Peninsula Receptacle

[charlie b]

It is clear that the adjoining edge is where the peninsula touches the base cabinet.

I presume, and please correct me if I have this wrong, that by "base cabinet" you mean the cabinets along the wall that fall within 210.52(C)(1). If that is what you mean, then what you say is not at all clear. There need not be a "base cabinet." The "photo #1" we have discussed earlier does not have a "base cabinet."

It does not call the wall the adjoining edge.

It does not call anything the adjoining edge. In particular, it does not call the base cabinets the adjoining edge. What it says is that the peninsula is to be measured starting at the connecting edge. It does not say that the connecting edge is a point about 24 inches away from the wall. The connecting edge could be the wall itself.

 

[charlie b]

Everyone seems to agrees that a second recep is needed on the peninsula when there is an adjoining counter. You cannot stand there either.

When there is an adjoining counter, then that space falls under 210.52(C)(1). The adjoining peninsula falls under 210.52(C)(3). If you have both, then both rules apply. If you have one, but not the other, than that one's rule applies, and the other rule does not apply.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Charlie I said it before, the words may not say it but why even mention a peninsula needing an outlet. If your explanation was valid then I would never have needed to add an outlet on a peninsula since every one I every did has an outlet on the wall. I have never seen a peninsula with base cabinets on both sides where it is possible that an outlet may not be directly over the counter.

I know you are a word man and the words are poor but I will tell you this-- In the real world the cabinets in photo #2 would require an outlet on the peninsula even with one on the wall. Now if your definition was the accepted one then the extra one would not be required. I believe most everyone here admits that a recep. is req. on the peninsula in photo #2. So you can argue the words all you want the reality is you will fail the inspection.

The connecting edge is pretty well accepted as the part that abuts the cabinet along the wall. Does the NEC say it-- I say yes but it says it poorly. The question is what happens when there are no cabinets along the wall just the stand alone. That is not clear but as I have said if the connecting edge is the base cabinet then I believe we have to assume the first part as wall cabinet otherwise the code is requiring a recep. in one situation and not the other when the countertop is the exact same.

As usual we will agree to disagree. I think I am done with this thread. I have said all I can say and I believe I have heard all that can be said.

 

[electricmanscott]

I bet you guys love riding merry go rounds. :grin:

 

[charlie b]

I believe most everyone here admits that a recep. is req. on the peninsula in photo #2. So you can argue the words all you want the reality is you will fail the inspection.

I think I already said that I would probably put a separate receptacle on the peninsula in photo #2. The only hesitation I have is that the photo does not show enough of the kitchen. For all we know, the cabinets in photo #2 comprise an island.

The question is what happens when there are no cabinets along the wall just the stand alone. That is not clear but as I have said if the connecting edge is the base cabinet then I believe we have to assume the first part as wall cabinet otherwise the code is requiring a recep. in one situation and not the other when the countertop is the exact same.

But the countertop (meaning the first 24 inches from the wall) is not the same in both situations. In one case, you stand facing the wall, with the peninsula to your side, and you have to reach some distance to touch something on that section of countertop. In the other case, you stand facing the peninsula?s countertop, with the wall to you side, and you can move all the way close to the wall, so that that section of countertop is at your immediate fingertips. Big deal, one might say. But it makes all the difference in how the item is used, and therefore what name would be given to that section of cabinetry by 95% or more homeowners in the country, and therefore how it should be treated. If I want to put a coffee pot near the wall on a stand-alone peninsula, I can get to it easily.

As usual we will agree to disagree.

OK by me. But it?s not ?usual,? as I think we agree more often than not.

I think I am done with this thread. I have said all I can say and I believe I have heard all that can be said.

One thing you haven?t heard, is thanks for the discussion. So here goes: thanks for the discussion.

And another thing you haven?t heard. Why should we treat the stand alone peninsula as all within 210.52(C)(3)? Look at the cabinets under that item. All of them, even those under the first 24 inches from the wall, are opened by moving the drawers parallel to the wall. They all face the same way; ergo, it is one item.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

Charlie I said it before, the words may not say it but why even mention a peninsula needing an outlet. If your explanation was valid then I would never have needed to add an outlet on a peninsula since every one I every did has an outlet on the wall. I have never seen a peninsula with base cabinets on both sides where it is possible that an outlet may not be directly over the counter.

