Completing the latest update of the Wiring Rules by 2027 might prove a challenge. Peter Vandenhuevel asks if it’s a fair timeline or if the industry should lower its expectations.

As many in the industry are all too aware, the next revision of the Wiring Rules is due in just two years. Given the amount of work to do to get there, should we be lowering our expectations and either extend the target publication date or reduce the number of fronts we are tackling to optimise the quality of the revision?

Why now?

Have we bitten off more than we can chew, and are our expectations too high? Should we, as one of the major and most essential sectors of the Australian and New Zealand electrotechnology industry, at least ask that of ourselves?

I’m not sure of the answer, but given the earlier experience in what I have previously called the Y2K experiment, should we just be extra careful that we don’t end up three steps forward and two steps back?

Having been involved in the Wiring Rules development for thirty years, I recently elected to relinquish my direct involvement with Standards development. However, with me now not being directly involved, I’ve had to rely on my experience and information generally available in the public domain. So, this article is, in general, based on the rather scarce information provided by Standards Australia already in the public domain, coupled with my thirty years of EL.001 committee involvement. So, here’s hoping it’s of interest.

But there is a caveat; as no longer being involved directly with either NECA nor Standards, I could be more forthright than in the past, so please be aware, based on the limited information available in the public domain and my recollections, this article is strictly only of my personal views, speculations, opinions and assumptions ‘et al’.

What have we learned from the past?

Was Standards Australia actually right in the nineties?

On joining the EL.001 committee in the early to mid-nineties, the 1991 revision of the Wiring Rules had just been published, and the work on the next revision process started. The 90s were a time for change throughout society. So, for very plausible reasons, a decision was made, by Standards, the EL.001 committee and possibly our industry at large, to either visit or revisit both the structure of the Standard and its content. That then became the 2000 revision, what I have dubbed the ‘Y2K experiment’.

Was us turning the Wiring Rules into three parts, one of them having eight sections, as well as drastically rewording its text into fewer words what Yes Minister would have called: “A brave decision”? It certainly was…

But was it the right decision? That depends on who you ask, but given hindsight and where we are now, believe it or not, I believe that – certainly in principle – it was the right decision even then!

Why? Well, in theory at least, it was meant to allow greater flexibility in how installations could be made deemed to comply, reduce the cost of those installations, encourage more industry innovation and find better and more cost-effective ways to install.

And guess what? That’s our same objective now!

So why didn’t it work? Well, the main hurdles were at least three major issues, these being;

Part 1: The concept

Where both installers and engineers could use this fundamental principles section to comply in ways different to those required in the deemed to comply Part 2. Because these were basically (officially in some jurisdictions and unofficially in others) “outlawed” by the regulators and inspectors who appeared terrified at having to officially determine if the Part 1 solution complied for many years.

This then made installers comply with Part 2, regardless, even in situations where this was totally impractical. And this consequently turned any hoped-for innovation on its head.

Part 2: The rewrite

Where the deemed to comply requirements, which had been very carefully redrafted to make the Standard more user-friendly and using better grammar, were (although technically equivalent) being reinterpreted in some jurisdictions, especially those with very rigid (and sometimes overly zealous) inspection policies.

The past trade training shortfalls:

Where there was a real push-back by many on the tools who had been taught to almost religiously follow the previous deemed to comply requirements, were having great difficulty in relating those to the new text in Sections 2 to 8 in Part 2. Basically, it seemed to be just a fear of change.

So why was it right then? Because, as suggested above, the now planned revision is reinventing some of the changes proposed back in the nineties – but hopefully with a better result

At least in part from the feedback, this influenced Standards and the electrical industry at large, as history has shown, to have a rethink and make a sensible decision to do an urgent revision by doing a major rewrite going back to much pre-Y2K text. That ultimately became the 2007 revision.

Ironically, in hindsight, I believe by the time the 2007 revision was published, many of the 2000 version users had already become well-versed in the 2000 edition and didn’t really want another revision.

In retrospect, if the seven years it took were applied to moving forward, perhaps the delays we’ve had in getting the next revisions done could well have been avoided. But, as Henry Lawson would have said: “Ah well…”

It’s also worth remembering that, even though the 2007 revision was very much fast-tracked and as those who were involved at the time will remember, had two highly respected very long-term committee members in their retirement working continuously (at Standards expense) for many months to redraft it; even with that effort, its publication still took seven years to publish.

The many hurdles already conquered

There are many hurdles that have already been overcome since the restart, but many others to still deal with.

So, it may be helpful to liken the revising to a hurdles race when trying to beat the so far personal best record, with the finish line as sometime in mid-2027. Using that metaphor, the industry has already left the starting blocks, but is still well behind the finish line. Here’s are the hurdles that the 2018 revision has already jumped.

