Rich, I would think that you knew that this would generate discussion?
One comment of Mr Hunter's that stood out in particular was the very last . . . " . . . the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They "avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers and consumers." I would say that this senitment has been echoed by many compliance engineers. But the comment is 'non-technical' . . . can anyone in this forum offer any 'technical' arguments that would a)Back-up such a statement as Mr. Hunter's or b) FAVOR the harmonic standard? I like to give the benefit of the doubt that the standard was created based on sound technical evidence. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -----Original Message----- From: Rich Nute [ mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com <mailto:ri...@sdd.hp.com> ] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:11 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Harmonics -- WSJ opinion. With thanks to Ed Jones... On Thusday, February 22, The Wall Street Journal Europe published an interesting opinion on the harmonic current emissions standard. The opinion is by Rob Hunter, a lawyer and Chairman of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank. Mr. Hunter is quite critical of the EU "New Approach" process. He says: "In this procedure, the EU sets vague safety and technical rules for everything from toys to super- computers -- for example, toys shall be 'safe.' The EU then delegates to private standardization bodies the drafting of detailed requirements explaining what the delphic rules mean." "The supposed advantage of this New Approach is twofold. For industry, it gets to write the detailed rules applying to it. For the Commission, the New Approach frees it from a burdenom task; it also allows the Commission to claim that it has nothing to do with writing the standards, and hence cannot be held responsible." "All this sounds quite above-board. It isn't." "For one thing, the standards are not merelay a means of proving compliance with the underlying legislation. They actually determine the meaning of the law itself." Mr. Hunter discusses "...the way these standard-setting bodies can be gamed by industry insiders for advantage." Mr. Hunter goes on to show how the New Approach process allows the Commission to sidestep "...WTO laws prohibiting 'mandatory' product measures that create 'unnecessary obstacles' to international trade." Mr. Hunter's opinion goes on to show that the only ones who benefit from the harmonic current emission standard are the European electricity distributors. They "avoid investments in bolstering their networks against the theoretical harmonics risk" at the cost of manufacturers and consumers. Best regards, Rich ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/> To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ <http://www.rcic.com/> click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
