Key takeaways
- The document cuts three ways, and almost nobody quotes all of it. CPSC testing confirmed the breakers fail certain UL calibration tests, on an investigation that “focused primarily on 2 pole residential circuit breakers manufactured before Reliance acquired FPE in 1979”. The same release says the data did not establish a serious risk of injury, that staff had insufficient data to accept or refute the manufacturer — and that the Commission “is unable at this time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation”.
- The famous ‘no determination’ line is from 2011, not 1983. The Commission added a Note above the release twenty-eight years later, telling inspectors and real estate agents to read it carefully, because it was being misread.
- Aluminum branch wiring is where the finding is. Pre-1972 aluminum-wired homes are “55 times more likely” to have a connection reach Fire Hazard Conditions, per the Commission's own publication — and the repair most often sold, pigtailing with twist-on connectors, is one it calls a temporary emergency measure.
- Insulating over knob-and-tube really is prohibited by the model code. That is not a myth. Some states have written a conditional carve-out; most of what you will read about this ignores both facts.
- None of this is an argument to make to your underwriter. It is applying loss experience, not a safety finding, and it is allowed to.
Been non-renewed over wiring or a panel? The notice date runs while the electrician is scheduling. A licensed agent can start the search in parallel.
Call [PENDING][PENDING]. Calls are answered by [PENDING], a licensed insurance agency (NPN [PENDING]). HomeCoverDesk is not affiliated with any insurer. Calls may be recorded or monitored for quality and training purposes. Our partner does not offer every insurer or every product available in your state.What the safety record actually shows
If you have spent an evening reading about your panel, you have read that Federal Pacific breakers fail to trip, that the manufacturer was found to have falsified testing, and that the panels are a known fire hazard. You have probably also read a rebuttal saying none of it was ever proven and there was never a recall. Both camps are quoting the same short document, and each is leaving out the half that does not suit it.
| The thing your insurer asked about | Recalled? | What the CPSC has actually published |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Pacific Stab-Lok panels and breakers | No | The 1983 release states that “Commission testing confirmed that these breakers fail certain UL calibration test requirements” — and that the data then available “does not establish that the circuit breakers pose a serious risk of injury to consumers”, staff having “insufficient data to accept or refute” the manufacturer's position. Both sentences are in the same document |
| Zinsco / Sylvania-Zinsco panels | No | We searched the CPSC recall database and newsroom and found no recall and no investigation. The case against them is inspector and contractor literature — which may well be right, and is not a CPSC finding |
| Aluminum branch-circuit wiring (pre-1972) | No — but see the next column | CPSC Publication 516: homes built before 1972 and wired with aluminum are “55 times more likely to have one or more wire connections at outlets reach ‘Fire Hazard Conditions’ than homes wired with copper”, from a Franklin Research Institute survey for the Commission |
| Concealed knob-and-tube | No | No CPSC finding. The constraints on it are in the electrical code, not in product-safety law — and they are stricter than most homeowners are told |
| Square D QO plug-on-neutral load centers, made Feb 2020 – Jan 2022 | Yes — 16 June 2022, about 1.4 million units | “The load center can overheat, posing thermal burn and fire hazards.” One reported incident of a loose wire; no injuries reported. Free inspection remedy. This is a modern panel, and no underwriting questionnaire we have seen asks about it |
So it is worth separating that document into its parts, because the parts are genuinely different in weight — and one of the four is not from 1983 at all.
