certain types of routine, low risk electrical installations when undertaken by a licensed electrical contractor. The intent is to eliminate a redundant regulatory requirement in circumstances where an application for inspection would not provide any practical safety value. The result would be a reduction in unnecessary inspections resulting in fewer burdens on industry with no impact on safety HARMONIZATION WITH OTHER CANADIAN JURISDICTIONS The proposals being considered also align with the current requirements in other Canadian jurisdictions. In most other provincial and territorial jurisdictions, similar amendments have already been implemented rendering Ontario s administrative requirements more antiquated and unnecessarily restrictive. Moving forward with the proposals under consideration would, in most cases, harmonize Ontario s administrative requirements with those across the country; thereby ensuring Ontario remains a competitive jurisdiction. 7

8 ALIGNMENT WITH ESA S FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Finally, the proposals also support ESA s five year Strategic Plan and ESA s strategic goal of reducing electrical contact and damage by 30% over the next five years. In order to achieve this goal, ESA has identified priority areas for improvement in electrical safety and is implementing long term strategies that are expected to achieve the greatest gains in electrical safety. These strategies, however, will require new approaches beyond the traditional reliance on inspection. They will necessitate tailor made solutions that target the root causes of electrical safety harms; approaches that will require innovative prevention and mitigation techniques. In order to meet these objectives given limited resources; ESA will need to reprioritize its resources to focus on those areas of greatest risk by eliminating requirements that either do not yield an increase in safety or requirements that are now being controlled or mitigated in other ways. ESA s approach is to ensure that it continues to provide public value within its current means as it strives for an Ontario free of electrical fatalities and serious injury, damage or loss. These environmental factors will also necessitate the creation of non-regulatory approaches to mitigating electrical safety harms; approaches that yield the same or better policy outcomes while creating a more competitive and internationally focused regulatory environment aligned with the expectations of the government, industry and the public QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION To facilitate the current consultation, each proposed amendment will be considered separately. Each proposal will be explained and analyzed to ensure the reader understands its implications, its potential impact on safety and the impact for industry. The current practice will also be described where possible, as well as ESA s current compliance experience. Finally, a cross jurisdictional analysis will be described to provide the reader with an opportunity to assess how each proposed amendment aligns with the practice in other Canadian jurisdictions. ESA is seeking the following feedback regarding each separate proposal: 1. Stakeholder views/comments on each proposal with rationale provided. 2. Stakeholder support or opposition to each proposal and rationale. 3. Specific suggestions on how each proposal could be improved and rationale. 4. Alternative proposals for ESA s consideration and rationale. 8

9 2. BACKGROUND 2.1. THE ELECTRICAL SAFETY AUTHORITY The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) is a private, not-for-profit corporation designated by the Minister of Consumer Services under the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 to administer and enforce Part VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998 and regulations made under that Part including: O. Reg. 164/99 (Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC)), O. Reg. 22/04 (Distribution Safety), O. Reg. 570/05 (Licensing of Electrical Contractors and Master Electricians), and O. Reg. 438/07 (Product Safety). ESA, as the regulator of electrical safety in Ontario, is responsible for regulating the safe use of electricity and electrical products and equipment in Ontario and to serve the public interest as it relates to electrical safety. The ESA is accountable to the Minister through an independent Board of Directors and an Administrative Agreement. To ensure the public and the regulated community is provided due process with respect to ESA s administration of the Act and regulations, an appeals process has been enacted in accordance with Regulation 187/09 made under the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act ESA S MISSION AND VISION As an organization, ESA s overall mission is to improve electrical safety for the well-being of the people of Ontario. Its long-term vision is an Ontario free of electrical fatalities, serious injury, damage and loss. Given finite resources, ESA works in conjunction with its electrical safety partners that make up the integrated electrical safety system to fulfill its mandate. ESA s approach is to identify significant harms and to take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate them. By using this approach, ESA focuses on harms that pose a significant risk to safety, and designs the organizational capacity either within the organization or relying on the capacity of like minded safety partners to implement tailor made solutions at the right level using a range of tools and approaches. Using this approach, ESA has developed its Strategic Plan Getting to Zero: A Commitment to Safety, which establishes the strategic initiatives and 5-year goals for the organization. ESA s 5-year vision is to achieve a 30% reduction in electrical contact and fire fatalities within Ontario. The document identifies five strategic priority areas to be addressed; namely: powerline contacts, product safety, electrical worker safety, aging infrastructure and electrical wiring at the right level. To realize this goal, ESA will need to implement prevention, response and detection activities aimed at addressing the causes of these incidents including actions aimed at: changing behaviours, introducing engineering solutions, addressing obvious hazards, and 9

