[socialismisok]

"I'd have to bring my electrical systems up to code and that's expensive for my 80 year old house"

Well, yeah. I suppose it would be. I'm a bit surprised this is a surprise to the landlord. Also, many of the costs here are looming anyways. It's a matter of when, not if, the electrical needs updating to meet code.

[voisin]

> I'm a bit surprised this is a surprise to the landlord. Also, many of the costs here are looming anyways. It's a matter of when, not if, the electrical needs updating to meet code.

I see this all the time. “Investors” buy real estate by assuming repairs and maintenance to be minimal and then pocketing every dime of excess cash created by the property. Then, over time when the windows need to be replaced or the roof or the electrical system upgraded or the HVAC improved, they don’t have any budget for it because they’ve become used to living off all of the income (despite the fact that over their 10-20 years of ownership they’ve seen rents increase dramatically). So what do they do? They list it for sale at high current market rents as if all of this deferred maintenance / Capex has been completed. This puts buyers in a position of paying a massive purchase price and having massive costs to renovate / upgrade.

I hate landlords like this. Fortunately you can spot them a mile away. If the paint is peeling, then the electrical isn’t to code.

[rconti]

You don't have to spot them a mile away, the article plainly says the landlord used to occupy the duplex until their family grew too large for it.

[voisin]

I writing more generally in response to the previous commenter’s statement about being surprised.

[bhhaskin]

That's not necessarily true. It sounds like most of the upgrades are about convenience to the power company. Not anything safety related, which is why older properties are exempt.

You also have to remember that it takes a lot of power to be able to change an EV in timely manner. It is easily the number one consumer of energy. Older neighborhoods utilities where never designed to do that.

[breput]

> It sounds like most of the upgrades are about convenience to the power company. Not anything safety related, which is why older properties are exempt.

That is definitely not true. An 80 year old house might not even have grounded outlets, let alone GFCI or AFCI protected outlets.

> You also have to remember that it takes a lot of power to be able to change an EV in timely manner

Nobody worries about how many electric ovens, clothes dryers, or air conditioners are in an older neighborhood. 240V at 30A is a trivial load addition, and even if it were to become a concern, there are existing mechanisms to shed load during peak usage. Even a crude cut-off switch, like many air conditioners have, would be sufficient.

[bhhaskin]

GFCI and AFCI are great! But a home isn't going to burst into flames or explode without them. Which is why there are exemptions.

240v at 30A is most definitely not a trivial load. Most homes have 100 amp service. That would be 30% of your homes total power capacity just for changing EV. You wouldn't be able to run AC and the dryer and charge an EV at the same time at that rate. But more importantly there is only so much power at the pole.

[breput]

They might not burst into flames, today, but these technologies weren't invented because there was no risk.

> That would be 30% of your homes total power capacity just for changing EV

That's the thing - most people have a 8 to 12 hour window to fully charge their car(s) overnight and when you and your neighbors are using practically no energy. Worst case is there is no active management and there is just a new peak at midnight. Best case is that the electric company incentivizes you to not only charge at non-peak times, but also pays you to allow them to manage the charging times.

This technology is not science fiction - it already exists. I got a $250 rebate from my electric company to install a connected level 2 charger. It is not currently managed, but if there is some dystopian future where all of my neighbors aren't burning hydrocarbons, all have EVs, and somehow the infrastructure hasn't kept up, as long as my car is fully charged in the morning, I don't care if it happened from midnight to 2 AM or 4 AM to 6 AM.

But also...

> Most homes have 100 amp service

Most homes built decades ago, maybe. And to be clear, we're talking about US 120V system. I would be very surprised if any house built since...lets be generous...the 1980s doesn't have a 200A supply or couldn't easily be updated.

[Kirby64]

Your recommendation would require updates to the NEC to even be considered.

As it stands today, an EV charger (or an outlet designated for EV charging) is considered to be 'in use' 100% of the time from a loading perspective (i.e., when counting how big of a main breaker you need to handle). Which, honestly, makes sense. You can't predict when other loads are being used reliably, and you can use an EV charger for many hours. For, say, during the middle of the night.. there's a high heating load so that loading will happen simultaneously.

