When you do 5 year reviews for your clients, are you recommending that the studies be done to the 2018 IEEE standard? When I think back to all the studies we have done using the < 240V & 125 KVA rule, we have a lot of panels out there with labels that would now be questionable under the new standards. Just curious what others thoughts are on this.

We are preparing a proposal to do a 5 year review for an industrial plant. We are proposing to use the 2018 IEEE standard. In our case, the 125 kVA rule change doesn't affect us because all of the calculated IEs on low voltage panels were below 1.2 cal/cm² anyway. What concerns us is the extra time it will take to determine enclosure sizes and electrode configurations. I doubt that our competitors will consider the extra costs involved.

We are now quoting all new projects (including 5 year reviews) using the new IEEE 1584-2018 Guide. We are measuring the enclosure sizes and using typical defaults for the electrode configurations. Yes, this requires more labor but this is what the new equations require. The new equations are more accurate and should be used.

As of this writing all studies should be performed using 1584-2018 method. There is questionable legal standing if OSHA were to identify a study performed after the release of 1584-2018 did not use the new method.

We have almost always included equipment fed by less than 125 KVA and 240 volts. When I read the exception (I don't think of it as a rule) I realized the Standard allowed that, but I felt it was arbitrary and the cut off needed to be lower.
Yes, it takes more time and effort, yet we decided to include anything fed by transformers down to 30 KVA. You rightfully could ask why bother? Good question. A client once said that if his company were to have an electrical accident, he did not want to hear the victim or his family say "it wasn't labeled so he assumed there was no hazard". That's a strong argument against the extra work and costs to include the lower level devices. I'm sure there are many in the Forum who don't agree. And they've got a good argument. But try using the excuse "it was not required" when you're telling a family member why it was not labeled. For me, the extra costs and work are worth including these lower level devices.