Question RE: 2022 California Title 24, Part 6 - Non-residential Section 130.5(d)(2) - 120V Controlled Receptacles

[ericwg]

2022 California Title 24, Part 6 (Non-residential) Section 130.5(d)(2) states the following:

(d) Circuit controls for 120-volt receptacles and controlled receptacles. In all buildings, both controlled and uncontrolled 120 volt receptacles shall be provided in office areas, lobbies, conference rooms, kitchen areas in office spaces and copy rooms. Additionally, hotel/motel guest rooms shall comply with Section 130.5(d)4. Controlled receptacles shall meet the following requirements, as applicable:
2. Install at least one controlled receptacle within 6 feet from each uncontrolled receptacle or install a splitwired receptacle with at least one controlled and one uncontrolled receptacle. Where receptacles are installed in modular furniture in open office areas, at least one controlled receptacle shall be installed at each workstation;

I would like some clarification on the first sentence of 130.5(d)(2). To do so, let's assume we're looking at a long section of a given wall where I have four 120V duplex receptacles installed. I believe what 130.5(d)(2) says is that I can employ one of the following options:
a) Have the OS control every other duplex receptacle, i.e. every other receptacle will shut off completely (both outlets), OR
b) I can install splitwired duplex receptacles throughout the room whereby the OS will only turn off half of every receptacle (one outlet)

Is that correct?

The reason I ask is because I have seen designs where an OS controlled splitwired receptacle was only installed EVERY OTHER receptacle. In other words, the first duplex receptacle would not be OS controlled, while the next duplex receptacle would be splitwired, where the OS controlled half of that receptacle (one outlet). In other words, running down the wall (from my previous example), of the first two duplex receptacles encountered, only one of the four outlets would be OS controlled. These were stamped/approved plans. Honestly, given the way 130.5(d)(2) is written, I can't fault someone for interpreting it this way. Or, maybe they were right! Thoughts?

 

[mtnelect]

2022 California Title 24, Part 6 (Non-residential) Section 130.5(d)(2) states the following:

(d) Circuit controls for 120-volt receptacles and controlled receptacles. In all buildings, both controlled and uncontrolled 120 volt receptacles shall be provided in office areas, lobbies, conference rooms, kitchen areas in office spaces and copy rooms. Additionally, hotel/motel guest rooms shall comply with Section 130.5(d)4. Controlled receptacles shall meet the following requirements, as applicable:
2. Install at least one controlled receptacle within 6 feet from each uncontrolled receptacle or install a splitwired receptacle with at least one controlled and one uncontrolled receptacle. Where receptacles are installed in modular furniture in open office areas, at least one controlled receptacle shall be installed at each workstation;

I would like some clarification on the first sentence of 130.5(d)(2). To do so, let's assume we're looking at a long section of a given wall where I have four 120V duplex receptacles installed. I believe what 130.5(d)(2) says is that I can employ one of the following options:
a) Have the OS control every other duplex receptacle, i.e. every other receptacle will shut off completely (both outlets), OR
b) I can install splitwired duplex receptacles throughout the room whereby the OS will only turn off half of every receptacle (one outlet)

Is that correct?

The reason I ask is because I have seen designs where an OS controlled splitwired receptacle was only installed EVERY OTHER receptacle. In other words, the first duplex receptacle would not be OS controlled, while the next duplex receptacle would be splitwired, where the OS controlled half of that receptacle (one outlet). In other words, running down the wall (from my previous example), of the first two duplex receptacles encountered, only one of the four outlets would be OS controlled. These were stamped/approved plans. Honestly, given the way 130.5(d)(2) is written, I can't fault someone for interpreting it this way. Or, maybe they were right! Thoughts?

This goes for not only electrical, but also for mechanical and lighting. This is now two levels of inspection AHJ and Title 24, Part 6 inspections. Just like a HERS residential inspector there is now a commercial inspector. It will be inspectors galore.