I know you are a word man and the words are poor but I will tell you this-- In the real world the cabinets in photo #2 would require an outlet on the peninsula even with one on the wall. Now if your definition was the accepted one then the extra one would not be required. I believe most everyone here admits that a recep. is req. on the peninsula in photo #2. So you can argue the words all you want the reality is you will fail the inspection.

The connecting edge is pretty well accepted as the part that abuts the cabinet along the wall. Does the NEC say it-- I say yes but it says it poorly. The question is what happens when there are no cabinets along the wall just the stand alone. That is not clear but as I have said if the connecting edge is the base cabinet then I believe we have to assume the first part as wall cabinet otherwise the code is requiring a recep. in one situation and not the other when the countertop is the exact same.

As usual we will agree to disagree. I think I am done with this thread. I have said all I can say and I believe I have heard all that can be said.[/QUOTE]




I will say I agree about photo # 2,,,,actually I think everybody does,,,,,where you "stretched" it was making the first 24" of a penninsula into something that it is not. It is ONLY one item,,,so ONLY ONE item's requirement should EVER be applied to it. My point can't be made any more clearly than that. If you can't accept that,,,one could say any article in the NEC can be used towards ANY installation,,,,right?? Let's be honest,,you're applying one code (geared towards one item),,, and applying it to something that another code already directly apllies to. It CANNOT be made any more clearer than that. I'm done and promise to not open this thread again.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Okay so I am back but only to reinsure everyone that I am not leaving in anger or frustration ( when I re-read my post it did not seem clear). I truly enjoyed the discussion and will certainly talk about it around here and see what others think.

I do know I am close to alone in my thinking however it never hurts to have the extra recep. Cheers and thanks to all.

 

[LarryFine]

The one the end of the penninsula is a waste of money and not required by the NEC

Well, either one is required, and the second one is optional; certainly permitted.

 

[LarryFine]

The connecting edge is pretty well accepted as the part that abuts the cabinet along the wall.

Agreed. We're just saying that not every peninsula's fourth edge connects to cabinets along a wall; sometimes, it's just a wall.

 

[LarryFine]

I do know I am close to alone in my thinking however it never hurts to have the extra recep.

Absolutely (to both parts :grin.

 

[wwhitney]

Maybe I'm just spinning my wheels, but to me the obvious definitions are:

wall counter space = counter space near a wall
peninsula counter space = counter space away from a wall but connected to wall counter space
island counter space = counter space away from a wall and not connected to wall counter space

Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

Since I cannot stand at the location of the letter "s" in "peninsula," and from that location do any work at the counter space between that location and the back wall, then I do not consider the space between that location and the back wall to constitute a 210.52(C)(1) area.

Bump post 117 for charlie b:

By that logic, in the original configuration with the 6" ell, there is no wall receptacle required, because there is only a 6" wall countertop space, and 210.52(C)(1) only requires a receptacle for a wall countertop space that is 12" or wider. Is that your position?

I think any time a counter is against a wall it is a 210.52(C)(1) area.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[charlie b]

Bump post 117 for charlie b. . . Is that your position?

No. My position is that the NEC does not define the cabinet types. So we must go by common usage. Here is how it works for me:

1. If you go to the cabinetry store, and buy a cabinet and countertop for which the front of the cabinet has doors and drawers and the back of the cabinet is intended to be mounted against the wall, then 210.52(C)(1) applies.
2. If you buy a cabinet and countertop for which the front of the cabinet has doors and drawers and the back of the cabinet is open to air and it is the side of the cabinet that is intended to face the wall, then 210.52(C)(3) applies.
3. If the item you bought in step 2 above is mounted next to an item bought in step 1 above, then both 210.52(C)(1) and 210.52(C)(3) apply.
4. If the item you bought in step 2 above is mounted next to the wall, and if you didn't buy an item in step 1 above, then only 210.52(C)(3) applies.

I think any time a counter is against a wall it is a 210.52(C)(1) area.

You are certainly welcome to think that. But allow me to point out that there are no words in the NEC that back up that opinion, and so therefore I would not want to see that opinion enforced as though it represented code requirements.

I think that having a second receptacle in the "photo #1" (i.e., one at the wall, another out on the peninsula somewhere) is a good idea. But it is a design choice, not a code requirement.

 

[DARUSA]

I didn't see the situations mentioned like in one of the cases one requirement applies and in the other case both apply.
The way that I see the situation is in picture #1. If you place the outlet in the wall, that outlet will cover both requirements, and in picture #2 the wall outlet can not cover the peninsula requirement. Thats why you will need another outlet at the peninsula!!!