My First Code Rodeo
My first ‘actual’ rodeo was in 1984, the same year Article 690, PV Systems, first appeared in the National Electrical Code (NEC).
The 2026 version of the NEC marks my first official involvement in the code-making process. In 2023, I was named an alternate to Justine Sanchez on Code Making Panel (CMP) 13. This panel is responsible for changes in several articles, including 706, Energy Storage Systems, and 480, Stationary Standby Batteries.
In late October, the various panels convened in southern California for in-person meetings to cover the second draft changes and take the next step to finalize the 2026 NEC. CMP 13 met for three and a half days to finalize the proposed language, hash over specific phrasing, and add clarity to the Code where we could. While not thrilling to most others and arguably not as thrilling as trying to hit that eight-second mark on a bull, thrilling was how I kept describing the meeting to folks.
Steps to the Final Code Language
This meeting was the Second Draft Meeting, as seen in the development process graphic below, published by NFPA, the agency responsible for drafting and maintaining the NEC. As you can see, the process for the next Code starts immediately after the last edition is published. This timeline means the updates for the 2026 NEC started after the publication of the 2023 edition. After public input is received and collated, the different CMPs review the input and proposed changes and discuss them in the First Draft Meeting.
Unfortunately, I had to miss the First Draft Meeting, but I was able to participate in the lead-up to the Second Draft meeting.
Before the in-person meeting, CMP 13 was split into three task groups to review the public comments and prepare the suggested next steps for the entire panel. This work included reviewing the public comments to the first draft and meeting with other committee members in the weeks before our in-person meeting. In these virtual meetings, we debated the comments received, listened to justifications, accepted or rejected the input, and drafted statements to defend the committee’s position.
The Room Where It Happened
The meetings were held at the Redondo Beach Marriott, with several CMPs meeting in separate rooms to discuss their required articles and accompanying public comments. In our room, approximately 50 folks were around tables, with the CMP 13 chair, Ken Boyce, his co-chair, and NFPA staff at the head of the room. The rest of the panel members, including the principal voting members and their alternates, filled the tables. At the back of the room, tables were setup for observers and guests.
The process is relatively formal, with particular procedures and protocols followed to ensure a smooth process and keep the meetings in order. I was impressed by the way these rules kept the entire room on task and kept us on time to complete the task at hand. It is the responsibility of the panel chair to maintain the schedule, make sure the discussions are productive, all voices are heard, and that the proceedings don’t drag out too long. I felt lucky to have Mr. Boyce leading our panel. His command of the room was evident and appreciated by all.
The general proceeding had the Panel Chair ask the Task Group Chair for the public comment information. The Task Group chair would then present the information to the entire Panel and offer a path forward, generally to accept or reject the suggestion. After the proposed suggestion, the panel chair announced the proposal and allowed for discussion among all members.
This part of the process was quite interesting to me. To speak, you first had to be recognized by the Panel Chair. And your comments needed to address the topic at hand. If you wanted to respond to a comment made by another member, you needed to voice that through the chair to engage in such a dialogue. While I had never engaged in meetings this way, it was compelling to maintain order and not have some conversations devolve into a debate between two people. It took a bit to become comfortable with the process, but it didn’t seem so foreign to me by mid-morning of the first day.
Unsurprisingly, the comments associated with Article 706 were numerous and, in some cases, lengthy in debate. Knowing this would be the most significant lift for our panel, the Chair decided we would begin with the task group assigned to the 706 changes.
Sometimes, the comments were swift and relatively easy to work through. Other times, the task groups debated extensively internally, which rolled into the discussions with the entire panel. In terms of the changes to 706, there were a handful of people in the room who, like myself, work extensively in the energy storage industry. In some cases, it was up to us to voice the reasoning behind some of the Code changes and even provide some education on the application of the technology. As we got into other areas of the Code, others in the room brought their expertise to the discussion to help those unfamiliar with some of the technologies.
Some of the most debated topics were proposed changes within Article 706, especially around disconnecting means and the associated required distances. This discussion and process helped illustrate the deliberate and measured process that encompasses writing code. It also helped demonstrate how we must consider other stakeholders, such as first responders and utilities, when crafting language that will become the law of the land.
Another topic that has spirited discussion was in Article 702 and finding a way to carve out some language for sizing energy storage systems concerning the loads they supply power for and the services they interconnect with. As with most negotiations, these specific examples resulted in folks on both sides of the topic giving and taking to reach a consensus.
In the case of the Article 702 discussions, a handful of people volunteered to meet as a subgroup between the end of our meeting one evening and the start of the following day. I was one of the volunteers in the subgroup. We intended to craft language based on the Panel members’ input. We all met early on Thursday morning before the start of the meeting. We had draft language to work from, and after some discussion, debate, and clarification on the ESS operation, the subgroup reached a consensus. We then started that final day by presenting the suggested language to the Panel for final approval.
One of the major themes over the next few days was the idea of not adding new material. The entire panel, especially the Chair, was conscious of not introducing anything new at this point of the Code-making process. If the task group’s suggestion was potentially adding beyond the original public comment, it would be discussed and verified. This distinction is essential to the process, as all the comments we discussed originated from public input. We can not circumvent that process and find ways to slip in new material that the public hasn’t been able to review and comment on.
Ultimately, we covered all the public inputs and the universal changes occurring in the 2026 NEC in time, with a few hours to spare. I walked away feeling very satisfied with the work we did that week.
Next Steps
As you can see in the diagram above, we are in the home stretch for the final 2026 NEC language. A few more steps will complete the process. NFPA staff will collate the output from our in-person meetings, and the Panel members will hold a final vote. Depending on the voting results, the approved language will either go through a final debate and technical review or be processed and used in the following Code version.
And then it’s off to the races for the 2029 Code cycle. That version of Code will include a fundamental restructuring of Code itself, with the NEC taking on a new look that will result in a look and feel closer to international codes we often deal with in other sectors of the PV and ESS industries. So we all can look forward to that in just a few short years. While my rodeo career ended in 1984, I look forward to many more years in the code-making rodeo.
At Mayfield Renewables, we work hard to stay current with all the codes and standards within the solar-plus-storage industry and put a lot of those efforts into the courses we offer. If you have questions about code requirements for PV and ESS installations, check out our available courses.