| From the document | Which part it is | Who quotes it |
|---|---|---|
| “Commission testing confirmed that these breakers fail certain UL calibration test requirements” | 1983 release body — and the next sentence bounds it: the investigation “focused primarily on 2 pole residential circuit breakers manufactured before Reliance acquired FPE in 1979” | The panel's critics — though most cite an inspector's site rather than this, and almost none carry the sentence bounding what was tested |
| The data “does not establish that the circuit breakers pose a serious risk of injury to consumers”; staff “has insufficient data to accept or refute Reliance's position” | 1983 release body | The panel's defenders, usually without the sentence above it |
| “the Commission is unable at this time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation” | 1983 release body — the Commission's own voice, in the paragraph after the testing finding | Nobody, including us until 25 August 2026. This page's argument is that each camp quotes half the document; this was our half |
| “The Commission can reopen its investigation of FPE circuit breakers if further information warrants” | 1983 release body | Almost nobody. The file was closed, not concluded |
| The Commission “closed the matter without making a determination as to the safety of FPE circuit breakers or the accuracy of the manufacturer's position” | The 2011 Note, not the 1983 release | Quoted constantly as though it were the 1983 text. It is a later CPSC staff summary — the Note opens “CPSC staff advises” — added because the release was being misread |
Read together, the 1983 body says something narrower than either side wants. The Commission's own testing confirmed a failure against a specific UL calibration requirement — bounding that finding, in the next sentence, to an investigation that “focused primarily on 2 pole residential circuit breakers manufactured before Reliance acquired FPE in 1979”. It did not go on to establish that this amounted to a serious risk of injury, and it said staff had insufficient data to accept or refute the manufacturer's position. In its own voice it went further, and this is the sentence neither camp quotes: “the Commission is unable at this time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation”. It then stopped, giving three reasons together: its limited budget, other known hazards involving other manufacturers' products, and the uncertainty of what a costly investigation would produce. The same published release, of 3 March 1983, puts it this way: “Based on the Commission's limited budget ($34 million for fiscal year 1983), the known hazards the Commission has identified and must address (involving products of other manufacturers) and the uncertainty of the results of such a costly investigation, the Commission has decided not to commit further resources to its investigation of FPE's circuit breakers.” And it added that it “can reopen its investigation of FPE circuit breakers if further information warrants.”
That is a file closed, not a question answered — which is different from both “proven lethal” and “cleared”. CPSC evidently thought so too: in 2011 its staff went back and put a Note at the top of the page asking electricians, homeowners, home inspectors and real estate agents to “read and interpret the following press release carefully.” If you see that Note's wording quoted as the 1983 release, whoever quoted it did not open the page.
Aluminum wiring, where there is a real finding — and a real trap
Aluminum branch-circuit wiring is the one item on that list where the Commission published a finding rather than a closure. Its booklet Repairing Aluminum Wiring states that homes built before 1972 and wired with aluminum are “55 times more likely to have one or more wire connections at outlets reach ‘Fire Hazard Conditions’ than homes wired with copper”, on the basis of a Franklin Research Institute survey conducted for it.
Read the two sentences the Commission puts immediately after it, because they bound the finding. “That survey encompassed only the wire connections at outlets. It did not address other types of aluminum wire connections and splices in homes that are also prone to fail.” And: “No information was developed for aluminum-wired homes built after 1972.” So the number is narrower than it is usually quoted — it is about outlet connections in pre-1972 homes, and the Commission says plainly that other connections and later homes were simply not measured.
That is the Commission's own number, and it is about connections rather than the wire itself — which is the detail that determines what a competent repair looks like.
| Repair method | CPSC's position | What that means when you call an electrician |
|---|---|---|
| Complete replacement with copper | Accepted | The unambiguous answer, and the most disruptive and expensive |
| COPALUM crimp connector | Accepted | Requires a specially trained installer and a proprietary tool. Availability is the practical obstacle |
| AlumiConn connector | Where the COPALUM repair is not available, CPSC says it “may be considered the next best alternative for a permanent repair” — and two sentences later qualifies it: “The AlumiConn connector has performed well in initial tests, but is too new to have developed a significant long-term safe performance history as the COPALUM repair.” An earlier version of this row ran the two together as one sentence, which is not what the document says | Usually the realistic route. Say the name when you ask — it is what gets you a comparable quote |
| Pigtailing with twist-on connectors | Not recommended. CPSC says it “may be used as an emergency, temporary repair for a failed aluminum termination” | This is the repair most commonly offered, because it is quick and cheap. If a quote says “pigtail” and names no connector, ask which connector |
| CO/ALR switches and receptacles | Temporary only, on the same footing as twist-on pigtails | Devices rated for aluminum do not address connections elsewhere in the circuit |
Here is the trap, and it is the most useful paragraph on this page. The repair most commonly quoted to homeowners — pigtailing with twist-on wire connectors — is one the Commission describes as an emergency, temporary repair, and it puts CO/ALR switches and receptacles on the same footing, because fitting aluminum-rated devices leaves connections elsewhere in the circuit untouched. Where COPALUM is unavailable, CPSC says the AlumiConn connector “may be considered the next best alternative for a permanent repair.” Two sentences later it qualifies that, and the qualification belongs wherever the endorsement is quoted: “The AlumiConn connector has performed well in initial tests, but is too new to have developed a significant long-term safe performance history as the COPALUM repair.”
