PE Exam for specialized field 2

[apMechE]

Mechanical engineer hired to replace a Civil at a utility coop. Involved with substation and line design. Passed the FE, now what PE should I take? Mechanical Machine Design since it was the field I studied and worked for 5 yrs? Civil Construction, more relevant, though will only utilize a nugget of the information crammed in for the exam? Or Power and learn the electrical side of the industry even though my responsibilities lie on the design and construction side? Another situation where you battle the politics of the game.

 

[RVAmeche]

You can take whichever PE exam you think you'll pass. However, note that most states only allow you sign off on things you have "knowledge" in (can't remember the exact phrasing). If you're a ME filling in for a CE without much civil experience, I (as a PE) would not sign those drawings. Once you've acquired the necessary experience, you can then sign off on things you designed per usual.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Mechanical engineer hired to replace a Civil at a utility coop. Involved with substation and line design.

In-house engineering work for a company where you are a full-time employee is exempt from PE licensing requirements in many states. Check both your state law and your employer's job requirement, you may never need to seal anything. I do encourage you to obtain the license, but if you don't need it (anytime soon), agree with RVAmeche, take the exam where you have the best chance of passing.

Besides, if you decide the new job is not for you, probably best to have a "general purpose" PE than a specialized one.

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[apMechE]

Makes sense, same advice I have received from my supervisor. Take the one you have the best chance of passing. Then as I learn, do and wean ourselves off our consultants, I would feel competent enough to seal any design related to substation and transmission within reason. The prior civil never obtained his PE and as SlideRuleEra stated, I believe we are exempt when in-house, though would be nice to have. Seems to carry more clout in some industries and comes with a pay increase, so worth the short term pain.

 

[RVAmeche]

Not to hijack the thread, but why does the utility exemption exist anyway?

[ul]
[li]"In-house” engineers employed by a manufacturing or other business firm not providing a service directly to the public;[/li]
[li]Engineers employed by public utilities;[/li]
[/ul]

As long as the service doesn't directly service the public...because utilities don't serve the public directly?

 

[77JQX]

You should take the exam you can pass and that will benefit you most in the future, including futures where you no longer are employed by the utility. Also, I believe in my State, regardless what experience one has, one can be reprimanded for stamping electrical drawings with a civil license.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

...why does the utility exemption exist anyway?

In a word... politics. The exemption applies to other industries in some states.

This is the paper that contains the extracts shown above: "The Enigma of Engineering's Industrial Exemption to Licensure: The Exception that Swallowed A Profession"

Disclaimer: I am retired from an electric utility with background similar to the OP. However, I earned both PE qualifications and significant civil/structural experience well before being employed by the utility. Needed my seal only twice (for projects directly affecting others outside the utility) during 21 years of employment.

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[IRstuff]

Thanks, SRE, it's an interesting one-sided view of life, as is often the case.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

Not to hijack the thread, but why does the utility exemption exist anyway?

Its because the utility isn't selling engineering services, they're selling a product - power. Licensing is based on the premise that the public cannot be trusted to decide a professional's competence without seeing tangible results of their work. Ultimately, that premise is rather fatally flawed as licensing requires experience in a particular niche - work resulting in tangible results that can usually be shown to the public. One could also argue that premise is flawed simply from the standpoint that advertising is based on past success. Personally, I could give a dam less if an engineer is licensed as I know great and terrible engineers both licensed and unlicensed, and before hiring I'm going to give due-diligence to inspecting previous examples of their work.

 

[RVAmeche]

I agree with your point that the license itself doesn't mean anything in regards to the quality of the engineer, and I understand the exemption for in-house industrial applications where the risk is (relatively) contained in that plant. But it still seems odd to me that licenses are required to sell engineering services but not to provide the utility that is connected to your house. The easiest example to illustrate my concern is the Columbia Gas accident in Massachusetts.

Like SRE's post alludes, I expect the real answer of "why" is political clout.

 

[CWB1]

The easiest example to illustrate my concern is the Columbia Gas accident in Massachusetts.

In reality a PE license not only doesn't address that concern, its mandate would likely cause more issues like the one you highlighted by removing technical specialists from their niche.

 

[weldstan]

During my time as PE, I only sealed three documents, all of which involved litigation or potential litigation.