10 proposing regulatory or standards changes to further safeguard against electrical injury, death, damage or loss. Implementing such actions will also require that ESA refocus some of its detection activities away from low risk areas that do not provide a benefit to stakeholders towards those areas that account for the greatest harm. To support this shift, ESA is proposing to broaden the circumstances set out in the OESC where an application for inspection is not required. The result would be an increase in available resources that could be redeployed towards prevention activities or higher risk areas, a reduction in the burden on industry, and greater electrical safety outcomes. 3. ELECTRICAL SAFETY CODES 3.1. CANADIAN ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) The Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) is developed by the Canadian Standards Association. It has been developed on a 3 and 4-year cycle since The CEC is a voluntary document and its requirements can only become mandatory when adopted into legislation or regulation by a government entity. Currently, the regulation of electrical safety is within the provincial/territorial jurisdiction as there is no federal regulatory organization that administers the CEC. Ontario adopts the CEC as one part of the OESC. The other part of the OESC consists of a series of Ontario-specific amendments, which include a set of Ontario-specific administrative rules. In some cases, Ontario amendments exceed those found in the CEC, in other cases they differ depending on specific circumstances within the Ontario context. As indicated earlier, the ESA is designated by Ontario Regulation 89/99 as the responsible authority for the purposes of administering and enforcing Part VIII of the Electricity Act, 1998 and regulations made there under, including Ontario Regulation 164/99, which adopts, by reference, the Canadian Electrical Code together with specific Ontario amendments and is referred to as the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (the OESC). ESA provides recommendations to the provincial government regarding potential amendments to OESC for provincial government approval and maintains participation on a number of Canadian and national committees to identify electrical safety standards and requirements that should be incorporated into the OESC in response to reported incidents and changing technology ONTARIO ELECTRICAL SAFETY CODE (OESC) Ontario Regulation 164/99 adopts, by reference, the Canadian Electrical Code together with the specific Ontario amendments; which together are referred to as the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (the OESC). The regulation also establishes the requirement that electrical wiring installations conform to the OESC which describes in detail the safety standards for electrical installations and adopts into law electrical product standards. The OESC consists of the Canadian Electrical Code with Ontario-specific amendments that are 10

11 developed by ESA and its stakeholders. The OESC is primarily a technical document and it is prescriptive in approach. The OESC describes the standards for electrical installations in detail. The OESC is developed through the efforts of a number of committees representing electrical expertise and knowledge from across Canada and the U.S. The OESC is law in Ontario, and as such defines the legal requirements for safe electrical installations and products/equipment in Ontario. To ensure that the OESC reflects changes in technologies, and responds to reports of electrical incidents, the OESC is updated every three years. Changes to the OESC are documented on an ongoing basis. 4. REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE OESC BEING CONSIDERED 4.1. APPLICATION FOR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS (RULE 2-004) The 24 th Edition of the OESC continues the requirement of earlier editions that applications for inspection (commonly referred to as permits) be filed for all electrical installations, including new wiring installations and repairs or maintenance work on existing electrical installations; including a requirement for the inspection of like-for-like replacements. Specifically, Rule requires the filing of an application and payment of the prescribed fee before or within 48 hours after the commencement of any work on an electrical installation. No distinction is made on the basis of materiality or level of hazard of the work being performed. On a strict legal interpretation, this rule requires an inspection for the replacement of a single receptacle, light fixture, or switch and could even extend to the replacement of a switch cover plate (which forms part of an electrical installation) or the replacement of a blown fuse. Similarly Rule would require the inspection of extra low voltage wiring associated with, for example, a doorbell. Notwithstanding the requirements of Rule 2-004, it was felt that an easing of the strict regulatory requirements for an application for inspection could be created after the passage of O. Reg. 570/05 (Licensing of Electrical Contractors and Master Electricians) APPLICATION FOR INSPECTION NOT REQUIRED (RULE 2-005) In 2007, ESA introduced amendments to the OESC which created specific exemptions to Rule which sets out the requirements for an application for inspection. Specifically, it set out circumstances where an application for inspection would not be required under certain circumstances, (e.g., it eliminated the need for an application for inspection where a switch plate, the replacing of a fuse, or when door bells are wired when undertaken by a licensed electrical contractor). These amendments were undertaken to deal with the unnecessarily restrictive wording of Rule and, at the same time, to set some materiality and scope limits on work that requires inspection. Furthermore, these amendments recognized the changed regulatory marketplace realized through the creation of a province wide contractor licensing regime. 11

