What It’s Really Like to Write the NEC: Inside Code-Making Panel 4 with Solar Tech Collective

Most people who work with the National Electrical Code (NEC) learn what it says. Very few people know why it says it.

Rebekah Hren and Brian Mehalic of Solar Tech Collective are in that second group. Both serve as principal voting members on Code-Making Panel 4, the technical committee responsible for the NEC articles that govern PV systems, energy storage, EVs, and interconnected power systems. They’re in the room when it’s written, shaping the very requirements they now teach.

In this conversation, Rebekah and Brian pull back the curtain on what that process actually looks like: the three-year revision cycle, the task groups, the weeks spent in a room working through proposals, and yes, the politics. It’s a significant volunteer commitment, and they do it because they’re genuinely invested in making the industry safer and getting more solar and storage systems installed.

That insider perspective is exactly what they bring to their new course, Comprehensive 2026 NEC Requirements for Electrotech: PV, ESS, EVs, PCS, and More. You’ll walk away understanding not just what changed, but why it changed and how to apply it with confidence.

Watch the conversation below, then head to the course to go deeper.

Enroll your team in Comprehensive 2026 NEC Requirements for Electrotech on HeatSpring.

Transcript below

Brit: What does it actually look like to be on a code-making panel, and how does that shape the way you teach about the National Electrical Code?

Brian: You know, it’s really an honor in a lot of ways to work on a code-making panel. It’s also a lot of commitment, time, and energy. Honestly, different folks take a different approach. Some people are sort of just there as something to put on their resume. Other people are passionate and really into it, and that’s the folks on this call here.

Being able to help drive the process, being able to understand the what and the why — I think that’s really important, and it’s something we’re all just really passionate about. That really helps us bring that context to the training. Because, hey, let’s be honest, sometimes code can be a little bit boring, but we like to keep it interesting and give you some of the details and the background.

We can’t always talk about the sausage-making process, can’t name names or point fingers. But yeah, it can get a little heated in the room sometimes. We like to approach it coming from the background of the good of the industry: keeping things safe, making sure we’re getting more and more of these systems installed. We’re not pushing a product. We’re not working for a manufacturer or a specific organization. We’re really doing this because we love solar, we love storage, we love electrotech.

Brit: What kind of time commitment are we talking about? When you’re on a code-making panel, is it like years? Are you meeting every week?

Rebekah: The code is revised on a three-year cycle, and during those three years there are times when there’s a lot more work going on and times when there’s almost no work going on. About two years prior to publication, it really ramps up. There are public inputs to review, a lot of task groups. It can be three or four hours a week when we’re working on task groups, and that’s before we get together as a technical committee and spend a week in a room working on the first draft.

Then we go back to our offices, get comments, do another round of task groups, and spend another week in a room working on the second draft. It fluctuates, but there are definitely times when it’s a pretty significant commitment. If you want to keep on top of what the changes are and be a good technical committee member who knows how to vote, you really have to be involved in those conversations along the way.

Brit: Well, it’s a good thing it’s a paid position. Just kidding. It’s definitely not!

Rebekah: It’s a lot of volunteer time. It is a lot of work, but it’s really interesting. We learn a lot from the other people on the panel. There are a lot of really smart people who are genuinely invested in making the code better. It’s a really interesting process, and very political. You learn to navigate the politics of it pretty quickly.