Lights and Receptacles On Same Circuit

[SIRSPARKSALOT]

I know you are here to learn just like the rest of us, but I have to sound a little harsh. If you are an inspector/AHJ and want to red tag a job that will cost a EC alot of money and its a political issue, then you should already have a code article to back you up before that 'gun is pulled from the holster', much less trying to pull the trigger. Other wise its best to leave it alone.

As others have stated, there really isn't an issue here unless the load is too much.

I fully agree with this and I know it sounds harsh. As an inspector it is your job to know the code. I think that failing someone without knowing the code sections that apply is simply wrong. On the other hand, I have had inspectors tell me they would not pass or fail a job until they did some research. That I think is fully acceptable.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I think it's one of those "urban code myths." I heard the same thing for years and it makes sense when you realize that some commercial you had 277V lighting, so of course you couldn't put them on the same circuit.

It's just like the diswasher and disposal have to be on a seperate circuit in resi. Everyone does it, but it's not required.

 

[480sparky]

........It's just like the diswasher and disposal have to be on a seperate circuit in resi. Everyone does it, but it's not required.

I must be a nobody 'cuz I put 'em on the same circuit. :weeping:

 

[kwired]

I must be a nobody 'cuz I put 'em on the same circuit. :weeping:

Same here.

And I also would want an inspector to have a code section to back up any rejection of an installation. Fortunately here it is SOP that they give you the section violated and a written explanation if they give you a formal correction notice. If you are just at the job and they tell you something is not right, that is not a formal correction notice, and they may be giving you a break if they trust you will change it without them sending you a correction notice along with the fee associated, if you disagree, ask them for the code and they will find it, or find they were in fact wrong.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I must be a nobody 'cuz I put 'em on the same circuit. :weeping:

You said it, not me.

 

[jumper]

Perhaps he should but North Star is one of the good guys who is always trying to better himself. Not all inspectors give code articles esp. those that are inspecting all the trades. It is an impossible job imo.

Agreed. Especially the bold. Solid Feller IMO.

 

[jumper]

Anyone ever notice that if we screw up it is:

"I guess Inspector was right."

But if an Inspector makes a mistake:

"He/she is an idiot!!!"

And if an EE runs afoul the code the gates of fury are unleashed.

I am/have been probably just as guilty of this behavior as anyone.:ashamed1:

 

[templdl]

I have always giving lighting priority. What is more apt to trip a breaker? Lighting loads are fairly consistent for the most part.once they are established where loads connected to convenience outlets are not.
Even though it mat not be a violation of the NEC by combining both types of loads there is a risk of loosing lighting should a breaker trip because you overload the outlets.
It may be a code installation by is it a good design?
Just a thought.

 

[jumper]

.
It may be a code installation by is it a good design?
Just a thought.

Good thought IMO, but a design issue is not a code issue. Not disagreeing, just stating

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity.

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.

 

[texie]

I think it's one of those "urban code myths." I heard the same thing for years and it makes sense when you realize that some commercial you had 277V lighting, so of course you couldn't put them on the same circuit.

Yes, I also use the term "urban code legend". In my job I sometimes am called on to coach guys that are ready to sit for the exam. This is one of the things I drill into them that just because you have been working on the XYZ job that is heavily specifified for 2 years does not mean it is code. There are a lot of areas like this, such as "you can't a 15 amp receptacle in commercial", etc, etc. I find that some of these guys fail because of urban code legend.

 

[kwired]

Anyone ever notice that if we screw up it is:

"I guess Inspector was right."

But if an Inspector makes a mistake:

"He/she is an idiot!!!"

And if an EE runs afoul the code the gates of fury are unleashed.

I am/have been probably just as guilty of this behavior as anyone.:ashamed1:

Are you saying some of those statements are not true, I thought they were all true:blink:

I have always giving lighting priority. What is more apt to trip a breaker? Lighting loads are fairly consistent for the most part.once they are established where loads connected to convenience outlets are not.
Even though it mat not be a violation of the NEC by combining both types of loads there is a risk of loosing lighting should a breaker trip because you overload the outlets.
It may be a code installation by is it a good design?
Just a thought.

Many times it is good design to separate them. Occasionally you may find an application where it seems to make sense not to run an additional circuit, or maybe just saves some cost but doesn't introduce any risk or hazards should you lose the light if you overload the circuit by plugging in too much load or whatever.

 

[templdl]

Are you saying some of those statements are not true, I thought they were all true:blink:



Many times it is good design to separate them. Occasionally you may find an application where it seems to make sense not to run an additional circuit, or maybe just saves some cost but doesn't introduce any risk or hazards should you lose the light if you overload the circuit by plugging in too much load or whatever.

The fact reason and logic go by the wayside when it makes the difference of being the successful bidder for the job.

 

[kwired]

The fact reason and logic go by the wayside when it makes the difference of being the successful bidder for the job.

True, then you are at fault when they later complain about the design of things if you did it the cheap way.

 

[jwelectric]

Lights and receptacles on the same circuit, good idea or a bad idea?

I hear about a receptacle being overloaded and tripping the circuit causing the lights to go out. What about a power failure, does having them separate cause the lights to stay on?

Over the years I have used both methods and have found that during a power failure the lights go out no matter how they are wired.
Personally I think that the lights should be wired from one power grid and the receptacle be wired from another power grid. The use of table lamps should be required in every room just in case it is the lighting power grid that loses power.

I will submit a proposal the every building in the future must have the lighting circuits wired to a UPS just in case there is a problem from the utility. Of course if we go back to kerosene lamps or candles we wouldn?t have to worry about the lights going out.

Thank you for letting me rant.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Anyone ever notice that if we screw up it is:

"I guess Inspector was right."

But if an Inspector makes a mistake:

"He/she is an idiot!!!"

And if an EE runs afoul the code the gates of fury are unleashed.

I am/have been probably just as guilty of this behavior as anyone.:ashamed1:

I got a little tear in my eye when I read this.