So when you ask for a quote, ask which connector. “We will pigtail it” is not an answer. “AlumiConn at every device” is. And ask your insurer what it will accept before you pay for anything, because a remediation the carrier does not recognize leaves you with the same notice and less money.
Not sure whether a remediation will satisfy a carrier? A licensed agent can ask that question before you pay for the work.
Call [PENDING][PENDING]. Calls are answered by [PENDING], a licensed insurance agency (NPN [PENDING]). HomeCoverDesk is not affiliated with any insurer. Calls may be recorded or monitored for quality and training purposes. Our partner does not offer every insurer or every product available in your state.Knob-and-tube: the prohibition is real, and so is the carve-out
We had this backwards in an earlier draft of this page, so it is worth stating plainly. “You cannot put insulation over knob-and-tube” is not folklore. The model electrical code puts hollow spaces of walls, ceilings and attics insulated with loose, rolled or foamed-in-place material among the uses not permitted for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
| Question | The answer we could actually verify |
|---|---|
| Does the model code prohibit insulating over knob-and-tube? | Broadly, yes. § 394.12(5) places hollow spaces of walls, ceilings and attics insulated with loose, rolled or foamed-in-place material among the uses not permitted for concealed knob-and-tube. This is a real prohibition, not folklore |
| Then why do you hear that some insulation is allowed? | Because states adopt and amend the code. Washington has written a carve-out: its rule states that Article 394 “does not prohibit the installation of loose or rolled thermal insulating material in spaces containing existing knob-and-tube wiring provided that all the following conditions are met” |
| What are Washington's conditions, in full? | A licensed electrical contractor surveys the wiring and certifies in writing to the department that it is “in good condition with no evidence of improper overcurrent protection, conductor insulation failure or deterioration, and with no improper connections or splices”; the electrical inspector must inspect all repairs, alterations or extensions; the material is Class I per the Uniform Building Code with a flame spread of 25 or less tested to ASTM E84-81a; circuits carry overcurrent protection per NEC Table 310.16, 60°C column, using circuit breakers or Type S fuses |
| Is foam ever allowed? | No. “Foam insulation may not be used with knob-and-tube wiring” — and foamed-in-place material is in the model code's not-permitted list too. This is the one part of the subject everyone agrees on |
A note on why we cannot show you that code section. The model code is NFPA 70, a private standard behind a paywall. We have not read it, and we are not going to quote it as though we had. The wording in the table above is as reproduced by a California city building department, which paraphrases rather than quotes. This is a real limitation on this subject and it affects you more than it affects us: the rule that governs your attic is one you cannot read for free. What you can read is your own state's adopted and amended version, published by the state, and that is the one that binds you.
Washington's is a good example because the amendment is explicit. Its rule states that Article 394 “does not prohibit the installation of loose or rolled thermal insulating material in spaces containing existing knob-and-tube wiring provided that all the following conditions are met” — and the conditions are demanding, including that a licensed electrical contractor certify the wiring's condition in writing to the department, not merely to you. Foam is out in both the model code and Washington's amendment.
One thing we are not going to tell you is that Article 394 entitles existing knob-and-tube to stay. It does not say that. Existing installations generally remain lawful because adopted codes are not applied retroactively and because the authority having jurisdiction accepts them — which is a different mechanism, decided locally, and not something you can point at a section number for.
Why none of this will change your insurer's mind
This is the part most pages leave out, and it is the part that decides how you spend the next two weeks.
An underwriter is not applying a safety finding. It is applying its own loss experience, and it is entitled to decline a risk that no regulator ever ruled on. The absence of a recall is not a defect in the insurer's reasoning; a recall is a regulatory instrument with its own evidentiary bar, and a carrier does not need to clear that bar before deciding it would rather not insure a category of panel.
| What you send | What question it answers |
|---|---|
| A licensed electrician's written report naming the panel or wiring type and its condition | The underwriter's actual question, which is about this house rather than about the product category |
| A paid invoice for a panel replacement, with the new panel's make and model | Ends the question outright. This is the only item that reliably does |
| An AlumiConn or COPALUM remediation invoice, naming the connector | Matches the repair the CPSC accepts. A pigtail invoice naming no connector does not |
| A contractor's certification that knob-and-tube was surveyed and found sound | Useful — but note that in Washington the rule requires that certification to be filed with the department. It is a code compliance document first and an underwriting exhibit second, and your state may have no equivalent at all |
| The CPSC's 1983 release, arguing the panel was never recalled | Nothing. The same release says Commission testing confirmed the breakers fail certain UL calibration tests. Reaching for this document is reaching for a document that cuts both ways |
So the argument to make is never “this panel was never recalled.” It is “here is a licensed electrician's written assessment of the actual condition of the actual wiring in this house.” The first is a fact about a product category — and, as the second table shows, a fact that comes attached to a sentence about failed UL calibration tests. The second is evidence about the risk being underwritten, which is the only thing the file is about.
