210.11(C)(3) Exception

[physis]

210.11(C)(3) Exception

[Revise text]

Existing text

Where the twenty-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, outlets within the same bathroom shall be permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)

Proposed text

Where the twenty-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, that circuit shall be permitted to supply other outlets within the same bathroom.

Italics = strike text
Bold = add text

[Substantiation]

(1)The exception to 210.23(A) disallows outlets other than "receptacle outlets specified" while the exception to 210.11(A) is specifically permitting outlets other than receptacle outlets.

(2) There are no restrictions or allowances in 210.23(A) that change the application of 210.11(C)(3). The reference to 210.23(A) is unnecessary.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I don't have 2005 so this text might not be current. My understanding is that this imperfection still exists in 2005.

Basically, 210.23(A) (outside of the exception) says you can put anything you want on the circuit. There's hardly a need to make sure we read that.

It looks like they were having trouble seperating what should be in "Branch Circuits" and what should be in "Permissable Loads" and somebody came up with the inovative idea of looping them together.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

You bet!

NEC-2005 Exception: Where the 20-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, outlets for other equipment within the same bathroom shall be permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)(1) and (A)(2).

210.23 would apply at any rate, so bring it up? Good call.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Well that's interesting. Instead of taking out the unnecessary verbage in the 2005 cycle they added more?

Sounds like them.

Thanks for the 2005 210.11(C)(3) Exception. could you throw in some 210.23 Exceptions?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

210.23(A)(1) is the only change, I don't have the 2002 here, so you'll have to scope out the difference:

Cord-and-Plug-Connected Equipment Not Fastened in Place. The rating of any one cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment not fastened in place shall not exceed 80 percent of the branch-circuit ampere rating.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Well now I'm concerned that they may want cord and plug loads considered "during" the reading of the branch circuit requirments. I'd rather see that addressed in 210.11.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

If a code is never referenced by another code, is it not enforceable?

I like it the way you have it, IMO.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Yeah, but I'm also trying to understand how CMP 2 is seeing it so I have a better shot at talking them into doing it better.

Edit: By the way I do agree with you. I'm just thinking I should try to address any incidental damage.

See, that's the problem with these guys, everything's all inter-mixed together like a bag of pretzels.

[ April 03, 2005, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

I'd take the bull by the horns. But I've never done this before.

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Hi Sam & George, I'm holding both bags of pretzels as we speak. The 2002 [210.11(C)(3)] exception of [210.23(A)] in the 2005 adds (1)'Not Fastened in Place 80%'...and also
(A)(2)'Fastened in Place total ratings' to key in on the maximum load allowance to the one 20A BC condition being used in the bathroom.
I suspect the 2002 Exception had a typo omission that 2005 corrected. In either circumstance, I am still deciphering what is meant by limiting the (A)(1)Not Fastened in Place condition. How can that be controlled after the AHJ signs off? Pass the Dijon...
rbj, Seattle

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Hi RBJ.

I'm getting a little dizzy from all the 2002 and 2005 codes. I'm going to use this post to collect and hopefully organize the 2005's that I don't have and folks are kind enough to provide.

_____________________________________________________________________

NEC 2005 210.11(C)(3) Exception. Where the 20-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, outlets for other equipment within the same bathroom shall be permitted to be supplied in accordance with 210.23(A)(1) and (A)(2).

NEC 2002 & 2005 210.23(A)(1) Cord-and-Plug-Connected Equipment Not Fastened in Place. The rating of any one cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment not fastened in place shall not exceed 80 percent of the branch-circuit ampere rating.

_________________________________________________________________________

So I don't know if 210.23(A)(2) has been changed in 2005.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

You know what I think the real problem is. It's "Permissable Loads".

See, the whole stupid article needs to be done over.

I'm getting agrivated, I'd better put this down for a while.

[ April 04, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Sam, I know, taking an afternoon nap helps me. The challenge of coming up with words like 'connection' in lieu of 'bonding' take the old mind back to days when a faying surface was referred to for bonding integrity. Whenever there comes a moment for uplifting intellectual inspiration I get on line with the mental giants in this forum. That includes you BTW.

rbj

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

You too George.

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Permissible load(s) works. Try it again Sam.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

I appreciate the compliment RBJ.

I have more thinking on this to do still but I'll be significantly more specific about my thoughts on "Branch Cicuits Required" and "Permissable Loads" in the near future.

And Charlie. I'm very surprised that you haven't commented.

Edit: BTW, some of us know that you're not all that uneducated yourself RBJ.

[ April 04, 2005, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Originally posted by gndrod:
You too George.

Me like happy words. Squeeze RBJ. Make friend.

 

[charlie]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

"And Charlie. I'm very surprised that you haven't commented.

I still like CMP 10. "

Sam, I don't have any feelings one way or the other on this one. Sorry.

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Sam,

So I don't know if 210.23(A)(2) has been changed in 2005.

No change.
Alluding a little further on [210.23(A)(2)], Instead of 'shall not exceed 50 percent of the branch circuit ampere rating where lighting units, cord & plug connected other utilization equip...etc.', I believe changing to "determined permissible loads" as wiggle factor for this section may fly. Using moderate va overhead resistance heater units are fixed in place and usually are not max out loads with lighting in parallel. It's the GFI hair dryer that really is not in the equation that is being read into the 20A BC...I believe. IR heater lamps are becoming more popular because cost convenience and less I2R hungry.

Interesting note, CA State code recently revised that main lighting in bathrooms to be CFL's or equivalent for Title 24 energy savings! Sure indicates where fixed loads are being reduced as technology improves. Next step is keying in mandatory 2 or 4 pin bases for CFL.
Manufacturer's.

rbj, Seattle

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

I'm still trying to find a site for current California Energy Code. I was just looking for something recently and was unsuccesful.

Edit: The proposal should be to change the exeption to 210.23(A) and simply remove the word "receptacle".

Although there's just tons of wasted verbage in 210 all together. It's truly a mess. I spent a couple days looking very closely at it and did a lot of rearranging, and although I don't expect any of this to matter, I have proven, at least to myself, that it's not necessary for it to be a disaster.

Edit: And RBJ, what you said permissible loads. I agree that it's very easy to use. They did a good job with that. But it really is about limiting the usable current rating of a circuit. And I think it's title should clearly indicate that.

[ April 08, 2005, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Sam, The CEC discontined their site in Dec 2004 and defaulted to the PG&E web site. After four years there wasn't enough green interests for maintaining the 'energy' so the 'terminator' axe fell. Originally Title 24 started through the Consumer Affairs in Sacramento in 1974. I think their semi-annual publications can still be subscribed for a fee. Try a Google search for PG&E.

rbj, Seattle
(spelling)

[ April 10, 2005, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: gndrod ]