The starting blocks

Was it a clean start? No way. But to be fair, much was not under the committee’s control.

There were many problems. The 2018 edition of the Wiring Rules had been published a little late as its previous target was around the middle of that decade, but then moved out to 2017. So, it was 11 years after the 2007 Y2K remedial publication.

At that time, the new target was the current 2025 revision. That was very optimistic and raised doubt both in print and the last few meetings, before COVID even came on the scene, that it could be as late as 2028 to 2030.

Then COVID hit

And as the COVID panic started to set in. That brought a quite serious halt to the EL.001 committee work, as due to the imposed movement restrictions, and the Teams/Zoom not being reliable for large committee meetings, it was decided to put group committee work on hold.

Then, in late 2022, around the time when meetings were restarting, the committee elected and well-respected committee chairperson said that they wished to retire from that position. This chairperson and their employer, like all on the committee, were generously volunteering a lot of time and covering the cost of travel and accommodation.

Standards Australia and NECA, together in good faith, then nominated a NECA representative to be the chairperson, but that didn’t work out.

Developing a new system

As a consequence, Standards, aware there were flaws in the then-current EL.001 structure and composition, decided to put a temporary hold on the revision work and engaged an expert to assist in developing a new way forward and also disbanded the then-EL.001 committee.

Then Standards circulated a document entitled Wiring Rules Transformation in November 2021, noting user feedback areas for improvement, including to:

• Ease of use and application, including easier navigation.
• Simplify the language, with too many cross-references and not using everyday language.
• Redesign and reduce the content and update the layout to aid readability.
• Explore digital modes, add telephone access and additional apps.

Consultation

Then, in January 2023, Standards circulated a general consultation paper for Alternate Standard Development Models, inviting stakeholders to review the proposals and provide feedback by mid-March.

This was then responded to regarding the EL-001 Wiring Rules Committee in April 2023, with feedback from the consultation and many stakeholder interviews. It included extensive, detailed background information and a summary of the consultation process as well as several findings, proposals and recommendations in its 38 pages.

All of this information then resulted in a Future Operations Consultation Draft in May 2023, of some 22 pages. It listed seven recommendations:

The after-consultation feedback

Following on from the above consultation, Standards circulated a further publication entitled Future Operations of EL.001 Summary of Feedback and Way Forward in July 2023. As expected, there were many that were positive, but there were also some concerns.

Below is a list of some of the concerns noted. Please note that some of the following may already be adopted at the time of print and my comments can be found in the second column.

The draft new Charter

The above then continues with details on the revised charter, with some of the more interesting issues for us regarding the Wiring Rules being;

• Develop, review and update to ensure they remain up to date, meeting end user needs.
• Have a structure comprising a formally constituted technical committee (TC) comprising an executive committee (EC), an EL.001 community (typically a resource of specialists) and a needs-based number of working groups (typically drawn from that community).
• Comprises nineteen members for the TC, as currently proposed, who have various voting rights. This is a major change from past practice as we are moving from a democratic structure (where each committee member is involved in all decisions and arriving at a consensus outcome where all have agreed) to an autocratic one (where the decisions are voted on that includes a far wider group without the benefit of an all in discussion) that has a high risk of resulting in a very suboptimal outcome. As noted here and in other places, the only way to get harmony and buy-in from all the real stakeholders and the optimum and correct outcome is for each of the stakeholders to agree by consensus.
• Comprise (for the EC, as then currently proposed) seven members, being a mix of Standards and TC appointments, four of which are appointed by Standards and three (if also counting the Chair) by the TC.

Committee meeting

An executive committee meeting was then held in November 2023 to determine the executive committee’s role and responsibilities, future work program, governance and structure and schedule and timelines.

EL.001 to focus on the technical content, with consideration to be given to a digital transformation working group to bridge the gap between the drafting of any changes and the publication of any revision.

It is my opinion that the person doing the digital – or for that any other change to any text – must have a full understanding of the electrical and technical issues, and the work should always be referred back to the original drafter before any signoff.

Additionally, the deemed to satisfy principles in Part 2 are to be retained and a process of queries management (for example, FAQs to be established).

So, where are we now?

As you can see from the above, many organisational and other hurdles have been overcome and much has already been done, bearing in mind the COVID intervention and the rebuilding of the EL.001 revisioning process. But there are also still many obstacles to come needing to be hurdled over.

And the hoped-for completion target of mid-2027 is every day looming closer.

After all, just looking at the recent Wiring Rules revision history and counting back the past three revisions, those three have taken 27 years, an average of nine years each. Then, considering we are now almost into 2026, that’s almost seven years in from the last revision, with the completion target of 2027, then almost nine years, which means another nine-year gap; the fourth…

This makes the suggested completion time a real challenge, especially as we are now in uncharted waters with many more challenges to come and hurdles to overcome.

