PROPOSAL #1: CLARIFY UTILIZATION EQUIPMENT & INCLUDE DWELLING UNITS
1.1. 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 2-005 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 2-005 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 2-005 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.
Rule 2-005
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
84 of this Code applies; and
(viii)
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
1.2. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
Rule 2-005 was initially introduced in 2007 through an amendment to the 2002 OESC. The
introduction of Rule 2-005 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.
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.
1.3. 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.
1.4. 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.
1.5. 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.
Replacement Permitted
without a permit
Limited to specific types of
equipment
BC
AB
SK
MB
QC
NB
NS
YT
PE
NL
NU
























•
Switches


•
receptacles/plugs


•
ballasts


•
light fixtures



•
motors/controllers
thermostats
•
over current devices








•

<10
D

Limits on location


Exemption limited to
regulated individuals




Limits on Voltage






Limits on Amperage
150V

SFD
NDD
NT
D
150V

30A








120v240v

42A84A
240v

20A

150v240v

30A50A
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).