EE LAWS-BSEE 3A IM NO.

04
VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES
I. Answer the following based in your own ideas.
1. Why do engineers follow the code of ethics.
-Ethics is an important topic for engineers of every level and field. When you become a
professional engineer, however, you are held to a higher standard. That is why one of the
requirements for maintaining your professional engineers’ license is to meet a certain number
of professional development hours with at least two being in ethics.
-As professional engineers, we are trusted with projects that impact the lives of
hundreds of thousands of people. The NJSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers is a document that
was put together to help us keep that fact in mind and be a guiding factor in making hard
decisions during our careers. The code of ethics can be summed up with two key points that we
will explore in more depth: safety and honesty.
2. What are the ethical issues in engineering.
One of the ethical issues in engineering is accuracy and rigor. Probably the most obvious reason
why accuracy and rigor are important to professional engineers is that accuracy and attention
to detail ensures better engineering solutions, just as inaccuracies and carelessness in
engineering can mean failure of engineering projects, which can in many cases mean financial
failures, accidents, injuries and deaths.
Professionalism also involves being honest about level and areas of competence, and never
agreeing to work in areas in which you are not competent or not able to easily achieve
competency. The temptation to do this can be generated by commercial considerations, for
example a company bidding for a lucrative contract despite not having the correct skills and
technical knowledge within its teams. The risk here is that engineers working on the project will
make mistakes, as they may not be aware of the key mistakes to avoid, and mistakes in
engineering projects have the potential to be catastrophic. Conversely an engineer employing
their specialist skills within their area of expertise can make a significant and positive
contribution to society. However, it is important to note that many engineering projects are
novel, and will require previously untested skills and methods. In these cases, it is an engineer’s
duty to ensure that risks are managed and steps taken to allow teams to acquire the
appropriate skills – but above all to be honest about unknowns and skills gaps.
3. How does magna carta for electricity consumers helps the users of electricity.
The magna carta is intended for the electricity consumers. Magna carta is the way were
a consumer can use these laws through their rights and obligation about electricity.
VIII. ASSIGNMENT
1. Explain the importance of ethical values in engineering profession.
Ethical values are important for engineers of every level and field. When you become a professional
engineer, however, you are held to a higher standard. That is why one of the requirements for
maintaining your professional engineers’ license is to meet a certain number of professional
development hours with at least two being in ethics.