12 This exemption eliminated the inspection requirement for the replacement of simple electrical devices such as light fixtures, receptacles, motors and switches in owneroccupied single dwellings, when installed by a licensed electrical contractor. Homeowners would always have the option of having ESA inspect their installation if they so choose. The exemption applies to the replacement of receptacles, luminaries, general use switches, ventilators, transformers for extra low voltage circuits or equipment in extra low voltage circuits provided that the circuit rating does not exceed 130 volts and 30 amps. Any electrical work that involved modifying, altering or installing electrical wiring would still be subject to the requirement for inspection. For example, adding a receptacle to supply power to a new central vacuum unit, installing electrical wiring to feed a new dishwasher or wiring associated with finishing a recreation room would still require inspection. The current proposals consider expanding the circumstances where an application for inspection would no longer be required. They expand upon the original exemption created under Rule by further recognizing the limited resources and unnecessary burden the current requirements pose on the regulated community and ESA without adding adequate benefits by improving safety FACTORS TO CONSIDER In any regulatory framework it is important to have rules that make sense and add value. In order to determine when and if the circumstances when an application for inspection is not required, the following criteria should be considered: 1. The potential impact on safety should a change be implemented; 2. The nature and extent of the electrical work being done--that is, the level of risk posed by the type of electrical work undertaken; 3. The number and extent of injuries or defects, if any, associated with these types of installations; 4. The impact of the Contractor Licensing requirements and the skill level of the individual undertaking the work; 5. The environment within which the electrical work is being undertaken that is, the type of location within which the work is being done; 6. The potential cost savings or burden reduction that could be achieved by the proposal for industry and consumers; 7. The current practice in the field (that is, whether this work is actually being inspected on a regular basis) and the ability to enforce the requirements in a meaningful way; and 8. The practice in other jurisdictions. The proposals being considered have been evaluated, where possible and applicable, based on the above criteria. The analysis for each proposal is presented separately to facilitate discussion and consideration. 12

13 5. YOUR TURN In order to assist stakeholders in providing their views, ESA has provided a template for comments. Stakeholders wishing to answer any of the questions provided in section 1.3 above or provide comment/feedback are invited to send their response to ESA via one of the methods outlined below. As outlined above, this paper outlines the intended direction regarding proposed amendments to the Ontario Electrical Safety Code to expand the current exemption to the requirements for an application for inspection as set out under Rule of the OESC. ESA is seeking the views of consumers, businesses and other stakeholders on the proposed amendments presented in this paper. ESA thanks you for taking the time to read this paper and would very much appreciate your input. Please provide your input, comments or questions to ESA by Friday, August 25, You may send your comments by , mail or fax. OESC-BasicExemption@electricalsafety.on.ca Fax: (905) Mail: Proposed Amendments to OESC Consultations c/o Nisha Craighead Electrical Safety Authority 155A Matheson Blvd. West Suite 202 Mississauga, Ontario L5R 3L5 6. PRIVACY AND PERSONAL INFORMATION Any personal information you might provide in this consultation process is subject to ESA s Privacy Policy. The information will be used to assist us in conducting and evaluating the results of the consultation, which may involve disclosing your comments to other participants, institutions and interested parties during and after the consultation. Your name will not be disclosed without your consent. If you have any questions about the collection, use or disclosure of this information, please contact: Chief Privacy Officer 155A Matheson Blvd. W., Suite 202 Mississauga, ON L5R 3L5 Fax: (905) christopher.jodhan@electricalsafety.on.ca 13