On what states have done. We searched for pending bills and separately for enacted statutes restricting an insurer's use of wiring or panel type in underwriting, and found none. Legislatures have not left the subject alone, though: California's SB 382 added Civil Code § 1102.6i, operative 1 January 2026, requiring the seller of any real property subject to the transfer-disclosure article — not only single-family homes — to give the buyer a notice about having the main service panel, subpanels and wiring inspected. It does not apply to a building sold within three years of the issuance of its certificate of occupancy. The notice states “Substandard, recalled, or faulty wiring may cause a fire risk and may make it difficult to obtain property insurance.” That binds sellers, not insurers. It is also the clearest signal yet that a state legislature considers this an insurability problem and not just an electrical one.
If you are holding a notice right now
The first step is smaller than it sounds and most people skip it: find out which of the five things the insurer actually named.
| # | Do this | Why it comes here |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Find out which of these the insurer actually named | The five rows of the first table are five different situations with five different remedies. “Old wiring” on a notice is not specific enough to act on |
| 2 | Diary the date the non-renewal takes effect | It runs whether or not you agree with the reason |
| 3 | Get a licensed electrician to inspect and put it in writing | Everything downstream is this document. Ask for the panel's make and model in the report, and for aluminum, ask the connector question |
| 4 | Ask the insurer, in writing, what remediation it would accept | Ask before you buy the repair. Carriers differ on whether they accept remediation at all, and the answer determines whether the money is worth spending |
| 5 | Line up replacement coverage in parallel, and bind it | A quote is an indication. A bound policy is coverage in force. Do not let the current one lapse while the electrician is scheduling |
Step 4 is the one that saves money. Carriers differ on whether they accept remediation at all, and on what counts. Asking in writing what the insurer would accept, before you commission the work, is the difference between a repair that resolves the notice and a repair that resolves nothing. If the answer is that nothing short of a full panel replacement will do, that is still worth knowing before the electrician arrives.
And do not let the policy lapse while you schedule the work. A gap is itself a fact the next insurer underwrites, and with a mortgage it triggers force-placed coverage, which protects the lender rather than you.
Corrections to this page (4)
We publish these rather than editing quietly. Our corrections policy explains how we handle errors.
- — This page argues that each camp quotes half the 1983 Federal Pacific release and omits the half that does not suit it. We were doing the same thing. The Commission's own limiting sentence — that it “is unable at this time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation” — appeared nowhere on the page. Nor did the sentence bounding what was tested: 2-pole residential breakers made before 1979, not Stab-Lok panels generally.
- — Correcting a correction issued the same day. We said CPSC qualified its AlumiConn endorsement “in the same sentence”, and printed the two passages as one. They are two sentences, separated by a third about setscrew connectors, and we had also dropped the opening clause — “The AlumiConn connector has performed well in initial tests” — which made the Commission read more negative than it is. On a page whose discipline is that quotations are copied rather than reconstructed, we reconstructed one.
- — We quoted CPSC on the AlumiConn connector as the “next best alternative for a permanent repair” and stopped mid-sentence. It continues “but is too new to have developed a significant long-term safe performance history as the COPALUM repair”. We told readers to ask for it by name without CPSC's own reservation.
- — We described California's SB 382 as adding Civil Code §§ 1102.6i and 1102.6j and binding sellers of single-family homes. § 1102.6j concerns gas-powered appliances, not wiring; § 1102.6i reaches sellers of any real property subject to the transfer-disclosure article; and it does not apply within three years of a building's certificate of occupancy.
Methodology and sources
Every statement here about a regulator's position is quoted from that regulator's own document, and where a document has more than one part, this page says which part the quotation comes from. That last clause is new, and it is here because an earlier draft attributed the Commission's 2011 editorial Note to its 1983 press release.
