Garage recpt outlets Exterior

[Dennis Alwon]

Disagree.

Mike you can disagree if you like but in the eyes of every cmp member that I met you are incorrect. Look at the exception in 210.12 Do you know why the addition of devices was added? By your definition everything is an outlet but the NEC added the word devices to cover switches because they are not outlets and they wanted them covered by 210.12.

You do not take current at the switch. The switch is merely a device that allows or disallows voltage to flow to the equipment.

We can argue this all day but IMO, this has been argued to death and I really don't want to rehash it much. IMO, it is clear and as I said it is pretty clear in the NEC especially with the addition of the word devices.

Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where
the extension of the existing conductors is not more than
1.8 m (6 ft) and does not include any additional outlets or
devices.

 

[kwired]

I know there is some disagreement as to what an outlet is, but generally this disagreement does not involve switches being called an outlet, and this is first I recall anyone I consider to know code pretty well ever suggest a switch is an outlet.

As Dennis said they added "devices" to 210.12 this last code cycle because "switches" are not covered under "outlets".

 

[al hildenbrand]

Look at the exception in 210.12 Do you know why the addition of devices was added?

Better yet, Dennis, look at the main requirement FOR AFCI protection in 210.12(A). "devices installed . . . shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6)."

You ask, "Do you know. . .?" Well, I can guess. The meme that "A switch doesn't use power so it isn't an outlet," is so deeply entrenched that it is easier to add "device" to 210.12(A) forcing AFCI on new switch installs, than to re-educate the base of electricians about the definitions.

Instead of thinking they added devices because "switches" aren't covered under "outlets", rather, that it had been intended that "switches" be included from the point in Code changes when removal of "receptacle" from "outlet" in 210.12 occurred.

 

[mjf]

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what type of device is installed, as each wired and installed electrical box has the CAPABILITY of supplying current to utilization equipment. (even if one doesn't concur that a switch performs this function).



I wish I had my code book in the living room with me because I would look up precisely how the "neutral at switches code" is written.


guess they could simplify that one and just require neutral or future access to supply neutral at any and all 120v outlets.

 

[wwhitney]

following the train of thought, the breaker for the circuit supplying the garage outlet(s) must also be located in the garage.

Even if a breaker is an outlet, the branch circuit doesn't start until after the breaker. So the 210.52(G)(1) does not regulate the location of the breaker.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what type of device is installed, . . .

Interesting, isn't it. "Device" is not modified or restricted in any way. We only have the Article 100 Definition to guide us:

Device. A unit of an electrical system, other than a conductor, that carries or controls electric energy as its principal function.

From 210.12(A): "devices installed . . . shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6)."

 

[kwired]

Better yet, Dennis, look at the main requirement FOR AFCI protection in 210.12(A). "devices installed . . . shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6)."

You ask, "Do you know. . .?" Well, I can guess. The meme that "A switch doesn't use power so it isn't an outlet," is so deeply entrenched that it is easier to add "device" to 210.12(A) forcing AFCI on new switch installs, than to re-educate the base of electricians about the definitions.

Instead of thinking they added devices because "switches" aren't covered under "outlets", rather, that it had been intended that "switches" be included from the point in Code changes when removal of "receptacle" from "outlet" in 210.12 occurred.

I am not under the impression that they wanted to include switches under the definition of outlet, I do think it is just progression of requiring AFCI protection on more items as each code has done since AFCI was first introduced.

From a chart that was found in a Mike Holt newsletter on history of AFCI protection -

in 1999 only AFCI protection required was for bedroom receptacle outlets (with effective date Jan 1, 2002:roll

in 2002 and 2005 it was changed to all outlets in bedrooms - this meant a switch located in the bedroom for an outlet outside the bedroom did not require AFCI protection. It also meant the smoke detectors and the lighting outlets inside bedrooms were required to be AFCI protected - as well as the entire branch circuit those items were powered by, so outlets in other rooms but on same circuit got protection because of outlets in the bedroom.

2008 still required all outlets to require AFCI protection but expanded beyond the bedrooms, and did add the exception for metal raceway or steel armor cable to first outlet and allowed the AFCI protection at first outlet - plus exception for power limited fire alarms.

2011 had little change from 2008 - did add one more exception for allowing non metallic or metallic raceways to be concrete encased to first outlet then AFCI protection at first outlet.

2014 added the kitchen and laundry to the list of rooms, and added "devices". What this means is before 2014 you could have the switch for an exterior light that did not need AFCI protection located in a living room, bedroom, or other rooms mentioned requiring AFCI. Many times people placed those lights on same circuit as a room requiring AFCI anyway so it didn't matter much to the installers, but the option was there to run a non AFCI protected circuit to the exterior light and put the switch in a room mentioned in 210.12, now they want that switch or any other device that is not an "outlet" to be included in the items requiring AFCI protection.