14 7. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION & IMPACT ANALYSIS 7.1. CLARIFY UTILIZATION EQUIPMENT & INCLUDE DWELLING UNITS PROPOSAL The proposal, if passed, is intended to: 1. Clarify the meaning of utilization equipment by adding the CEC definition 1 ; 2. Expand the location within which the replacement of utilization equipment can be installed without the need for an Application for inspection; and 3. Given the expanded locations, specify specific types of installations to which the additional expansion would not apply. Specifically, it would: 1. Reinsert the definition of utilization equipment currently found in the CEC to clarify the meaning of utilization equipment. It was deleted in error in the last OESC cycle. 2. Expand the application of Rule from an owner occupied single dwelling 2 to an owner occupied dwelling unit 3 ; thereby expanding the circumstances when an application is not required. 3. Clarify that the expanded application of Rule would not be permitted in installations related to Section 24 4, Section 38 5, Section 50 6, Section 68 7, and Section 84 8 of the OESC. The circumstances previously stipulated within Rule would not be altered, including the requirement that: a. the equipment only be rated at not more than 30A and 120 volts; b. the equipment be of the same rating as the one being replaced; c. the wiring feeding the equipment be existing and cannot be altered; and d. the electrical work be performed by a Licensed Electrical Contractor. 1 The definition of utilization equipment would be the current CEC definition, that is, Utilization equipment means, equipment that utilizes electrical energy for mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purposes. 2 The OESC defines a single dwelling as a dwelling unit consisting of a detached house, one unit of row housing, or one unit of a semi-detached, duplex, triplex or quadruplex house. 3 The OESC defines a dwelling unit as one or more rooms for the use of one or more persons as a housekeeping unit with cooking, eating, living, and sleeping facilities. 4 Section 24 relates to patient care areas. 5 Section 38 relates to elevators, dumbwaiters, material lifts, escalators, moving walks, lifts for persons with physical disabilities, and similar equipment. 6 Section 50 relates to solar photovoltaic systems. 7 Section 68 relates to pools, tubs, and spas. 8 Section 84 relates to the interconnection of electric power production sources. 14

15 Rule An application for inspection is not required: in an owner-occupied single dwelling for the installation of replacement utilization equipment (such as fuse holders, receptacles transformers for extra-low voltage circuits or equipment in extra low voltage circuits) or receptacles if the equipment being installed: (i) is installed in an owner-occupied single dwelling unit (ii) is installed by an electrical contractor licensed in accordance with Regulation 570/05; (iii) is installed in a branch circuit having a rating not exceeding 30A, and 130 volts; (iv) is interchangeable with the equipment being replaced in function, electrical rating, size, and weight without having to change any part of the branch circuit; (v) is installed in the same location as the equipment being replaced; (vi) is approved in accordance with Rule 2-024; (vii) is not electrical equipment forming part of an electrical installation to which Section 24, 38, 50, 64, 68 and (viii) 84 of this Code applies; and does not involve the repair, modification or replacement of a service box or a panel board or the replacement of an electro-mechanical over-current device in a service box or panel board. Definitions: Utilization equipment see definition or Electrical Equipment Utilization Equipment equipment that utilizes electrical energy for mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting or similar useful purposes BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Rule was initially introduced in 2007 through an amendment to the 2002 OESC. The introduction of Rule was intended to limit the scope of work that did not require an Application for Inspection (permit) to equipment rated at no more than 130 volts and 30 A. The Rule limited the type of equipment that could be replaced to utilization equipment as defined in the CEC; typically, it included switches, receptacles, light fixtures and other 120 volt electrical utilization equipment. In 2006, however, with the passage of legislative amendments to the Electricity Act, 1998 a Director s Order was issued which unintentionally deleted the definition of utilization equipment from the OESC. As a result, since the introduction of the Director s Order and the deletion of the definition, there has been confusion among industry and the regulated community regarding what exactly was exempted. The use of the term utilization equipment without an appropriate definition was confusing and led to a lack of consistent understanding among the regulated community. To eliminate confusion and ensure the regulated community is clear regarding the exemption, this proposal suggests that the definition of utilization equipment, as defined in the CEC be re-inserted into the OESC. The clarification is intended to clarify the type of equipment captured by the exemption and is intended to ensure a common understanding for industry and reduce unnecessary burden for not only contractors, but designers, facility owners and their customers as well. The definition would also eliminate unnecessary confusion among the various inspectors across Ontario and with other regulatory authorities and would ensure that installations not intended to be captured by this exemption, are not unintentionally missed and not inspected as a result of confusion within the industry. 15

