In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Bill Johnson"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
This is important because, in Chicago, they don't follow the NEC.

Not true. They have adopted additional restrictions on top of the NEC.


No, Detroit is right here. The CEC was developed entirely separately from
the NEC...they have nothing to do with each other.

In some respects, the NEC is tighter, and in many respects far, far looser.
Different animals all together.

OK., thanks for the correction. I was repeating what I had been told by a
former Chicago resident, who apparently was misinformed.


I can confirm that the Chicago code bears little-to-no resemblance to the NEC.
And, I've been in an argument with an electrical inspector there, over
code-compliance. And *won*.

The Chicago code is obnoxiously restrictive in some respects -- even the
_telephone_ wiring has to be in conduit! And, it is a *swamp* to wade through.

Some section says "you can't do this", but something else, many _pages_ away
says "that section doesn't apply *IF* these conditions are met". BUT there
is yet another section that says "that exemption doesn't apply under _these_
conditions". etc., etc., ad nauseum.

And they're _all_ 'backward' references -- there's nothing at the "you can't
do this" section that contains _any_ reference to those other 'special case'
situations. Gotta read *everything* to have any idea of what you can/cannot
do in any specific situation.