All AFCI protected items above of course were and still are only limited to 15 and 20 amp 120 volt circuits - so far.

 

[kwired]

Put it this way - if NEC intended to include switches in the definition of outlet - then why didn't they make changes to the definition of outlet in art 100?

Instead their intention when adding "devices" in 210.12 was to include items that are not "outlets".

 

[al hildenbrand]

Put it this way - if NEC intended to include switches in the definition of outlet - then why didn't they make changes to the definition of outlet in art 100?

Good question.

My answer? It is not necessary to alter the Article 100 definition of Outlet because Article 100 already defines Outlet, Premises Wiring (System) and Controller is such a way that they "nest" together to support my premise.

By inserting "Device" into 210.12, the CMP expands beyond Controller (which, to me, is still only about "Outlet") to also include devices that "carry" "electric energy". "Electric energy" is far more inclusive than the term Outlet, which is ONLY concerned with current.

 

[kwired]

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


That is art 100 definition of outlet.


I fail to see how that includes a switch or controller. If one claims current is taken through the switch to supply the equipment - well then conductors are also performing that function in a similar fashion.

If this is confusing enough for some maybe this definition is what needs some change, I don't believe a switch is intended to be included as a defined outlet. If it were on a simple circuit with one switch one lighting luminaire - do we have one outlet or two? I say the only outlet is at the luminaire, I do agree is may not be so clear as to the exact location of the "outlet" but it is somewhere very near the luminaire location.

 

[al hildenbrand]

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


That is art 100 definition of outlet.


I fail to see how that includes a switch or controller. If one claims current is taken through the switch to supply the equipment - well then conductors are also performing that function in a similar fashion.

The difference is that the "wiring internal to" the switch, by the definition of Premises Wiring (System), is defined as not included IN the Premises Wiring (System). For current to pass through a simple snap switch, the current must leave, and then return, to the Premises Wiring (System). Conductors, on the other hand, if they are not the conductor(s) within the simple snap switch, but, rather, the conductors of the wiring described in the first two sentences of Premises Wiring (System), conductors carry current that never leaves the Premises Wiring (System). The leaving is the heart of the meaning of current is taken, to me.

If this is confusing enough for some maybe this definition is what needs some change, I don't believe a switch is intended to be included as a defined outlet. If it were on a simple circuit with one switch one lighting luminaire - do we have one outlet or two? I say the only outlet is at the luminaire, I do agree is may not be so clear as to the exact location of the "outlet" but it is somewhere very near the luminaire location.

I'm of the opinion, the greater need, compared to wordsmithing the Article 100 Definition, is in having these discussions. The "confusion" you refer to is the really interesting source of . . . well, the discussion.

A simple circuit of one switch, one luminaire, and one detached garage parking space receptacle outlet. . . this begs the 210.52(G)(1) question when one wants to install the switch over in the house.

 

[al hildenbrand]

A simple circuit of one switch, one luminaire, and one detached garage parking space receptacle outlet. . . this begs the 210.52(G)(1) question when one wants to install the switch over in the house.

And, what about a real common set up: House and detached garage with a single branch circuit supplying the garage. It is not uncommon for a light at the back door of the house and a light on the outside of the garage to be controlled by threeway switching between the house and garage. A strict interpretation of Outlet, as used in 210.52(G)(1) has now made this impossible.

 

[kwired]

And, what about a real common set up: House and detached garage with a single branch circuit supplying the garage. It is not uncommon for a light at the back door of the house and a light on the outside of the garage to be controlled by threeway switching between the house and garage. A strict interpretation of Outlet, as used in 210.52(G)(1) has now made this impossible.

I agree with that, but not because of switch location but because 201.52(G)(1) doesn't allow the circuit with garage (interior) receptacles to serve any outlet (assuming a switch is not an outlet) outside of the garage.

I don't like any of that change - IMO another crossing of the line of NEC becoming a design manual. A smart designer/installer knows when they need more circuits in an otherwise general use area, requiring at least one outlet in the garage was maybe fine - now we put restrictions on something not every user necessarily needs, some users have needed additional circuits for a long time, and we usually put them in when we know they will be needed without the NEC telling us we need to. Just like a lot of kitchens do have more then two SABC's run to them.

ADD: BTW I also believe the two SABC requirement is crossing the line of design specification even though it has been there longer then I have been in the trade.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I agree with that, but not because of switch location but because 201.52(G)(1) doesn't allow the circuit with garage (interior) receptacles to serve any outlet (assuming a switch is not an outlet) outside of the garage.

