AFCI Switch

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy7

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Occupation
Electrician
I have a customer who wants to add four recessed lights (Take one light down and add four recessed on one switch leg) in their cottage near the beach. At some point someone replaced their 100 amp panel and left it in the crawl space (Picture attached) under the house. In an effort not to touch the panel, and trying to be code compliant with Afci protection, I was thinking of using an Afci switch. Can I use one of these in this installation? Has anyone used these (Picture attached)?


1699802157161.png1699802157268.png
 
They are probably fine, but wouldn't use it. If you really really want to change this to AFCI, just put in an AFCI breaker or figure out where the circuit first lands and, if you are lucky, put in an AFCI receptable and then all the downstream are protected. But, if you are just trying to protect the lighting circuit, I wouldn't bother and save myself and the homeowner from AFCI ghosts.
 
Which option of 210.12(A) would make this install compliant?

In general I install AFCI protection where required but in cases like this of adding a few lights I'll make exceptions.
 
Jimmy7 said:
In an effort not to touch the panel, and trying to be code compliant with Afci protection
Click to expand...
Passing inspection requires more skill in Massachusetts, with AFCI's expanded to all dwelling circuits.
tthh said:
just put in an AFCI breaker or (Device at first opening)
Click to expand...
AFCI switch cost less that breakers, and isolates remodel lighting by room.

Why pay for breaker if not hired to remodel more rooms?
 
I may ruffle some feathers here, but I build to Code in general.

I like the NEC, it’s been designed by far greater electrical minds than mine, but it’s not the Word of God. It a neat document.

In areas where I believe I have the knowledge to not adhere to the rules, I will do so. If I’m getting inspected, all the I’s need to be dotted, and T’s crossed, to cover my donkey, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its the only right way to do it.

In your situation, I would not bother with trying to follow the code as regards the AFCI issue. The AFCI rules are stupid, short-sighted, useless, and were nothing more than an inside deal. So I pass on it whenever I can.
 
Unless it is already on AFCI I wouldn't add it.
I also don't play with Bumblebees....
 
ramsy said:
Passing inspection requires more skill in Massachusetts, with AFCI's expanded to all dwelling circuits.

AFCI switch cost less that breakers, and isolates remodel lighting by room.

Why pay for breaker if not hired to remodel more rooms?
Click to expand...
Adding an AFCI switch to an existing circuit would not meet one of the options of 210.12(A) so why add it it all?
 
curt swartz said:
Adding an AFCI switch to an existing circuit would not meet one of the options of 210.12(A) so why add it it all?
Click to expand...
Yes I see, 110.12(D) omits the switch device, and prefers a first opening receptacle or breaker where possible.

However when those options don't exist, but the AFCI switch can load feed home-run switch box, the NEC is a permissive code for devices listed for the purpose.
 
curt swartz said:
Adding an AFCI switch to an existing circuit would not meet one of the options of 210.12(A) so why add it it all?
Click to expand...
There is a PI to add AFCI switch to 210.12(E)(2) for extensions and modifications in the 2026 code. No idea of what CMP 2 will do with that PI.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is a PI to add AFCI switch to 210.12(E)(2) for extensions and modifications in the 2026 code. No idea of what CMP 2 will do with that PI.
Click to expand...
Not sure how much benefit that will be unless they ease up on the requirements for the circuit supplying the AFCI devices.

Currently you need a metal wiring method or supply the AFCI device from a branch circuit/feeder AFCI or use a listed combination of standard breaker and AFCI device.
 
curt swartz said:
Not sure how much benefit that will be unless they ease up on the requirements for the circuit supplying the AFCI devices.

Currently you need a metal wiring method or supply the AFCI device from a branch circuit/feeder AFCI or use a listed combination of standard breaker and AFCI device.
Click to expand...
210.12(E) does not require that.
 
If anyone was awake at the switch.... they'd likely find that the failure rate of the switch itself is greater than the harm it's trying to protect from.
Don't bother
 
curt swartz said:
The residential work I get involved with is new construction.
Click to expand...
The OP's remodel lighting forces a modern fuse box that fits AFCI's --new construction--, if not for that AFCI switch, or receptacle rough-in next to first-opening switch.
 
Seven-Delta-FortyOne said:
I may ruffle some feathers here, but I build to Code in general.

I like the NEC, it’s been designed by far greater electrical minds than mine, but it’s not the Word of God. It a neat document.

In areas where I believe I have the knowledge to not adhere to the rules, I will do so. If I’m getting inspected, all the I’s need to be dotted, and T’s crossed, to cover my donkey, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its the only right way to do it.

In your situation, I would not bother with trying to follow the code as regards the AFCI issue. The AFCI rules are stupid, short-sighted, useless, and were nothing more than an inside deal. So I pass on it whenever I can.
Click to expand...
Those minds get a lot of persuasion by the manufacturers of different products. They can set up demonstrations and be pretty convincing to show a need for their product in the name of safety. They are not going to present much if any downsides to their products, and for the most part nobody else is either. You know how much you or I would need to spend on an effective enough presentation to convince them to ease up on a GFCI or AFCI rule that currently is already in the code? We don't have enough to gain from it to do so, therefore it doesn't happen.

Years ago GFCI rules were added as real world statistics showed higher numbers of electrocutions in certain situations. Even since about 2005 majority of the GFCI rules that were added had little real world justification and were more of a "because we can" reason for adding those rules.
 
As I recall, the original "idea" behind AFCI was protecting against frayed semi-permanantly plugged-in cords....like the dog chewed the cord and started a fire or got electrocuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top