16 The expansion of the exemption from single dwellings to dwelling units is intended to eliminate the need for an inspection in similar installations where a licensed electrical contractor undertakes the work. Previously, the exemption only applied to specific low risk electrical work in single dwellings. An application for inspection was still required when the identical work was being undertaken by the same licensed electrical contractor in a dwelling unit (a triplex, duplex or condo unit); thereby creating confusion among the industry and an additional level of burden that is seen as unnecessary. Whether in a single dwelling unit or a dwelling, the type of work is the same, the level of risk is the same and the individual undertaking the work has the same level of competency; therefore to require a permit in one circumstance and not the other creates a requirement that is inconsistent and one that needlessly burdens industry and inconveniences homeowners without providing any additional level of safety IMPACT ON SAFETY AND INDUSTRY This proposal, if passed, would provide greater overall public value by allowing ESA to focus on higher risk inspections. It would also make it easier for ESA to promote the value of inspection for those types of installations that warrant such an inspection. If there are reasonable limits on what requires inspection then it is easier to promote voluntary compliance with the requirements. In the absence of this promotion and perception of public value, ESA indirectly encourages underground electrical work. From a safety perspective, the impact of such an inspection on overall electrical safety when undertaken by a licensed electrical contractor is negligible. Currently, similar work undertaken in a single dwelling unit by licensed electrical contractors is already exempted from this requirement. Given that the type of work being considered is of low risk, it follows that this similar type of work, undertaken by licensed electrical contractors should also be exempted in all dwelling units. Moreover, the inspection fees applicable to like-for-like replacements range from approximately $45 for a single light switch to approximately $66 for a dishwasher replacement. The fact that these fees generally exceed either the cost of the device or the installation fee for an appliance, as well as resulting in a homeowner having to arrange access for an inspection, without any discernible safety impact, provides significant justification for eliminating the requirement. In addition, the actual cost to ESA to perform these inspections exceeds the inspection fee; thereby reducing ESA s resources available for higher risk inspections or resources available to investigate or prevent future incidents. Finally, rules that do not make sense can have a negative impact on compliance with the OESC in general and the public value of electrical inspection. By rationalizing the circumstances where an application for inspection is required, ESA is able to provide appropriate electrical safety oversight and focus on those areas or electrical installations that are of the highest risk. 16

17 CURRENT PRACTICE Currently, ESA does not receive many applications for inspection pertaining to the replacement of utilization equipment resulting in very few of these types of installations. In 2010, ESA received 55,000 applications for Inspection in relation to renovation type work but the details listed did not differentiate between the types of equipment being worked on. Specifically, 40 permits could be attributed to Dishwasher replacements. Given the extremely high numbers of utilization equipment sold throughout the retail sector; it is reasonable to assume that this work is currently being done outside the regulatory regime. Utilization equipment is readily available and is used throughout residential dwellings. The replacement of such devices is considered very low risk, especially when undertaken by a licensed electrical contractor. This type of work does not require any additional wiring; it merely involves the replacement of the equipment itself; something that any licensed contractor would be comfortable doing without risk JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS Many jurisdictions in Canada currently do not require an application for inspection for some types of electrical equipment replacements in dwelling units. Below is a summary of the current regulatory requirements across Canada. The chart demonstrates whether an application for inspection is required for the replacement of utilization equipment in a dwelling unit and whether the exemption is limited to an electrical contractor license. BC AB SK MB QC NB NS YT PE NL NU NT Replacement Permitted without a permit Limited to specific types of equipment Switches receptacles/plugs <10 ballasts light fixtures D motors/controllers thermostats over current devices Limits on location Exemption limited to SFD NDD D regulated individuals Limits on Voltage 150V 150V Limits on Amperage 30A 120v- 240v 42A- 84A 240v 20A 150v- 240v 30A- 50A 17

18 SFD=Single Family dwelling units, NDD=non-detached dwelling units, D=dwelling units As outlined above, seven of the twelve provinces and territories currently allow the replacement of certain equipment under specific circumstances to be undertaken without an application for inspection or permit. Of the seven provinces that allow a similar exemption: 4 limit the types of equipment that are included within the scope of the exemption; 4 limit the exemption to regulated individuals (those that are either licensed or hold a certificate of qualification); 5 limit the types of equipment by voltage or amperage levels; and Only 2 limit the exemption by location. Upon analysis, the current proposal being considered is in line with the types of equipment that are already exempted in other Canadian jurisdictions. The proposal, if passed, would create a more level playing field between the regulatory requirements in Ontario and that of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The remaining jurisdictions have a regulatory structure that remains far more restrictive as they do not have any exemptions to the requirements for inspection; thereby requiring that all electrical installations regardless of risk, complexity, location or person undertaking the work be subject to an application for inspection (permit). 18