What we could not read. The model electrical code is NFPA 70, a private standard behind a paywall. We have not read it and we do not quote it as though we had; the § 394.12(5) wording on this page is as reproduced by a California city building department, which paraphrases. Where we quote an electrical rule directly, it is a state's own published regulation — Washington's, cited with the filing under which its current text took effect.
This page was rewritten before publication after an independent adversarial check found ten errors in the first draft, including the misattributed quotation above, an inverted account of the knob-and-tube insulation rule that told readers a real code prohibition was a myth, and a claim that no state had legislated on the subject. All 38 automated checks in our pre-publication gate passed that draft. We publish this because it is the honest account of how the page was produced.
On the Zinsco row. We searched the Commission's recall database and newsroom and found no recall and no investigation. That is a statement about what we found, not proof that the panels are sound — the inspection literature on them is extensive and may be right. It is simply not a CPSC finding, and we have not represented it as one.
Why there are no costs on this page. Rewiring and panel-replacement figures vary by an order of magnitude with region, house age and access, and every published range we examined traces back to a contractor's own marketing material. We would rather publish no number than one we cannot source. The one dollar figure that appears is inside a quotation from the Commission, about the Commission's own budget.
Frequently asked questions
Were Federal Pacific Stab-Lok panels ever recalled?
No. The Consumer Product Safety Commission investigated and closed the matter in 1983, giving three reasons together: its limited budget, other known hazards involving other manufacturers' products, and the uncertainty of the result. It also said it “can reopen its investigation of FPE circuit breakers if further information warrants.” A closed file is not a concluded question.
Did the CPSC find anything wrong with FPE breakers?
Yes, and this is the half most rebuttals omit. The 1983 release states that the manufacturer's parent reported many FPE breakers “did not fully comply with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) requirements”, and that “Commission testing confirmed that these breakers fail certain UL calibration test requirements.” The same release also says the available data did not establish that they posed a serious risk of injury, and that staff had insufficient data to accept or refute the manufacturer's position.
Where does the “without making a determination” quote come from?
From a Note the Commission added above the release when it revised the page on 18 February 2011 — not from the 1983 text. The Note asks electricians, homeowners, home inspectors and real estate agents to “read and interpret the following press release carefully”, which tells you the Commission thought its own 1983 wording was being misread. It is an accurate summary; it is just not the 1983 release, and it is quoted as though it were constantly.
What did the CPSC actually find about aluminum wiring?
Its publication Repairing Aluminum Wiring states that homes built before 1972 and wired with aluminum are “55 times more likely to have one or more wire connections at outlets reach ‘Fire Hazard Conditions’ than homes wired with copper”, based on a Franklin Research Institute survey conducted for the Commission. The finding is about connections, which is why the accepted repairs are about connectors.
Is pigtailing an acceptable fix for aluminum wiring?
Not as a permanent one, in the Commission's guidance. It describes twist-on pigtailing as something that “may be used as an emergency, temporary repair”, and treats CO/ALR devices the same way. Its permanent options are complete replacement with copper, the COPALUM crimp, and — where COPALUM is unavailable — AlumiConn, which it says “may be considered the next best alternative for a permanent repair.” It qualifies that two sentences later: the connector “has performed well in initial tests, but is too new to have developed a significant long-term safe performance history as the COPALUM repair.” If a quote says “pigtail” without naming a connector, ask which one.
Can you put insulation over knob-and-tube wiring?
Under the model electrical code, broadly no — § 394.12(5) places hollow spaces insulated with loose, rolled or foamed-in-place material among the uses not permitted for concealed knob-and-tube. Some states amend that. Washington's rule permits loose or rolled thermal insulation over existing knob-and-tube if conditions are met, including a licensed electrical contractor certifying the wiring's condition in writing to the department, inspection of any repairs, Class I material with a flame spread of 25 or less, and overcurrent protection through circuit breakers or Type S fuses. Foam is prohibited either way. Your state's adopted code governs your house.
Has any electrical panel actually been recalled?
Yes, and it is not one of the ones insurers ask about. On 16 June 2022 Schneider Electric recalled about 1.4 million Square D QO plug-on-neutral load centers manufactured between February 2020 and January 2022, because “the load center can overheat, posing thermal burn and fire hazards”. One incident of a loose wire was reported and no injuries. The remedy is a free inspection. If your panel is that recent, check the model.