Yup.

That's the easy one.

Now. Let's talk some more about. . .

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Al - hows does a switch take current as the definition of outlet states. If there is no bulb in the light fixture is the switch no longer an outlet? The switch IMO, just allows electricity- voltage to get to another point- usually to the outlet.

Sorry I will never buy into the thought that a switch is an outlet. Obviously in the case of the garage why would the cmp not want to have a switch for the garage in another room? I am quite certain that if they thought the switch was an outlet then the would have an exception on this section.

Maybe many of you recall the graphics that were all over showing a switch for a light in an area that required afci but the switch did not require afci. Today it does.

Here is a question answer from mike holt based on the older code. Take it for what it is worth

Q5. The 2002 NEC states that all branch circuits that supply 125V, 15A or 20A outlets in dwelling unit bedrooms be AFCI protected. Would this apply to smoke detectors and wall air conditioning units connected to a 125V, 15A or 20A circuit? Is AFCI protection required for switches located in the bedroom that controls a lighting outlet in another space?
A5. AFCI protection is required for all 125V, 15A and 20A outlets, and this would include the outlet for smoke detectors as well as wall air conditioners. I?m not sure if the AFCI breaker will nuisance trip when it supplies large inductive reactive loads such as air conditioning equipment on dedicated circuits. Time will tell.
About the switches, if the switch controls utilization equipment in the bedroom, then it will be AFCI protected. However, if the switch operates lighting outlets for outdoor luminaire, closets or other loads not terminated in bedroom space then AFCI protection is not NEC required, because a switch is not considered an outlet*.
*According to Article 100, an outlet is defined as a point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar purposes [100]. This would include a receptacle outlet, a lighting outlet, but not a switch.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al - hows does a switch take current as the definition of outlet states.

Asked and answered. Please re-read Post #51, my first four sentences.

If there is no bulb in the light fixture is the switch no longer an outlet?

You can ask an identical question about a receptacle that has nothing plugged in. As with a "simple snap switch used as a controller", a receptacle has definitions in Article 100.
I contend that the last sentence of Premises Wiring (System), Controller, Outlet and 404.14 interlock to show that there is an outlet internal to a simple snap switch used as a controller.

The switch IMO, just allows electricity- voltage to get to another point- usually to the outlet.

Dennis, you know that is incomplete. If voltage were just what was controlled, there would be no need for current ratings on a switch. A switch has to allow current, it has to "control" current also. A simple snap switch, in no way, is Utilization Equipment, yet, when ON "current taken to supply utilization equipment" passes through the switch. The key to my understanding, IMO, is that the "wiring internal to the controller" is defined as not part of the Premises Wiring (System) by the very definition of Premises Wiring (System). The "current taken to supply utilization equipment" at the "point on the wiring system" where the current enters the internal wiring of the snap switch is where the current LEAVES the Premises Wiring (System).

Sorry I will never buy into the thought that a switch is an outlet.

I agree with you, Dennis. "A switch is not an outlet." But, I am saying "An outlet occurs in a switch used as a controller."

Obviously in the case of the garage why would the cmp not want to have a switch for the garage in another room?

For the same reason that the CMP doesn't want a light at the back door of a house controlled by a switch in the detached garage IF it is supplied by the same circuit that the car space receptacle is supplied from.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

For the same reason that the CMP doesn't want a light at the back door of a house controlled by a switch in the detached garage IF it is supplied by the same circuit that the car space receptacle is supplied from.

Not the same. The light outside draws the current. The switch outside is controlling a light in the garage. Apples and Oranges IMO.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The CMP has made the circuit that feeds the car space outlet unavailable for lighting "outside" the garage, by your strict interpretation, because the light is at an outlet. IF one believes outlets occur in switches used as controllers, then they are not allowed outside either. Apples to apples.
Tapatalk

 

[wwhitney]

IF one believes outlets occur in switches used as controllers

The part of your argument I don't get is the idea that the current through the switch is "taken to supply utilization equipment". If ones accepts the idea that the switch as controller is not part of the premises wiring system, then the current path is:

Premising Wiring -> Controller -> Premises Wiring -> Utilization Equipment

I would think that only the second time that the current is leaving the Premises Wiring is the current "taken to supply utilization equipment".

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jxofaltrds]

So it is only an outlet if I have a receptacle or light installed.

Then I can run a:

Branch Circuit, Multiwire. A branch circuit that consists
of two or more ungrounded conductors that have a voltage
between them, and a grounded conductor that has equal volt-
age between it and each ungrounded conductor of the circuit
and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of
the system.

to a bedroom then feed my garage and only have to AFCI protect the bedroom half of the circuit