As professional engineers, we are trusted with projects that impact the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people. The NJSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers is a document that was put
together to help us keep that fact in mind and be a guiding factor in making hard decisions
during our careers. The code of ethics can be summed up with two key points that we will
explore in more depth: safety and honesty.
Safety is Key
The preamble to the NJSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers states that engineers “require honesty,
impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare.” When it comes to ethics as a professional engineer, it is about so much
more than preventing illegal activity. It is about making sure the lives we touch with our work
are protected from incompetence and are at the forefront of our minds as we work.
Even the parts of the Code of Ethics for Professional Engineers that deal with honesty and
integrity go back to safety issues. The things we help design, build, and maintain could result in
a loss of life if we put profits, personal advancement, or anything else in front of people.
Integrity and Honesty
Another important reason to have a code of ethics for professional engineers is it sets a
standard for professional behavior. You know you can expect another PE to behave with
honesty and integrity since they adhere to the same creed as you. The public can also be
assured you are not pulling a fast one or working for your own gain. The standard of
professional behavior provides the people who you work with and for a foundation of trust that
you are going to operate in the project’s and public’s best interest.
While the code of ethics seems fairly straightforward and clear cut, having courses about it are
important for navigating your day-to-day. The professional development classes help guide you
through real life cases that have come before the Board of Ethical Review, so you can see the
nuances of the code and how it can be used to make better decisions.
We hope this brief overview of why ethics are important for professional engineers has made
you eager to learn more. You can read the full code of ethics by visiting the NJSPE’s ethics page
or by attending one of NSPE’s ethics webinars. If you would like to see more content about the
importance of ethics, please feel free to let us know in the comments below or by filling out our
“Ask NJSPE” form.
2. Make a case study about the code of ethics for engineers.
Misrepresentation—Claiming Credit for Work of Former Employer
Case 19-12
Year: 2019
Facts: 
Engineer A is a professional engineer and owner of ABC Engineering. Engineer A recently
learned that Engineer B, a former employee of ABC who recently started his own firm (EFG
Engineering), is claiming “extensive project experience.” The EFG Engineering website
references a list of “past clients” and “past projects.” In fact, Engineer A was the Engineer of
Record and it was Engineer A’s company (ABC Engineering) that was responsible for the design
of the “past projects” referenced for “past clients.” On none of the projects Engineer B lists on
the EFG website was Engineer B the Engineer of Record. Engineer B was an engineer-intern for
most of Engineer B’s tenure with ABC Engineering. While Engineer B performed tasks for the
referenced clients and on “past projects,” Engineer B’s role was as a junior member of the
design team.
Question(s): 
What are Engineer A’s ethical responsibilities?
Discussion: 
The issue raised by this case appears to have become an increasing concern within the
engineering profession. In recent years, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has seen an increase
in the number of cases and questions surrounding this issue.
As the Board of Ethical Review recently noted in BER Case 17-12, when a professional engineer
departs from an engineering firm, either to work for another engineering firm or establish a
new firm, it is not unusual for ethical issues to emerge. Ethical questions relating to ownership
of engineering work, appropriate credit to those responsible for engineering designs and other
work, and related issues often come to the surface and sometimes result in conflicts and
concerns. These issues can become very sensitive, both for the former employee professional
engineer, the engineer’s former employer, and the engineer’s current employer.
Over the years, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered a variety of issues relating to
the departure of engineers from an engineering firm and the ethical responsibilities of both the
former employer and the former employee in connection with the transitional phases of this
event. For example, the Board has considered the flip side of this case—ethical responsibilities
of an engineering firm when it is aware that a firm employee will be departing. Does the firm
have an obligation to expeditiously correct firm promotional material so as not to mislead
clients that an individual in the firm will continue in his or her present capacity with the firm?
Similarly, the Board has considered the ethical responsibility of engineers who hire engineers
from other firms and the ethical responsibilities the principals of such firms have related to
their professional colleagues with the other firm. These situations frequently present delicate
and sometimes difficult situations, particularly where long-established business relationships
exist between engineering firms, engineers, and their clients. Obviously, no engineer or
engineering firm “owns” a relationship with a client; clients are free to determine for
themselves which engineer or engineering firm is appropriate for their present and future
needs and requirements.
In BER Case 96-11, Engineer A was the principal in a new engineering firm that had been in
existence for approximately 18 months. All of the firm’s engineers had come from other
engineering firms. Engineer A developed a firm promotional brochure that contained the
following: (1) a “list of clients,” implying those companies on the list were clients of the firm;
and, (2) a “list of projects of the firm,” implying the projects were performed by the new firm.
In fact, the client list was made up of those companies that the firm’s engineers had performed
work for with their former firms, and not with the new firm. Similarly, the project list was a
series of projects performed by the firm’s engineers for their former firms. Finding Engineer A’s
actions unethical, the BER decided that using the term “client” to refer to a relationship that
existed between an engineer when he was employed in an entirely different context was
misleading, deceptive, and a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
In BER Case 07-4, Engineer A, a licensed professional engineer, had worked for Engineer B, the
owner of a geotechnical/construction materials firm for 10 years. Over the 10-year period with
the firm, Engineer A achieved two engineering excellence awards for projects for which
Engineer A had primary design responsibility and signed and sealed the engineering documents.
The firm’s website depicted these two projects without Engineer A’s name associated with
either one and included photographs of Engineer B and other engineers in the firm beside the
project—implying, but not specifically stating, that these individuals were responsible for the
projects.
The Board ruled that (1) it was unethical for Engineer B to fail to include Engineer A in
association with the two projects; and (2) it was unethical for Engineer B to include a
photograph on the firm website implying that Engineer B and other individuals were
responsible for the projects. The Board noted that it would seem reasonable and justified that
an engineer who had primary design responsibility and signed and sealed the engineering
documents should be given due and appropriate recognition for the engineer’s contributions to
the work. The BER decided that it would seem that Engineer B would want to provide
appropriate, visible recognition for Engineer A’s achievements and accomplishments for the
benefit of the firm’s clients. Such recognition is clearly embodied in the language of NSPE Code
Section III.9.a. The Board recognized that companies and firms may have different methods of
recognizing achievements and accomplishments for marketing, firm identity, and other
purposes. However, the Board believed that the way firms assign credit and recognition should,
in some measure, be connected to actual responsibility for the work. When there is no
reasonable connection between the actual responsibility/accountability for the engineering
work and the credit/recognition provided, the Board was concerned that a misrepresentation
could occur that would be detrimental to the interests of potential clients and ultimately the
public. The Board’s view was that, unless there was a unique or compelling business reason to
do otherwise, credit and recognition should follow responsibility and accountability, consistent
with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
More recently, in the earlier referenced BER case 17-12, the Board continued to examine the
ethical issues relating to claiming credit for engineering work. In that case, Engineer A was
responsible for all engineering designs, project and team management, and oversight in her
role as vice president at her previous employer, Firm X. Engineer A had established her own
firm, Firm Y, and wanted to include some of her work for Firm X on the Firm Y website. Engineer
A had a series of questions regarding the crediting of work for Firm X, including crediting Firm X
and the individual employees of Firm X who were involved. In addition, Engineer A had
questions regarding whether Engineer B, the owner of Firm X, should credit Engineer A for the
work Engineer A had performed for Firm X as an employee.
Following an examination of the facts, the Board determined that Engineer A must not engage
in any actions that would be implicitly or explicitly misleading or deceptive. The Board
concluded that all promotional material must make clear that the work was performed under
the auspices of Firm X and should also include references to those key individuals within Firm X
who made substantive contributions to the design and related services on each project. In
addition, the Board determined that Engineer B should credit Engineer A for Engineer A’s
contributions to the work of Firm X—even after Engineer A has departed from Firm X. The
Board opined that to avoid misunderstandings, inaccuracies, and potential conflicts relating to
an employed professional engineer’s departure from a firm, it is generally recommended that
issues of this type be candidly discussed by the engineer, the engineer’s former employer, and
the engineer’s current employer. Each will have a perspective on this issue that should be
shared and hopefully resolved in the interest of both parties.
Turning to the facts in the instant case, unlike the previous cases considered by the NSPE Board
of Ethical Review, the Board believes the facts here present a much more clear-cut case of
ethical impropriety on the part of Engineer B. Under the facts, Engineer B improperly claimed
unqualified credit for the actual work performed by Engineer A and ABC Engineering and failed
to acknowledge or credit Engineer A and ABC Engineering.
While it is clear that Engineer B’s conduct is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, there
remains the question of what may be Engineer A’s ethical obligation in light of Engineer B’s
violations. Clearly, in the face of such action by Engineer A, Engineer A cannot and should not
ignore such action. It is beyond the scope of the Board of Ethical Review, as an ethics body, to
speculate on any legal recourse Engineer A may pursue regarding what appears to be Engineer
B’s intentional misrepresentation.
At the same time, it would appear that among the appropriate steps Engineer A should explore
are (1) send a letter to Engineer B, noting the fact that Engineer B and Engineer B’s firm are
improperly and falsely claiming credit for work for which they were not responsible or in which
Engineer B played a minor role; and (2) demand that Engineer B and Engineer B’s firm cease
and desist from including the subject references on their website.

