2026 NEC draft - EV and GFCI problems incoming?

[wwhitney]

So the receptacle outlet is the point where the receptacle is connected to the premises wiring.

That doesn't follow. The outlet is a point, yes? "Where one or more receptacles are installed" doesn't specify whether that point is on the line side of the receptacle or the load side of the receptacle. For the reason jaggedben just pointed out, it makes more sense for the outlet to be on the load side of the receptacle.

And that follows from the other definitions. "Premises Wiring System" includes "devices". A receptacle is a "contact device" per its definition. So the receptacle is part of the Premises Wiring System. The "point" on the wiring system at which "current is taken" is the face of the receptacle, not its line side terminals.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That doesn't follow. The outlet is a point, yes? "Where one or more receptacles are installed" doesn't specify whether that point is on the line side of the receptacle or the load side of the receptacle. For the reason jaggedben just pointed out, it makes more sense for the outlet to be on the load side of the receptacle.

And that follows from the other definitions. "Premises Wiring System" includes "devices". A receptacle is a "contact device" per its definition. So the receptacle is part of the Premises Wiring System. The "point" on the wiring system at which "current is taken" is the face of the receptacle, not its line side terminals.

Cheers, Wayne

Nothing in the code defines the face of the receptacle as an outlet, even though it meets the definition.

It is clear to me that the receptacle outlet is the point where the receptacle is connected to the power source.

There is nothing in the current code that has any effect on the use of a GFCI receptacle as the required GFCI protection.

I don't see any issues, but if you do, you can start working on your PIs for the 2029.

 

[wwhitney]

Nothing in the code defines the face of the receptacle as an outlet, even though it meets the definition.

That statement strikes me as a contradiction--if it meets the definition, then that's the answer.

It is clear to me that the receptacle outlet is the point where the receptacle is connected to the power source.

As the receptacle is part of the premises wiring system, that makes no sense. I don't see the 2026 NEC First Draft definition change to Receptacle Outlet as changing anything in this regard. It refers to "outlet" and hence is dependent on that definition. The outlet definition is consistent with the outlet being the face of the receptacle as per your previous statement. So the only self-consistent reading is that "where" in the new definition means "in the vicinity of" as opposed to "the exact point at which".

There is nothing in the current code that has any effect on the use of a GFCI receptacle as the required GFCI protection.

That is true for 2026 First Draft 210.8(A) through (C) which refer to GFCI protection for a receptacle, but not (D). That section reads "GFCI protection shall be provided for the branch circuit or outlet supplying the following appliances . . ." If the outlet at a receptacle is on the line side of the receptacle, then a GFCI receptacle can not provide GFCI protection for that outlet. The outlet needs to be on the load side of the receptacle for a GFCI receptacle to be able to do that. Which is the typical understanding on which the wording of 210.8(D) is based.

2026 First Draft 210.8(F) similarly refers to GFCI protection of outlets, rather than receptacles.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That statement strikes me as a contradiction--if it meets the definition, then that's the answer.


As the receptacle is part of the premises wiring system, that makes no sense. I don't see the 2026 NEC First Draft definition change to Receptacle Outlet as changing anything in this regard. It refers to "outlet" and hence is dependent on that definition. The outlet definition is consistent with the outlet being the face of the receptacle as per your previous statement. So the only self-consistent reading is that "where" in the new definition means "in the vicinity of" as opposed to "the exact point at which".


That is true for 2026 First Draft 210.8(A) through (C) which refer to GFCI protection for a receptacle, but not (D). That section reads "GFCI protection shall be provided for the branch circuit or outlet supplying the following appliances . . ." If the outlet at a receptacle is on the line side of the receptacle, then a GFCI receptacle can not provide GFCI protection for that outlet. The outlet needs to be on the load side of the receptacle for a GFCI receptacle to be able to do that. Which is the typical understanding on which the wording of 210.8(D) is based.

2026 First Draft 210.8(F) similarly refers to GFCI protection of outlets, rather than receptacles.

Cheers, Wayne

The defined terms "outlet" and "receptacle outlet" and two totally different things and only remotely related to each other. You are trying to call the "receptacle outlet" an "outlet" and is not.

A receptacle outlet is not included the definition of outlet as the power is not taken at the receptacle outlet. The receptacle is simply a conductor.

You can say that the contact device in the receptacle is an outlet as it does meet the requirements of that definition. So a GFCI receptacle has its contact device (outlet) protected in accordance with the rules.