There are more intelligent ways to handle this (and, the products exist today!), however they're quite expensive. Maybe less expensive than a full new overhaul of your house's electrical... but eventually electrical needs to be updated to code.

Also, regarding 100A vs 200A main panels: it heavily depends on the size of the house. I know in my neighborhood, which the oldest house was built in 2008, they only gave 100A panels to houses that were ~1700sqft or smaller. For larger houses, those got 200A panels.

[tharkun__]

It seems that this 100/200A thing might just be very different across even just North America, nevermind Europe. So much so that we can't make a general statement either way.

As in no, it does not heavily depend on size in general in the way you describe. It may do so where you are but that's about it. My house is smaller than 1700sqft, was built quite some years before 2008 and we have a 200A panel and I don't know what I would do with 100A service. It would be impossible actually. But that might be because we use electric baseboard heating and thus lots of heating circuits with quite a bunch of amps in use by that.

[BizarroLand]

When I moved into my home the first major upgrade I did was upgrading my electrical panel. The home was built in the early 80's and had a 100amp panel.

Putting in a 200 amp panel ran me about $1,000. Power company checked off on it and upgraded my meter in the process. I also added a 240v 30amp socket in the garage for things like an EV, and put a whole house surge protector on in the process.

My house has rock solid power at every socket and plenty of capacity for the future as well, definitely worth the investment.

[xboxnolifes]

> GFCI and AFCI are great! But a home isn't going to burst into flames or explode without them. Which is why there are exemptions.

True, but not what you said. You said the changes are not safety related, but these are safety related.

[sliken]

Keep in mind 240v @ 30 amps = charging at 30 miles per hour or so. Common daily driving (12k miles a year) = 33 miles per day. Even throttling to 10 amps (which my charger supports), is 11 miles per hour or 110 miles per day if you charge for 10 hours.

Having had a 100 amp service, it was really not a big deal. Sure I'd normally charge at 11pm, when the AC wasn't running. But the home is using WAY less electricity than when I bought in 1994 when TVs consumed a ton of power, single paned windows insulated poorly, a fair number of 300 watt halogen bulbs, and tons of the 100 watt incandescents. Between LED lighting, a more efficient refrigerator, and a MUCH lower power flat panel TV our power use per day is less than it was in 1994, even with a EV.

100 amps @ 240v is a ton of power, and if you need to peak shave there's quite a bit of room between 240v@30 amps and 240v@10 amps which is plenty for most normal driving patterns.

[kylecordes]

240 at 20A is sufficient for an overnight charge for nearly all uses of EV cars and SUVs. So even less impact.

Also a device is available that shares the EV circuit with a dryer circuit; set your car to start charging very late at night when laundry is not running. Zero additional max load for the house.

[idiotsecant]

>It sounds like most of the upgrades are about convenience to the power company. Not anything safety related

It's always painful trying to have discussions related to any kind of physical infrastructure on HN because it's absolutely full of people that assume that physical design and maintenance is somehow the trivial, easy part.

[smileysteve]

This is why American infrastructure is crumbling. People are under the impression that concrete, pipes lasts forever, but it doesn't.

[quickthrowman]

> That's not necessarily true. It sounds like most of the upgrades are about convenience to the power company. Not anything safety related, which is why older properties are exempt.

The exterior service disconnect rule added in 2020 is safety related, it’s so firefighters can kill electrical power to a home from the outside to make it safe to enter. It has nothing to do with the utility.

[sliken]

I keep hearing that, it seems like no big deal. The average annual driving I hear is somewhere around 12,000 miles. 12,000/365 = 33 miles a day. Or 10 ish hours on a 120v circuit. Presuming most people sleep, shower, dress, etc 10 ish hours a day it doesn't seem like a big deal. Sure you might have to occasionally use an external charger ... much like the gas folks do.

33 miles a day of electricity is not that much, something like 7.6 KwH per day. For perspective AC units use from 0.5 to 5 KwH per hour.

Is it a difference, yes. However most EVs charge off peak, and would go even more off peak with a financial incentive. I set mine to start charging at 11pm when it's the cheapest rate, which nicely offsets AC use which is heaviest in the afternoon.

