Aprently 90.1(C) is just a waste of ink.

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
The following is in the 2011 Draft, I think this trend is beyond the purpose of the NEC. Of course listed floor boxes, particularly poke throughs are expensive and likely have a high profit margin.

210.55 Meeting Rooms. In meeting rooms located in office buildings and hotels/motels, a receptacle outlet in a listed floor box shall be installed in the center of each room. For a dividable meeting room a single receptacle outlet in a listed floor box shall be installed in the center of each partitioned area. [ROP 2-276]
_______________________________________________________________
2-276 Log #3700 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept
(210.55 (New) )
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)

Recommendation: Add a New Section 210.55 Meeting Rooms to read as
follows:
210.55 Meeting Rooms. In meeting rooms located in office buildings and
hotels/motels, a receptacle outlet in a listed floor box shall be installed in the
center of each room. For a dividable meeting room a single receptacle outlet in
a listed floor box shall be installed in the center of each partitioned area.

Substantiation: The purpose of this new section is to increase the number of
access points to the electrical supply to reduce reliance on the use of extension
cords and the number of extended and potentially overloaded in meeting
rooms. Without centrally located receptacles, extension cords are used with
power strips (which are often daisy chained) attached at wall outlets. Extension
cords are a tripping hazard and damaged extension cords are a shock and fire
hazard. The increased use of laptop computers and projection equipment has
led to greater demand for electrical receptacles in convenient locations. The
NEC needs to recognize this trend by requiring receptacles to be installed in
listed floor boxes in the center of meeting areas, thereby reducing the need for
extension cords.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept


Number Eligible to Vote: 12

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 2

Explanation of Negative:
ORLOWSKI, S.: First, NO documentation was provided to show the current
provisions are a cause of a real fire or other life/fire-safety problem that
would be solved if the floor boxes were mandated. Second, it is unfortunate
that the scope of the NEC does not relate to the NEC being the “minimum”
requirements for “practical safeguarding” for electrical installations. The
proposed requirement is nothing more than mandating a “convenience
outlet that in fact may never be used. With few exceptions, the placement of
receptacle outlets in commercial/industrial occupancies has always been a
design consideration of the architect on consultation with the owner or tenant.
With now mandating this floor receptacle Panel P02 has now made the NEC a
design manual. It cannot be anything else because mandating a floor receptacle
in the “middle of the room” can serve no other purpose than requiring design
criteria the members of this Panel want.

WILKINSON, R.: This is a design matter and should be rejected.

Comment on Affirmative:
WEBER, R.: Once again, the panel has made the correct decision on
accepting this proposal regarding the need for a listed floor receptacle in
meeting rooms located in office buildings and hotel/motels to meet the needs
of today’s IT system requirements and use. The panel may need to look at the
room size and be flexible on the most efficient location for the listed floor
receptacle....but it should be made available and save the daisy chaining of
power cord strips that are now used because of the lack of availability of a
power connection point in the meeting room space.
 
Last edited:

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
have you checked the comments?? ( I thin k that may carry anyway)

why is 90 a waste of ink?????

wouldn't you consider it more of a disclamier????
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
have you checked the comments?? ( I think that may carry anyway)

Yes, I read the comments, I really hope when the ROC comes out it will show that the CMP members have come to their senses and removed this nonsense that is so clearly aimed at product sales it is disgusting.

why is 90 a waste of ink?????

Because the CMP members are outright ignoring it.
 

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
Yes, I read the comments, I really hope when the ROC comes out it will show that the CMP members have come to their senses and removed this nonsense that is so clearly aimed at product sales it is disgusting.



Because the CMP members are outright ignoring it.

Well it apears to have been defeated in the ROC, C 2-148.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
This reminds me of the 2008 NEC which requires a phone outlet in a dwelling. As Bob cited because of 90.1(C) this should not be in the code.

90.1 Purpose.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
 

Volta

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Ohio
As Bob cited because of 90.1(C) this should not be in the code.

Agreed.

But I have to admit that walking into a coffeeshop or similar I have often wished for a requirement to have a receptacle outlet located at every table if the establishment offers WiFi. Soooo many trip hazards with the laptops everywhere. :roll:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
But I have to admit that walking into a coffeeshop or similar I have often wished for a requirement to have a receptacle outlet located at every table if the establishment offers WiFi. Soooo many trip hazards with the laptops everywhere. :roll:

That is when you walk firmly and quickly ....... Oh sorry did I just send your laptop flying? :grin:
 

elohr46

Senior Member
Location
square one
I don't see how this is new technology, I've worked on many office bldgs. through the years and most of the time we installed a floor outlet beneath the conference table. Before computers there were movie projectors, slide projectors, microfiche veiwers, etc. We get paid to put in the electrical equipment that NEMA makes, I thought that is why we are all here.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I am not saying a floor outlet under a conference table is a bad idea and I have installed many.

That said I think NEMA using the NEC to inflate sales is wrong.
 

Buck Parrish

Senior Member
Location
NC & IN
If the two rooms happen not to be useing the partition. Then the table will be in the middle of the room where thier is no outlet. So you still might trip over the cord.

Also if the room is used for a meeting where children might be there. The outlets should be TR's ;)
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
I agree. I just looked up the proposal for a grounded conductor to be required at switch boxes for future electronic devices and guess who was the sponsor. The same guy from NEMA.:mad:

The requirement makes sense to me. In fact, I have been making a practice of bringing a neutral to switch boxes for a while now.

The reason is that some manufacturers are using the grounding conductor as a return path for electronics such as motion detectors. A single device may not put an objectionable current on the ground wire, but many would. Along with the requirement for a neutral, I'll bet you will see a requirement for the manufacturers to stop using the ground as a neutral for anything, no matter how small the current drain is.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I think it should still be up to the person paying the bill to decide to 'wire for the future'.

The fact that manufactures want to be able to sell products that need a neutral should not cost every homeowner money.
 
It also depends on how you define "center". I haven't read the comments yet, but I can remember many office meeting rooms where the floor box had to be installed 5'+ off center to be under the table pedestal. Definitely doesn't belong in the code.
 
I think it should still be up to the person paying the bill to decide to 'wire for the future'.

The fact that manufactures want to be able to sell products that need a neutral should not cost every homeowner money.

I agree 100%. I had brought this issue up before, and stated that an electrician following the manufacturers instructions to install those type of switches is a violation of the NEC. Using the ground as a 'neutral' (current carrying conductor) is just plain wrong regardless if its just electronics equipment etc.. But I guess with enough money thrown at it, you can get anything passed.

Ive been pursuing my wealth the wrong way, I should just make a product that is code required and get rich that way. ;)

As for the purposal on the outlet for meeting tables, thats a design issue!! Also, Ive seen too many so called 'meeting rooms' used for offices and other things , and Ive seen offices used as a metting room. Whos gonna DEFINE what a 'meeting room' is. They should just leave this alone.!!
 
Last edited:

readydave8

re member
Location
Clarkesville, Georgia
Occupation
electrician
I'm for the receptacle being installed but against it being mandated by the NEC, but.....

Would someone comment on the spacing requirements for receptacles in a dwelling, is this also a design issue? Or is it a completely different situation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top