The code has required GFCI protection for both receptacles and outlets for a number of code cycles, with the term outlet intended to incluce both hardwired and cord and plug connected equipment.

 

[wwhitney]

The defined terms "outlet" and "receptacle outlet" and two totally different things and only remotely related to each other.

Sorry Don, you're usually very good with your logic, but you are quite off base with the above statement.

The definition of "receptacle outlet" starts off (both before and after the 2026 NEC First Draft change) as "An outlet . . ." That definition directly references the definition of "outlet". The CMP's response to your PI on "receptacle outlet" recognizes this; it starts off by saying "The term "outlet" is already defined."

So the new definition of "receptacle outlet" is equivalent to what we get by substituting the definition of "outlet" into it. That yields: "Receptacle outlet. (A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment) where the branch-circuit conductors are connected to one or more receptacles."

Still the face of the receptacle, as the receptacle is part of the wiring system.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Sorry Don, you're usually very good with your logic, but you are quite off base with the above statement.

The definition of "receptacle outlet" starts off (both before and after the 2026 NEC First Draft change) as "An outlet . . ." That definition directly references the definition of "outlet". The CMP's response to your PI on "receptacle outlet" recognizes this; it starts off by saying "The term "outlet" is already defined."

So the new definition of "receptacle outlet" is equivalent to what we get by substituting the definition of "outlet" into it. That yields: "Receptacle outlet. (A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment) where the branch-circuit conductors are connected to one or more receptacles."

Still the face of the receptacle, as the receptacle is part of the wiring system.

Cheers, Wayne

not going to agree...but the code does need work

 

[jaggedben]

The defined terms "outlet" and "receptacle outlet" and two totally different things and only remotely related to each other. You are trying to call the "receptacle outlet" an "outlet" and is not.

...

If we were to accept that it would be an extremely confusing way to write code and if it's not already against the style manual it should be. If a requirement applies to 'outlets' do you really expect people to understand that it doesn't apply to 'receptacle outlets'? All types of defined branch circuits are subsets of the set of branch circuits and the definitions confirm that. The same should be true of outlets.

 

[jaggedben]

Again, I don't ultimately care how we define outlet; it's just matter of convenience for clear understanding (in which past definitions play a role because the industry has a traditional understanding of them) for use in writing requirements. Defining receptacle outlets differently than other outlets when it comes to imposing a GFCI requirement is the opposite of convenient or clear.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Again, I don't ultimately care how we define outlet; it's just matter of convenience for clear understanding (in which past definitions play a role because the industry has a traditional understanding of them) for use in writing requirements. Defining receptacle outlets differently than other outlets when it comes to imposing a GFCI requirement is the opposite of convenient or clear.

Looking forward to reading your PI for the 2029 code.

 

[wwhitney]

I don't see any issues, but if you do, you can start working on your PIs for the 2029.

I don't particularly see any issues, but that's based on interpreting the 2026 First Draft definitions as I've outlined. If I become aware of a widespread practice of interpreting it differently, a PI would be in order. Seems like the definition of "outlet" could use an informational note along the lines of (quick draft, no polishing):

Informational Note: See also the definitions of "receptacle outlet" and "lighting outlet" for particular types of outlets. An outlet exists wherever utilization equipment is connected to branch circuit wiring, be it via a receptacle or via other connection.

BTW, on how to read definitions, legal contracts I've read often have a "definitions" section in which various Capitalized Terms are defined, and then whenever those terms are used later within the document, they are capitalized to remind the reader to check the definitions section for how the term is being used within the contract. Seems like the NEC and building codes would benefit from using that system.

That would make the 2026 First Definition of "Receptacle Outlet" read "An Outlet where the Branch-Circuit conductors are connected to one or more Receptacles."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

Interesting discussion about such a simple thing we all take for granted can be a huge issue as in some jurisdictions or even in some large facilities the 'outlet' is the dividing line between one trade and another, or a JW license being required for any branch circuit work up to the outlet. For example some places a HVAC person does everything past the disconnect as the disconnect is considered the outlet. Or places that certify or license 'lighting maintenance electricians' aka 'lighting technicians' that are limited to working on fixtures or signs after the 'outlet' but not allowed to work on the branch circuit.
For example old troffers in a office ceiling that have those MC connectors, and office cubes with cords that allow easy moving, a lighting tech can rearrange an entire office layout including the lighting but can not touch branch circuit conductors.