19 7.2. EXPAND TO ALLOW CHANGING CERTAIN LIGHT FIXTURES & SWITCHES WITHIN AN OWNER-OCCUPIED SINGLE DWELLING UNIT PROPOSAL The proposal, if passed, is intended to expand the current exemption set out under Rule to allow the replacement of light fixtures and switches rated not more than 20 amperes and 130 volts in owner occupied single dwellings. In order to qualify for the exemption, certain circumstances must be satisfied as set out below: Rule An application for inspection is not required: (2) In an owner-occupied single dwelling unit for the replacement of luminaries, and general-use switches if the equipment i) is installed in a branch circuit having a rating not exceeding 20 A and 130 V; ii) is interchangeable with the equipment being replaced in function, electrical rating, size, and weight without having to change any part of the branch circuit; iii) is installed in the same location as the equipment being replaced; iv) is approved in accordance with Rule 2-024; and v) is not electrical equipment forming part of an electrical installation to which Section 68 of this Code applies. If passed, the proposal would permit anyone replacing a light fixture or a light switch within an owner occupied single dwelling unit 9 to undertake the replacement without submitting an application for inspection if: a. the branch circuit wiring does not exceed 20A an 130V; b. the equipment is of the same rating as the one being replaced; c. the wiring feeding the equipment already existed and is not altered; d. the equipment is approved in accordance with Rule 2-024; and e. the electrical equipment is not located in an area subject to Section of the OESC; that is, it is not located in the vicinity of a pool, tub or spa BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Currently, Rule of the OESC requires that an application for inspection (commonly referred to as a permit) be filed for all new and maintenance work on electrical installations. This includes a requirement for the inspection of like-for-like replacements. Therefore, if a homeowner wishes to replace a light fixture or a switch in his/her home, he/she is required to submit an application for inspection. 9 The OESC defines a single dwelling as a dwelling unit consisting of a detached house, one unit of row housing, or one unit of a semi-detached, duplex, triplex or quadruplex house. 10 Section 68 relates to pools, tubs, and spas. 19

20 Rule specifically requires the filing of an application and payment of the prescribed fee before or within 48 hours after the commencement of any work on an electrical installation. No distinction is made on the basis of materiality or level of hazard of the work being performed. On a strict legal interpretation, this rule requires an inspection for the replacement of a single receptacle, light fixture, or switch and could even extend to the replacement of a switch cover plate (which forms part of an electrical installation). Rule of the OESC, however, allows a licensed electrical contractor undertaking a similar replacement to undertake the replacement without an application for inspection. In practice, however, the majority of lighting fixtures and switches are being sold through hardware stores (e.g., Home Hardware, Home Depot, and Rona), lighting stores and various retail outlets (e.g., Canadian Tire, Wal-Mart) to individual homeowners. Whether undertaken by a licensed contractor or a homeowner, the level of risk associated with a light fixture or switch replacement is low; therefore to require a permit in one circumstance and not the other creates inconsistent requirements and one that needlessly burdens and inconveniences homeowners without having a material impact on safety. The expansion of the exemption from only licensed electrical contractors to include anyone undertaking this type of replacement is intended to eliminate the need for an inspection respecting the replacement of lighting fixtures and switches in any single dwelling unit regardless of who undertakes the replacement. Consumers generally appear to be unaware of the requirements of the OESC for inspection of this type of electrical work and those who are aware, object to paying an inspection fee that can be as much as 40 times the cost of the electrical device being installed. This proposal is intended to mitigate the unnecessarily restrictive wording of Rule and, at the same time, to set some materiality and scope limits on work that requires inspection. Based on an analysis of the current level of notifications associated with this type of electrical replacements, and the level of retail sales of these types of products, ESA can reasonably conclude that most such work is being done without filing an application or having an inspection. Moreover, given that the vast majority of homeowners are not aware of the requirement for an application for inspection when replacing a light fixture or switch, the reality is that the majority of light fixtures and switches are already being replaced without inspection. In light of the low level of risk associated with these types of replacements, there is little rationale and no practical way to enforce the requirement IMPACT ON SAFETY AND INDUSTRY Despite the fact that while under current law, the replacement of a switch, receptacle or light fixture in a home all requires an application for inspection and very few of these types of inspections are actually undertaken each year; safety statistics show no evidence that any fatalities, serious injuries or fires have resulted from such installations. 20