[jxramos]

that is interesting to consider a neighborhood scale of infrastructure and the capabilities therein. How much copper is underground in various places, is fiber internet present or on the way, something to think about for sure.

[sschueller]

Grandfathering in electrical codes seems quite dangerous. At some point wouldn't the city just require it or deem the property unsafe?

[Ekaros]

On other hand I think mandating upgrades every time code changes for everything would be unsustainable. From many perspectives like supply of labour and materials. And fact that creating such uneven demand would cause very messy labour market.

Mandating ripping out immediately everything dangerous or carcinogenic, would be even bigger issue. And these things don't cause actually so many issues to be very life threatening. They have been around for decades after all.

[aynyc]

Because it would destroy poor-middle class home owners and renters. This year, it's electrical, next year is gas line, the year after is sewer, soon enough, poor-middle class won't be able to afford any homes and rents will go up. This is particular true in larger cities.

[yellowapple]

Defer code compliance to time of sale/purchase. Basically: if you want to sell it as a house, it has to be up to code, but until then, go hog-wild. Seems like that would solve the issue - and in practice I'm pretty sure that's already the case.

[briHass]

A good amount of modern building code is related to energy efficiency. These standards applying to new construction make sense: it's only a marginal increase in cost to add insulation, use upgraded products, or ensure air-tightness during construction. However, for existing homes, this would be extremely costly. The house would, in many cases, need to be ripped down to the studs on exterior walls and completely reinsulated/sealed, older windows would need to be replaced, HVAC ducts exposed and sealed/insulated, etc.

For an existing structure, the result of all these improvements, even considering rising energy costs, would never pay back over the expected life of the house. Code tries to strike a balance here by enforcing that when it's reasonable to do so (e.g. you tore down to the studs for a remodel anyway), you need to bring the areas modified up to modern-ish standards.

[toast0]

That's fine where the benefits of code compliance outweigh the costs of compliance.

But old homes are expensive to rewire. And often, the safety benefits are very small. Current code requires a lot more outlets than older code, in part because many people overuse extension cords and tiny/cheap power taps when there aren't sufficient outlets, which is a safety issue, but is it worth spending thousands of dollars to pull new wire through existing walls, and then repairing the walls afterwards?

Some issues, are worth retrofitting for, and hopefully a pre-sales inspection by the buyer or insurance inspection will catch those. It would be reasonable to have a transfer inspection for those too.

[aynyc]

To bring something up to code, it takes weeks if not months. Getting permit, construction and inspection. You can't tie up a sale until that's done. Where do you get the money to pay for that? Buyer isn't gonna wait for X months, especially if buyers want to do their own renovations. You know what people will do? Pass the buck to the buyer (Sold As Is). The cycle repeats again and again.

[toomuchtodo]

You require something akin to an FHA 203k loan, where the improvements can be financed with bank oversight. You make these specific improvements a requirement where, if not performed using the funds provided, the loan is in default. Cash transaction can still require the work be done; have the county recorder notify the permit office of the AHJ.

Lots of paths to success here.

[willcipriano]

Some codes would require you do things like tear down a addition that was perfectly legal and safe last year or moving a house back further from a road that the government expanded. Not everything in local building codes is for safety, there is a lot of aesthetic stuff in there. Imagine being forced to rip out a 100 year old oak tree because it isn't legal to have a tree in your front yard anymore. Pools are no longer allowed, fill it in. No thanks. I'd never buy in a locality like that, might as well live in a HOA.

[aynyc]

How can a retiree or poor middle class person get a loan? They probably have below 650 credit. The house hasn’t seen an updated in 20 years. Any delay in construction will put them under water for years. For the poor, there is no path for success, as the house is probably the only assets they have.

My old neighborhood has a bunch of 80 year olds with houses worth a million easy without any mortgages. You would think the banks would give them loans to fix things up. Nope, not a chance. The banks are waiting for them to die and make money off the next mortgage.

[yellowapple]

> You can't tie up a sale until that's done.

Sure you can - and you damn well should, especially for outright safety issues. What's the point of a building code if it ain't gonna be enforced?

> You know what people will do? Pass the buck to the buyer (Sold As Is).

Then give the buyer a grace period to bring the building up to code.