The potential hurdles to come

There are many, too many to list them all now, but here is a sample of some of the more complex ones:

The development of a bespoke user-friendly IT system to immediately allow real-time access to (and between) all processes, documentation, proposed changes and support tech for members to access. This may be the only way the information flow, identification of and determination of the impact of the changes with other clauses etc., can be effectively done in minimal time so members can focus and save most of their valuable volunteered time and optimise the entire process in the 600-plus page document, rather than negotiating between screens and flipping paper pages.

The signing off by all jurisdiction regulators and other stakeholders on changes they haven’t been directly involved in. Only by all the direct stakeholders in each jurisdiction having reviewed and signed off – and not just rubber stamped – individually on any changes concerning their state or territory, can the continued revisiting of proposed changes be avoided.

Making sure all clauses associated elsewhere are identified for changes as required. This will require research and signing off by all affected stakeholders to confirm all have been identified.

Avoiding U-turn decisions made due to oversights and misunderstandings by having only consensus decisions. As noted also elsewhere, as additions and changes will be to “protect persons, livestock and property from electric shock, fire and physical injury hazard”, the entire committee needs to reach a consensus and voting with a divisive result has no benefit as it is either yes or no.

Developing detailed, additional and new requirements for current and emerging technologies like electric vehicles (EVs), batteries and more.

Ensuring changes are essential, cost-effective, provide value for money, are understandable, priceable and doable. For transparency, this may need a sign-off record to be completed and retained.

Presentation for the public comments in a detailed way to encourage greater tradie-level participation and ensure more potential errors are captured timely manner.

Changing practice requiring anyone wishing to comment to keep cross-referencing with the now-defined analogue versions. Much time can be saved by showing the entire text with the change proposed for with any existing deleted text shown as struck through, any new text in a different colour and any reasoning behind the change in different text (italic or different font), so all is information is immediately available to the user in one place.

Ensure all different user device platforms have the same information without any ambiguity. This is mostly an issue with the analogue versions.

Include installation details on integrating multiple supplementary supplies (EVs, solar, wind, hydro, methane etc.) safely. Perhaps best done by broadening current Appendix P to have all these, as well as the battery issues, in one place.

Alignment, where possible, with IEC similar requirements.

Catching up with all previously listed and identified but still outstanding changes.

Finding enough highly qualified volunteers experienced in electrical installation and familiar with the Wiring Rules, with employer sponsors to cover their time away from work and travel costs and wages to participate. This ‘hurdle’ should not be underestimated.

Other changes in the pipeline

Again, there are too many that were already in the pipeline to list here, also some are carryovers from immediately after publication of the 2007 and 2018 revisions, but potentially not yet addressed. These changes include:

• Determining if EVs are part of the installation when power is drawn from them.
• An appendix for solar, wind and hydro installs to precis as with Appendix K, switchboards.
• Adjusting Clause 7.7 and any other sections for changes to AS/NZS 4777 Parts 1 and 2.
• Review of TN-C-S system requirements, as this is only used in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, especially where supplementary supplies are involved.
• Integration of data with power, as in USB sockets in power outlets.
• Changing generally installed RCDs from AC type to A type.
• More clearly identifying the boundaries in the text of New Zealand-only clauses.
• Clarification on Power over Ethernet (PoE) installation guidance, as these can now theoretically reach up to 1A.
• Installation requirements to ensure proper RCD operation installations where supplementary supplies are involved.
• Removing the exemption for RCD testing in new installs is now in certain jurisdictions.
• Installing of energy sources type ES1, ES2 and ES3.
• Installation of PVC cables near or through Styrofoam and polystyrene.
• Location and or mounting of air conditioner isolators.
• Earthing, systems and EV charging complexation.

Getting to the finish line

This is all a huge challenge, in fact, a Herculean task, certainly a brave decision not for the faint-hearted.

Having regard for the work still to be done and the hurdles to jump, is it realistic to try to get everything on the table at present done by the middle of 2027? Remembering the target for public comment is one year before that, and also factoring in time for approval by the different state, federal and New Zealand governments.

Or would it be better to put those nice-to-have things, but not essential and still somewhat pie in the sky, aside to focus on fixing now only that which is broken and take the time now to bed in the new policies and team structures on only what is urgent now?

Don’t forget to remember the Y2K experiment. After all, there will be much less criticism in producing a pared-down but top-notch revision than an all-in-one with several errors.

Will this revision and method be the best? I hope so and certainly take my hat off to all involved in setting themselves and taking on the challenge!

In the meantime, there are still other hurdles not listed here to consider, like who pays? How often to publish? IT streamlining? Paginating all references and other topics and suggestions and so on. All something to think about. Perhaps if there is an opportunity in the next edition…