charlie b said:
My understanding of the item David described is that the pump and the battery backup are mounted on a common "skid" (if that word might be applied here). In other words, you cannot pick up one without also picking up the other.
Yes, that is the commonly chosen sump with battery backup unit installed in my area. There is a bracket on the pipes coming up from the recessed sump motor where the battery, battery case, and backup "brains" are mounted.
I believe the reason for two cords is to allow service on the battery or backup electronic board while the sump is still connected and able to work. While the battery itself probably has a separate UL listing, I would be surprised if the electronics are listed separated from the sump pump.
I stand behind my conclusion the reason for the wording in 210.52(B)(1)x2 was to allow a duplex if there was more than one cord for the one utilization equipment. If the panel wished to be more specific, they could have duplicated their own wording in 210.8(A)(2)x2 and (5)x2: "A single or a duplex receptacle for
two appliances located within dedicated space for
each appliance ..." which allows this exception to be used for equipment that's not limited to
one utilization equipment on an individual branch circuit.
iwire said:
That being the case you can have an individual branch circuit that has an infinite number of receptacles as long as it supplies only one Utilization Equipment at any given time.
I would call that sentence an interpretation and think that it is the wrong interpretation. As MD said on this thread, what if you had more than one piece of equipment plugged in but they were all on switches. Would it be code compliant at the time of inspection if every switch was turned off except one ?
M. D. said:
could I then add some additional lighting outlets in the t.v. room through a switch and then say . "as long as no one throws the switch there is no violation"?
If you have an infinite number of receptacles you don't have an individual branch circuit.
charlie b said:
Speaking philosophically, and for the moment discounting the possibility of DIY work, I believe that a homeowner can never, NEVER create a code violation by virtue of using electrical appliances and equipment. ..... My reasoning is that 90.2(A) says that the NEC covers the installation of "electrical stuff," but it says nothing about the homeowner's use of the installation. If a violation is present, it means that the error was made by the designer, or the installer, or the inspector, or all of us. ..... Lets talk about a 15 amp circuit supplying the fridge. As the code is written and as you have pointed out, you could put any number of duplex receptacles on that circuit, plug only one item in, and call it an "individual branch circuit." But then Jane Homeowner plugs in a second item, and now you have a violation. That should not be possible.
I agree
David