 

[ericwg]

This goes for not only electrical, but also for mechanical and lighting. This is now two levels of inspection AHJ and Title 24, Part 6 inspections. Just like a HERS residential inspector there is now a commercial inspector. It will be inspectors galore.

Sorry, but can you please clarify, are you saying my interpretation was correct or not?

 

[ericwg]

In case it helps with the interpretation of my post/question, to be crystal clear, I am trying to understand whether or not I can get away with installing one non-OS controlled duplex receptacle, followed by one OS-controlled splitwired receptacle, and so on? OR, do I need to a) install ALL OS-controlled splitwired receptacles (w/ half of the receptacle being turned off), or b) install all duplex receptacles where every other one is OS controlled?

 

[mtnelect]

Sorry, but can you please clarify, are you saying my interpretation was correct or not?

You are correct ... For example, in commercial buildings each office must have a sensor that will turn off the lights when no one is present. There must be an Energy Management System that will control all systems.

 

[ericwg]

You are correct ... For example, in commercial buildings each office must have a sensor that will turn off the lights when no one is present.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. With all respect, I'm totally clear on the requirements as it pertains to lighting. My question is specifically focused on the receptacle type addressed in 130.5(d)(2). I know the plug load and lighting in this space must be OS controlled, and it will be. I'm trying to confirm exactly what my options are RE: the receptacle type. Thanks.

 

[mtnelect]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. With all respect, I'm totally clear on the requirements as it pertains to lighting. My question is specifically focused on the receptacle type addressed in 130.5(d)(2). I know the plug load and lighting in this space must be OS controlled, and it will be. I'm trying to confirm exactly what my options are RE: the receptacle type. Thanks.

I suggest you sign up for email notification at www.energy.ca.gov This will give you an opportunity to get involved with the changes coming and be able to have dialog with new proposals. Be prepared to get up to 20 posting a day. This will be the only way and others to know what coming.

I don't have specific answer(s) for your question, since I have been spending my time with HVAC changes, which are many.

 

[ron]

A receptacle is only one plug position. A duplex is 2 receptacles, hence called a duplex receptacle. One on and the other controlled is acceptable.

 

[jaggedben]

A receptacle is only one plug position. A duplex is 2 receptacles, hence called a duplex receptacle. One on and the other controlled is acceptable.

So then what is a 'splitwired receptacle'?

I think if they had said 'splitwired duplex receptacle' it might have been clearer. But what a bandly worded section.

 

[wwhitney]

I would like some clarification on the first sentence of 130.5(d)(2)

I can't answer your question as stated because you didn't give the spacing of the duplex receptacles. But what the quoted text is saying is this: "at each uncontrolled receptacle, the user must be able to find a nearby controlled receptacle (within 6')." Here receptacle means a point to insert one plug, so a duplex is two receptacles.

So if you split-wire a duplex to make one side controlled and one side uncontrolled, that means the uncontrolled receptacle is easily covered (2" < 6'). But you could also install 10 more (or any number) receptacles, all uncontrolled, without any more controlled receptacles, as long as they are close enough to that controlled receptacle. And close enough means within 6', to either side.

Note that I didn't check the source material to see if there are further requirements that would modify the above. Bu that's what the quoted text means.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

I can't answer your question as stated because you didn't give the spacing of the duplex receptacles. But what the quoted text is saying is this: "at each uncontrolled receptacle, the user must be able to find a nearby controlled receptacle (within 6')." Here receptacle means a point to insert one plug, so a duplex is two receptacles.

...

That sure seems to be the intent as well as the way it's written. I think some may be trying to say that the 'or' allows: "Install at least one [splitwired receptacle with at least one controlled and one uncontrolled receptacle] within 6 feet from each uncontrolled receptacle." However the parallelism of 'install' makes this not a strictly defensible interpretation.

 

[wwhitney]

I think some may be trying to say that the 'or' allows: "Install at least one [splitwired receptacle with at least one controlled and one uncontrolled receptacle] within 6 feet from each uncontrolled receptacle."

