2023 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE - Section 210.8(F)
- Thread starter mtnelect
- Start date
- Status
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
I did no such thing Ryan Jackson just said in his video that the branch circuit starts at the final overcurrent device and ends at the utilization equipment why wouldn't he say it ends at the outlet?I think that’s a valid point.
And you didn’t need to corrupt the NEC definition of “outlet” to make it!
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Because he is trying to explain to people like you what the term "outlet" actually means.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
I know what an outlet is and hardwired utilization equipment is not an outlet.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
No, the complete equipment is never the outlet, but with hardwired equipment the outlet is part of the equipment.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
Factory wired equipment is not covered by the scope of the NEC that is why utilization equipment is "sometimes" hardwired to outlets. My public comments will clarify it very well in the next cycle.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
Per the NEC I want to add an informational note that on hardwired equipment the utilization equipment termination compartment be referred to as an appliance outlet and add that definition to article 100.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
We are not talking about factory wired equipment. We are talking about the premises wiring connection to any type of hard wired equipment. If the equipment is hardwired, the outlet is at the equipment.
Also you need to start with Public Inputs, not Public Comments.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
Why is it not defined as the appliance outlet? Ryan said the branch circuit ends at the utilization equipment that is not always the end of the premises wiring so not all branch circuits connect to an outlet.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
How is the end of the branch circuit conductor not the end of the premises wiring for a hard wired circuit?
There is no need for a specific definition of appliance outlet and even if there was such a definition, it would leave out a lot of hard wired commercial and industrial equipment that are not appliances.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
The claim was that the branch circuit ends at the outlet the utilization equipment connects to.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
Supposedly the outlet location on hardwired utilization equipment can't even be illustrated that's why Mike has an illustration that points at nothing.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
You are welcome to submit a PI. Might be tricky submitting any specific wording that will get accepted as a change.
Existing definition is good enough for most the time but yet doesn't really give us an exact location of where this outlet is for all situations.
Been topic of discussion here before on lighting outlets - particularly for required lighting outlets - if you put a junction box and supply it with conductors that can be energized at a required lighting outlet location, do you have to put a luminaire at the location? Code as written doesn't exactly require a luminaire just a lighting outlet. That outlet box is the transition point between the wiring method and the utilization equipment so it must be or at least contain the "outlet".
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
There are similar problems with the definition of a branch circuit and a feeder. Why this is the chew toy you decided is the one you don't want release from your jaws is a mystery to me. I agree that the rule to GFCI protect outdoor hard wired equipment is stupid, but the time and energy wasted on arguing about it in terms of the outlet location is wasted.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
I disagree with it being a waste of time it was the grounds behind the State of Colorado completely deleting 210.8(E) and 210.8(F) for the 2023 cycle. CMP-2 got greedy with the public input written by Nehad Elsharif that was supposed to apply to all hardwired equipment installed at a dwelling unit. It was written due to a death on an ungrounded mis-wired A/C unit and the code is written for new installations and replacements not unlicensed repair work. CMP-2 got greedy to expand class A protection due to a definition that I believe almost exclusively applies to cord and plug connected equipment. My public inputs whether they pass or fail will clarify this misinterpretation due to the definition of individual branch circuit not mentioning the connection to an outlet and the creation of 210.8(D) which covers all specific appliances regardless of vintage, cord and plug connected or hardwired why didn't they simply say where connected to an outlet?
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
CMP-2 knew there were problems with 210.8(F) and they did nothing to address it in the last cycle so now the result is as if it never was changed.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Your discrepancy with definition of "outlet" has nothing to do with what their intent was. They still have what they wanted whether most of us agree with their decision or not. In 2023 only change was to add an exception with an expiration date with the hope that the HVAC manufacturers will have something by then that plays well with GFCI's. TIA for 2020 effectively was same thing. They ultimately want GFCI protection on pretty much all utilization equipment outdoors at dwelling units other than luminaires as mentioned, but won't be surprised to see those included down the road either.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
Are you aware that the UL standard allows 10ma of leakage current even beyond 2026? If the CMP's intent was to include all hardwired utilization equipment in the change their plan went fatally wrong when they claimed EVSE was governed by another code panel and GFCI protection is not required regardless of location of install that screws up CMP-2s argument.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
CMP-2 will be diminished in the next code cycle and 210.8(F) will be deleted the State of Colorado AHJ is not going to pick and choose what equipment is compatible and requires protection.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
I don't know what UL standards are. If you are correct apparently the CMP doesn't know or doesn't care either.
I still think an incident got them all determined they need to do something yet they haven't thought it through very well and on top of that they went pretty broad with what they came up with for final code rather than just limiting it to the thing that triggered this. But they been pretty eager to expand GFCI requirements in recent years anyway most with no good justification other than because we can rather than because of concerning statistics like had mostly driven GFCI requirements up until about 2008 NEC. I don't see how wording in 210.8(F) excludes EVSE unless there is something written in other sections that cover EVSE's. For that matter the HVAC is covered by another code panel as well.
I'm sure other states will do similar at least for the near future, but looks like NEC is set on keeping what they have for now and ultimately seems to think they will be able to remove the exception down the road.
- Status