NSPE Code of Ethics References: 

II.1.f.
Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to
appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate
with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
II.4.
Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Subject Reference: 
Conflict of Interest
Faithful Agents and Trustees
II.5.a.
Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their
associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for
the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the
solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers,
employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
Subject Reference: 
Misrepresentation/Omission of Facts
III.9.
Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will
recognize the proprietary interests of others.
Subject Reference: 
Credit for Engineering Work
Proprietary Interests
III.9.a.
Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually
responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
Subject Reference: 
Credit for Engineering Work
Conclusion: 
Engineer A should consider (1) sending a letter to Engineer B, noting the fact that Engineer B
and Engineer B’s firm are improperly and falsely claiming credit for work for which they were
not responsible or in which Engineer B played a minor role; (2) demanding that Engineer B and
Engineer B’s firm cease and desist from including the subject references on their website; and
(3) where appropriate, Engineer A shall report Engineer B to the state board of professional
engineers.

3. Research an article or situations related to magna-carta for electricity consumers. Evaluate

the article and give your comments about it.

ERC proposes changes in Magna Carta for residential power users

- Donnabelle L. Gatdula - December 12, 2009 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines - To further uphold the rights of consumers, the Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC) is proposing changes in some provisions in the Magna Carta for Residential
Electricity Consumers.
The proposed amendments include the provisions that identify options, set parameters and/or
clarify concerns on: application, transfer of and termination of electric service; liabilities of the
house owner in case the applicant is a tenant of the premises sought to be energized; billing
and billing errors; and filing of protests. 
ERC executive director Francis Saturnino Juan said these amendments stemmed from various
complaints lodged at the commission. He said these complaints have prompted the commission
to review the existing electricity consumers’ bills of right.
Juan said aside from these proposed amendments, the ERC continues to review the provisions
of the Magna Carta to ensure the welfare of electricity consumers, particularly the residential
customers.
In explaining the amendment on the application, transfer and termination of electric service,
Juan said they have threshed out the issue on the transfer of electric meter.
“There are complaints for instance that when a consumer transferred to a house with
remaining electricity bill arrears, they are being asked to settle the bills which they did not
consume.  We have done something to address this concern,” he said.
He said on the filing of protests, the ERC amended the guidelines which will allow utility firms to
automatically implement a refund on disputed billing errors.
Before, all complaints on erroneous bills will have to pass through the ERC for clearance before
a utility firm can act on it.
Pursuant to the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, the ERC crafted the Magna Carta
for Residential Electricity Consumers in June 2004 that spelled out in detail the rights and
obligations of residential electricity consumers. Since then, several rules, regulations and
policies have been promulgated that indirectly affect residential electricity consumers. The
Distribution Services and Open Access Rules (DSOAR) is one of those promulgations. The
amendments on Magna Carta will reconcile and harmonize its provisions with those
promulgations. 
The ERC is incessantly finding ways to protect and promote the welfare and interest of
electricity consumers,” ERC chairperson and CEO Zenaida G. Cruz-Ducut said. “It is thus
encouraging the active participation of the electricity stakeholders in this quasi-legislative
exercise to amend certain provisions of the Magna Carta.”

COMMENT:
According to the article above, it is said that the ERC proposed to change some provision
in Magna Carta specifically the transfer of and termination of electric service by the consumer.
Magna Carta should study this proposed change by the ERC to help the electricity consumers
because in the concern at the article, consumer still have to settle the remaining bill which they
did not consume. To make the concern clear the ERC and Magna Carta should study the said
concern and amend a new and better policy.