This week's question is pretty broad and there is not an easy way to narrow it down. It is about standards organizations and which are you familiar with or that you use.

There is a limit to the number of permitted responses for the forum (maximum 10) so this is certainly not an all-inclusive list – feel free to add others in your comments.

Which electrical standards organizations are you familiar with?

NFPA
CSA
IEEE
ASTM
IEC
ANSI
UL
EN
AU/NZS
Others

Interesting mix of choices. It spans the gamut from the major international ones (IEC, IEEE) to the locals (AUS), and I hate to say it but the somewhat obscure because ASTM is not more...it's now NIST, and only a very tiny fraction of those standards even has anything to do with electrical. The vast majority of ASTM standards are for materials testing such as standardized procedures for measuring say the properties of crude oil or the amount of metal in an ore.

As far as electrical standards go, you forgot to throw NEMA in there. I could mention ICEA too but that might be getting way too far into the weeds. And dare I mention ISA for instrumentation? What about FM which has almost more prominence in some cases than UL?

And you mentioned AUS/NZS for locals but left DK, BS, FR, etc., out of it. At least CSA is in there which is actually more "internationalized" than most people realize since CSA is kin to UL except not so snooty about supporting other standards.

And that's staying very strictly with electrical standards. For example you'd think that ASCE wouldn't be lumped in there either but when it comes to power line design, ASCE is kind of the "master" source. RUS and NESC use a subset/derivative of ASCE. Why this matters is because NESC and RUS both make some assumptions (NESC assumes ASCE terrain type B for instance), and RUS simplifies the NESC rules even further, while ASCE is much more generalized. I say derivative because it's not just a subset...NESC has this goofy <60 foot rule for instance for extreme wind.

Then we get into AiChE which has some safety standards for instrumentation, and say SME and ASI which have hardware design standards.

One thing is for sure. I've seen a lot of bid specifications coming out of the contract engineering houses that say something stupid like, "Must comply with the latest standards from NEC, NFPA, iEEE, UL, etc." Quite often the standards are contradictory or stupid such as including NEC and NFPA in the same breath. I might be the only one that actually reads these specifications though.

Yes, it was a bit difficult. I had quite a few other choices, NEMA etc. and found there is a 10 answer limit for the forum so I had to cut the list.

EN standards are derived from IEC, ANSI is often derived from IEEE etc. so there are even some that might be considered to overlap.

With ASTM, correct it's not electrical but I was thinking PPE - Probably should have used something else.

AU, EN etc. were just to test the waters regarding the international forum users. Could have been really specific and listed BSI which is British only. It could be an enormous list.

There are also the ones that I can't quite describe but it's basically a consortium of end users. This would include NETA ATS and MTS, the PEARL standards, NECA standards, and EASA standards.

I guess in a lot of ways NEMA would fall into this classification except that some NEMA standards are also rebranded as ANSI (there's that overlap again), and some are rebranded as CSA. I'm thinking specifically for instance about SHD mining cable which is an ICEA standard maintained by NEMA where the testing and recognition by a "generic" standard similar to UL (the standards organization portion) ends up falling under CSA and a variety of mining "3rd" party test organizations including the state of Pennsylvania and MSHA's labs. NECA is sort of interesting because its a group of union contractors but their workmanship standard gets referenced by NEC and they have a whole lot of very practical installation/workmanship standards such as some very excellent ones for cable trays. NETA gets an honorable mention by NFPA 70E as well. PEARL and EASA don't get recognition at all but in terms of rebuilders, they are the de facto standards for equipment rebuilders although they are for rebuilders, by rebuilders. Of the two, EASA is recognized similar to EPRI in terms of being very proactive in pushing the frontiers in terms of motors. It's amazing when you let a bunch of academics and engineers loose to write a motor standard without any input from people who actually build motors what kind of very bad mistakes you can end up with (IEEE 841).