I absolutely think that suffices. I think you could install 10 duplex receptacles along a 12' length of wall, with one duplex receptacle dead center, and it would suffice to make one half of that centered duplex controlled, with the other 19 receptacles uncontrolled.

I guess you could argue that based on the construction of the quoted text, it is implicit that "receptacle" is being used to mean "duplex receptacle." But I don't buy that. The 2020 California Energy Code doesn't define "receptacle," and defaulting to the California Electrical Code's definition therefore seems good to me. That does mean the portion of the sentence after the "or" is redundant and could be deleted.

If you do take the interpretation that the section is using receptacle to mean "duplex receptacle," then the change in meaning would be that the controlled receptacle in a split-wired duplex only covers the other half of that duplex, and that if you want to use the 6' coverage zone, you'd need to install a controlled duplex receptacle. So in my example above, both receptacles of the central duplex would need to be controlled, with the other 18 receptacle allowed to be uncontrolled.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

I absolutely think that suffices. I think you could install 10 duplex receptacles along a 12' length of wall, with one duplex receptacle dead center, and it would suffice to make one half of that centered duplex controlled, with the other 19 receptacles uncontrolled....

I don't think so. I think they want at least one controlled receptacle for *each* uncontrolled receptacle. i.e the ratio must be equal to or greater than 1.

 

[wwhitney]

I don't think so. I think they want at least one controlled receptacle for *each* uncontrolled receptacle. i.e the ratio must be equal to or greater than 1.

There is nothing in 130.5(D)(2) that specifies a ratio. Sounds like you are reading the bolded word "from" in the OP as the word "for." I agree that "at least one controlled . . . for each uncontrolled . . ." would give a ratio, but that's not the language used.

I won't speculate as to the intention, as I've not spent much time reading the California Energy Code. I'm just giving an outside observer's logical interpretation of the words in this code section.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

There is nothing in 130.5(D)(2) that specifies a ratio.

Contrast this with 2022 California Energy Code 130.5(D)(4), which says:

"For hotel and motel guest rooms, install controlled receptacles for at least one-half of the 120-volt receptacles in each guestroom. . . ."

So clearly the code writers know how to specify a ratio. The use of different language in 130.5(D)(2) demonstrates that it is not the intention to have a 1:1 ratio of controlled to uncontrolled receptacles in general, just for the area covered by 130.5(D)(4).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

I guess you could argue that based on the construction of the quoted text, it is implicit that "receptacle" is being used to mean "duplex receptacle." But I don't buy that. The 2020 California Energy Code doesn't define "receptacle," and defaulting to the California Electrical Code's definition therefore seems good to me. That does mean the portion of the sentence after the "or" is redundant and could be deleted.

2022 California Energy Code 130.5 is followed by:

"NOTE: Definitions of terms and phrases in Section 130.5 are determined as specified in Section 100.1(b). Terms and phrases not found in Section 100.1(b) shall be defined as specified in Title 24, Part 3, Article 100 of the California Electrical Code."

So the word "receptacle" in 130.5(D) has precisely the NEC meaning, as it is not defined in Section 100.1(b).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

There is nothing in 130.5(D)(2) that specifies a ratio.

Sounds like you are reading the bolded word "from" in the OP as the word "for." I agree that "at least one controlled . . . for each uncontrolled . . ." would give a ratio, but that's not the language used.

Not, it's the word 'each' that I think is intended to establish the ratio, although it doesn't strictly say it. I've noticed in other contexts that 'each' is actually pretty ambigous and can be read either way.
Also the 'splitwired receptacle' clause suggests that intended ratio, because otherwise it would unnecessary.

I won't speculate as to the intention, as I've not spent much time reading the California Energy Code. I'm just giving an outside observer's logical interpretation of the words in this code section.

I will grant I was speaking to what I think they intended, and you can strictly read it the other way. As I said above, I think it's terribly written.

 

[jaggedben]

Contrast this with 2022 California Energy Code 130.5(D)(4), which says:

"For hotel and motel guest rooms, install controlled receptacles for at least one-half of the 120-volt receptacles in each guestroom. . . ."

