2023 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE - Section 210.8(F)

[Bill Snyder]

Right now the 2023 does not require all outlets to have GFCI protection, so it does not require all hard wired equipment to be GFCI protected.
The 2023 code requires the items listed in 210.8(D) to have GFCI protection either if they are cord and plug connected or if they are hardwired. It also requires any equipment supplied by the outlet specified in 210.8(F) to be GFCI protected. Those rules only cover a very small portion of hard wired equipment to have GFCI protection.

So you want me to believe that CMP-2 passed a code change based on a child's tragic death due to an EGC not being installed on hardwired utilization equipment (HVAC) so they pass a code change calling everything installed outdoors of a dwelling unit an "outdoor outlet" and that is a small fraction of equipment that requires Class A protection????? You sir need to quit drinking that Kool-Aid!

 

[kwired]

So a hardwired gate controller is not covered by 210.8(F)?

That one might be tricky, but as written I'd say it is covered.

Reality is some of these are not directly operated from the supply volts but rather are battery operated and the supply voltage is essentially operating a battery charger - but I guess that battery charger would still be required to be GFCI protected per the wording so yes it is covered regardless IMO.

 

[kwired]

So you want me to believe that CMP-2 passed a code change based on a child's tragic death due to an EGC not being installed on hardwired utilization equipment (HVAC) so they pass a code change calling everything installed outdoors of a dwelling unit an "outdoor outlet" and that is a small fraction of equipment that requires Class A protection????? You sir need to quit drinking that Kool-Aid!

That is according to the draft reports what prompted this change.

Funny thing is the AC units were found to not always play well with GFCI's and then they had to suspend their requirement long enough to give manufacturers time to make units that will play well. Who knows how this will be handled when time comes to run new circuit to existing equipment that doesn't play well though.

 

[jap]

Maybe more focus should be put towards manufacturing non-conductive equipment.

JAP>

 

[retirede]

Maybe more focus should be put towards manufacturing non-conductive equipment.

JAP>

Remember “Double-Insulated” power tools?

 

[jap]

Remember “Double-Insulated” power tools?

We need double insulated non conductive AC units, Refrigerators, Washers, Dryers, Diswashers, etc....

 

[going_commando]

How about the equipment manufacturers stop making junk so the code doesn't make us install more and more expensive stuff just to protect the Chinese made garbage that is being churned out?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So you want me to believe that CMP-2 passed a code change based on a child's tragic death due to an EGC not being installed

[/QUOTE]
Some of the members of CMP-2 do not agree that there was no EGC for that unit that resulted in the death. It is my opinion, that a wire type EGC or equipment bonding jumper was required for that installation, but the majority of panel 2 does not agree

on hardwired utilization equipment (HVAC) so they pass a code change calling everything installed outdoors of a dwelling unit an "outdoor outlet" and that is a small fraction of equipment that requires Class A protection?????

[/QUOTE]
There was no code change related to outlet. All electrical equipment that functions has its power supplied by an outlet. That has always been the case.

You sir need to quit drinking that Kool-Aid!

The only kool-aid on this issue is coming from you and your friend James.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Maybe more focus should be put towards manufacturing non-conductive equipment.

JAP>

It would be impossible to mandate that requirement through UL

 

[Bill Snyder]

Some of the members of CMP-2 do not agree that there was no EGC for that unit that resulted in the death. It is my opinion, that a wire type EGC or equipment bonding jumper was required for that installation, but the majority of panel 2 does not agree

[/QUOTE]
There was no code change related to outlet. All electrical equipment that functions has its power supplied by an outlet. That has always been the case.

The only kool-aid on this issue is coming from you and your friend James.
[/QUOTE]
CMP-2 got caught with their hand in the cookie jar they got greedy and attempted to expand class A protection and 210.8(D) applies to all outlets that supply specific appliances James and myself caught CMP-2 and the code will be reversed next cycle.

 

[Bill Snyder]

That is according to the draft reports what prompted this change.

Funny thing is the AC units were found to not always play well with GFCI's and then they had to suspend their requirement long enough to give manufacturers time to make units that will play well. Who knows how this will be handled when time comes to run new circuit to existing equipment that doesn't play well though.