[aynyc]

Then you can expect even more housing crunch. It’s simply not realistic to updates homes 50-100 years old without significant cost which old retirees can’t really afford. Some of the new codes would force pre-war homes to be completely tear down. For example, asbestos sidings which would require the homeowners to move out of the house. Bubble wrap the house and do mitigation work. After that, massive amount of interior work to ensure safety. Toss in electrical, plumbing, and lead paint, you might as well do a new construction.

Reality simply doesn’t work this way. Just like we allow people to drive old ass cars that aren’t safe for the passengers but will pass emission inspections.

[sidewndr46]

My house is 40 years old. To "bring it up to code" would have one simple step: demolish the whole house. There is no way you will ever economically bring a structure this old up to code.

[janstice]

In my neck of the woods, eventually your insurance will not cover you for damage caused by out of spec electrical wiring, which then endangers a mortgage…

[socialismisok]

I agree, especially if you are a landlord.

[cammikebrown]

They don’t because (in places like California at least) their property taxes go up if they do any significant upgrades

[LinuxBender]

That is the same in my state of Wyoming. The assessors visit my property every year and ask what improvements I've made. Two weeks after I bought the property they showed up and went through a checklist with me that detailed everything they knew about the house. I did something taboo and brought them into the house because they listed something as "fair" that was "bad".

It's funny though, all of this is just for tax revenue. They don't care about electrical wiring, plumbing, etc... I am told that when a house is first built they will inspect the electrical but I do not believe them. I've had to fix dozens of incorrectly wired sockets and really janky wiring in the circuit breaker panel and missing grounding connections.

[dagw]

On the other hand, as a landlord it's not your health and safety you're gambling with. As long as your insurance company doesn't complain, spending a lot of money to decrease the risk of fire doesn't make financial sense.

[yieldcrv]

no, the property will just burn down in a fiery electrical explosion killing anyone unlucky enough to have been there after the contractor missed the ancient arts necessary to avoid that.

municipalities lack consensus for any other outcome to occur, they are all land fiefdoms.

[alias_neo]

I'm on board with what you're saying, but also electrics done to "code" can burn down your house.

My mother in law told me yesterday that my sister in law's mother in law's house burned down while they slept (they're safe) this week due to brand new electrics in a brand new house extension, carried out by a licensed (is that the correct word for an electrician?) professional.

This is in England

[sschueller]

Isn't the code in the UK quite lax? From what I understand this is the reason every plug in the UK is required to have a fuse because the homes are not properly fused.

[alias_neo]

I don't know honestly, the plug fuse thing is due to us having ring mains which I heard was due to copper savings around war time I believe; I'm too young to know as a 30-something millennial, and haven't looked into it properly as that reason seems plausible.

Our circuits are "properly fused" though with RCDs/circuit breakers, but they're high current because we can have so many large current drawing devices on a single circuit (such as in the kitchen) which is always given its own circuit.

[pmyteh]

Plugs are fused because the current capacity of the in-wall wiring (and the breakers that protect it) is much higher than the safe current capacity of a single appliance's power lead. The circuits are often 32A and most appliances are rated for 13A or less. So without a plug fuse a fault in the appliance that draws, say, 25W would potentially overheat and set fire to the appliance cord without tripping the breaker. This is true of most countries' larger radial circuits too, I think, and the British practice of fusing plugs is a safety upgrade. How much risk it reduces in practice, I don't know.

The final ring circuit is an idiosyncracy of British wiring practice, where the cable goes out in a loop from the distribution board to sockets etc and then connects back to the board again. It allows smaller gauge wires to be run for a given current rating, and was introduced after WWII to reduce copper use during reconstruction. This does have some unusual failure modes, but the code is absolutely fine for this system as long as it's followed (including the testing regime after new installations, which will catch, for example, a ring circuit with the neutral conductor disconnected only on one side of the ring). Obviously bad work can happen anywhere.

[yieldcrv]

whose house? I need a chart, or was this sarcasm about hearsay

[alias_neo]

Sadly not, it was a bit of a confusing one to write, there may be an easier way to describe the relationship but it seemed quite funny to read so I left it.

I meant to say my wife's sister's partner's mother.

[phone[phone]]

They sound like a bit of a slumlord to me based on that description.