So clearly the code writers know how to specify a ratio. The use of different language in 130.5(D)(2) demonstrates that it is not the intention to have a 1:1 ratio of controlled to uncontrolled receptacles in general, just for the area covered by 130.5(D)(4).

Cheers, Wayne

But that section doesn't employ a distance requirement. Instead it applies to a room that will be relatively confined. So it seems like that could be the reason for the different wording, and that the explicit one-half ratio here might speak to the intent of the other section.

 

[jaggedben]

2022 California Energy Code 130.5 is followed by:

"NOTE: Definitions of terms and phrases in Section 130.5 are determined as specified in Section 100.1(b). Terms and phrases not found in Section 100.1(b) shall be defined as specified in Title 24, Part 3, Article 100 of the California Electrical Code."

So the word "receptacle" in 130.5(D) has precisely the NEC meaning, as it is not defined in Section 100.1(b).

Cheers, Wayne

And the term "split-wired receptacle" is not consistent with those definitions.

 

[wwhitney]

Not, it's the word 'each' that I think is intended to establish the ratio, although it doesn't strictly say it.

Not good enough, particularly in contrast with (D)(4). "Each shall have" does not imply exclusivity in the "having."

But that section doesn't employ a distance requirement.

No, the controlled receptacles installed to comply with 130.5(D)(4) also have to comply with 130.5(D)(2), so that is not the reason for the difference in wording. The reason is that 130.5(D)(4) does impose a ratio, and 130.5(D)(2) doesn't.

Below is the whole text of 130.5(D), in case you've just been reading the excerpts in isolation.

Cheers, Wayne

130.5(d) Circuit controls for 120-volt receptacles and controlled receptacles. In all buildings, both controlled and uncontrolled 120 volt receptacles shall be provided in office areas, lobbies, conference rooms, kitchen areas in office spaces and copy rooms. Additionally, hotel/motel guest rooms shall comply with Section 130.5(d)4. Controlled receptacles shall meet the following requirements, as applicable:

1. Install a control capable of automatically shutting OFF the controlled receptacles when the space is typically unoccupied, either at the receptacle or circuit level. When an automatic time switch control is installed it shall incorporate an override control that allows the controlled receptacle to remain ON for no more than 2 hours when an override is initiated and an automatic holiday “shut-OFF” feature that turns OFF all loads for at least 24 hours and then resumes the normally scheduled operation. Countdown timer switches shall not be used to comply with the automatic time switch control requirements; and

2. Install at least one controlled receptacle within 6 feet from each uncontrolled receptacle or install a splitwired receptacle with at least one controlled and one uncontrolled receptacle. Where receptacles are installed in modular furniture in open office areas, at least one controlled receptacle shall be installed at each workstation; and

3. Provide a permanent and durable marking for controlled receptacles or circuits to differentiate them from uncontrolled receptacles or circuits; and

4. For hotel and motel guest rooms, install controlled receptacles for at least one-half of the 120-volt receptacles in each guestroom. Electric circuits serving controlled receptacles in guestrooms shall have captive card key controls, occupant sensing controls, or automatic controls so the power is switched OFF no longer than 30 minutes after the guestroom has been vacated.

Note: A hardwired power strip controlled by an occupant sensing control may be used to comply with Section 130.5(d). Plug-in strips and other plug-in devices shall not be used to comply with the requirements of Section 130.5(d).

Exception 1 to Section 130.5(d): Receptacles that are only for the following purposes:

i. Receptacles specifically for refrigerators and water dispensers in kitchen area.

ii. Receptacles located a minimum of six feet above the floor that are specifically for clocks.

iii. Receptacles for network copiers, fax machines, A/V and data equipment other than personal computers in copy rooms.

iv. Receptacles on circuits rated more than 20 amperes.

v. Receptacles connected to an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) that are intended to be in continuous use, 24 hours per day/365 days per year, and are marked to differentiate them from other uncontrolled receptacles or circuits.

Exception 2 to Section 130.5(d): Receptacles in healthcare facilities.