My issue has always been the interpretation that hardwired utilization equipment is defined and connected to an outdoor outlet. If CMP-2 passed a reference requiring GFPE for HVAC equipment we would have no argument about the magical outlet no one can say where it is located.

 

[Bill Snyder]

You haven't said anything that changes the fact that the NEC definition of outlet includes hardwired equipment.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

How can the outlet be the utilization equipment itself 2 definitions can't exist in the same location

 

[Bill Snyder]

You haven't said anything that changes the fact that the NEC definition of outlet includes hardwired equipment.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

The back of a dryer is the termination to utilization equipment the outlet connects it to the branch circuit.

 

[ActionDave]

My issue has always been the interpretation that hardwired utilization equipment is defined and connected to an outdoor outlet

For the last thirty days I've been trying to figure out what you are trying to say. I think I finally got it. The thing is you are not going to get anywhere if the hill you choose to die on is the NEC definition of an outlet.

If CMP-2 passed a reference requiring GFPE for HVAC equipment we would have no argument about the magical outlet no one can say where it is located.

I agree that GFPE level protection makes a lot of sense a lot of the time.

 

[Bill Snyder]

 

[kwired]

View attachment 2563784

In the picture the branch circuit wiring ends at the receptacle and the appliance wiring begins with the cord cap.

Now put a flexible metal conduit whip in place of the cord - the branch circuit wiring ends at the appliance supply terminals and the appliance wiring begins at the same terminal block. The way it has been for a long time, why is it hard to understand?

210.8 A and B require GFCI protection for receptacles meeting conditions/locations mentioned, and always has been that way though go back to 2014 and prior only 15 and 20 amp 120 volt receptacles were mentioned. 2017 they started to add other voltages and other current ratings but was and still is only receptacle outlets mentioned in A and B.

Other parts of 210.8 as well as other articles that bring up GFCI protection have more specifics to them. 210.8(F) just happens to be all outdoor "outlets" at dwelling locations with only exception involving lighting outlets and now the HVAC equipment -- with an expiration date on the exception though, meaning they still intend that HVAC equipment to be protected (whether we think is right or wrong) just giving manufacturers time to develop certain equipment that will play better with GFCI's.

 

[Bill Snyder]

In the picture the branch circuit wiring ends at the receptacle and the appliance wiring begins with the cord cap.

Now put a flexible metal conduit whip in place of the cord - the branch circuit wiring ends at the appliance supply terminals and the appliance wiring begins at the same terminal block. The way it has been for a long time, why is it hard to understand?

210.8 A and B require GFCI protection for receptacles meeting conditions/locations mentioned, and always has been that way though go back to 2014 and prior only 15 and 20 amp 120 volt receptacles were mentioned. 2017 they started to add other voltages and other current ratings but was and still is only receptacle outlets mentioned in A and B.

Other parts of 210.8 as well as other articles that bring up GFCI protection have more specifics to them. 210.8(F) just happens to be all outdoor "outlets" at dwelling locations with only exception involving lighting outlets and now the HVAC equipment -- with an expiration date on the exception though, meaning they still intend that HVAC equipment to be protected (whether we think is right or wrong) just giving manufacturers time to develop certain equipment that will play better with GFCI's.

I guess my point is CMP-2 is arrogantly pushing this requirement on incompatible equipment and the result is non enforcement. How does that make it safer?

 

[ActionDave]

I guess my point is CMP-2 is arrogantly pushing this requirement on incompatible equipment and the result is non enforcement. How does that make it safer?

That is a legitimate argument. It's also unfortunate that the NEC has gone down this path of hyper GFCI expansion.

 

[kwired]

That is a legitimate argument. It's also unfortunate that the NEC has gone down this path of hyper GFCI expansion.

Just a guess that at least is part of the reason- AFCI's have their manufacturers pushing information (in their favor) to the CMP's so they can sell product and recover some the R&D money they put into develop the product. Most those that make AFCI's also make GFCI's so from their perspective why not present reasons to expand the requirements there as well.

 

[retirede]

I guess my point is CMP-2 is arrogantly pushing this requirement on incompatible equipment and the result is non enforcement. How does that make it safer?

I think that’s a valid point.

And you didn’t need to corrupt the NEC definition of “outlet” to make it!