21 According to ESA s records, there have been 8 fire investigations which could be characterized as being caused by a lighting fixture. Of the total: 2 were associated with illegal marihuana grow ops; 2 were related to improper installations of Christmas lights; 3 were as a result of undersized conductors and terminations not enclosed in a junction box (that is the cause was associated with the wiring methods rather than the connection of the light fixture itself); and 1 was caused by synthetic flowers placed too close to a halogen wall light. The fires associated with the illegal marihuana grow-ops were caused by extraordinary circumstances and should not form a substantive part of the analysis. The remaining fires were not directly caused by the replacement of a light fixture, but rather involved either the incorrect and non-code compliant installation of wiring or a separate ignition source (the synthetic flowers) which were the cause of the fire. That is to say, the errors in wiring were not directly associated with the act of replacing the fixture, but were associated with the original wiring which connected to the lighting fixture. An inspection of the replacement would not have, in most cases, detected the faulty wiring. Although any type of equipment replacement involves a connection being made, there is very little evidence showing that light fixture replacements are high risk. Despite the fact that in the event a connection is made incorrectly it could lead to overheating or arcing; between 2002 and 2007, there were only 48 occurrences of poor connections and 46 occurrences of arcing (see Figure 3). Although this number seems high, it is insignificant when compared to the number of total electrical fires that occurred beyond that period (see Figure 4). Figure 3. Figure 4. 21

22 In comparing the number of residential fires where the cause of ignition was electrically related with the total number of residential facility fires in similar time periods, the number of electrical fires caused by poor connections or arcing would account for approximately less than 1 % of total occurrences for a 5 year cycle. Therefore, although there may be some data to demonstrate that poor connections may have led to a few fires within the last five years, it is not certain that the poor connections were made during the replacement of a light fixture and more broadly, it is unclear whether the connection itself had been completed properly, but had deteriorated over time. According to ESA records, it has been confirmed that currently these is very little, if any applications for inspection solely associated with the replacement of a light fixture or switch, even though tens of thousands of these products are sold at retail outlets to homeowners throughout the province. Moreover, the inspection fees applicable to like-for-like replacements are approximately $45 for a single light switch or light fixture, and the minimum application for inspection fee for a homeowner is currently over $70. The fact that these fees generally exceed or closely match the cost of the device, as well as resulting in a homeowner having to arrange access for an inspection, without any discernible safety impact, provides significant justification for eliminating the requirement In addition, the actual cost to ESA to perform these inspections exceeds the inspection fee; thereby reducing ESA s resources available for higher risk inspections or resources available to investigate or prevent future incidents. Rules that do not make sense can have a negative impact on compliance with the OESC in general and the public value of electrical inspection. By rationalizing the circumstances where an application for inspection is required, ESA is able to provide appropriate electrical safety oversight and focus on those areas or electrical installations that are of the highest risk. This proposal, if passed, would provide greater overall public value by allowing ESA to focus on higher risk inspections. It would also make it easier for ESA to promote the value of inspection for those types of installations that warrant such an inspection. If there are reasonable limits on what requires inspection then it is easier to promote voluntary compliance with the requirements. In the absence of this promotion and perception of public value, ESA indirectly encourages underground electrical work CURRENT PRACTICE Given the level of specificity associated with the current proposal, it is difficult to sufficiently narrow the data contained in ESA s database to specifically locate all inspections solely associated with a light fixture or switch replacement. A higher level analysis, however, is possible related to residential renovations, which would, as a subset of those notifications, include some replacement of light fixtures and/or switches. In 2010, there were a total of 107,500 notifications which were in ESA s system for residential renovations. Of these 3,139 notifications were specifically related to the installation of equipment performed by non-licensed contractors. Of the 3,139, only 149 were submitted by a homeowner. It is reasonable to assume that there were more than 149 light fixture or switch replacements undertaken by homeowners throughout Ontario. In 22