Lighting and receptacle load calculation

[SPARKLEY]

They are just examples... and I'd say the intent is to just give typical scenarios. There's nothing in Code that says you can't have continuous lighting in residential or noncontinuous lighting in commercial/industrial. If you're doing the load calc', call 'em like you see 'em.

And you don't have to be an NFPA member to submit a proposal. Public Input is exactly that. But if you use the internet method, you must establish a user account on the NFPA website.

Thanks, that?s helpful info Smart$. Barring any suggestions from forum members, here?s what I?m considering as a proposal:

In Annex D, examples D1 through D3 treat General Lighting as continuous in a commercial occupancy and noncontinuous in residential occupancies. There is an implication that general lighting load may be energized for more than 3 hours in a store, but not in dwellings.

For proper and uniform component sizing, the examples in Annex D are widely referenced by electricians, by AHJ?s who enforce their own interpretations, by governmental testing agencies (i.e., states) who determine which electricians are competent to perform such calculations, by insurers who award or deny claims based on the NEC, and even by courts who rely on expert witnesses to determine whether a fire-damaged property had satisfied the minimum legal requirements as required by an adopted NEC.

In regards to the continuous nature of general lighting loads in commercial and residential occupancies, it would benefit the entire industry for NFPA to clarify their intent, either in these Annex D Examples, or perhaps in Article 220 (for example a footnote to Table 220.12).

Can anyone point out any flaws for me before I submit to NFPA?

 

[Smart $]

Thanks, that?s helpful info Smart$. Barring any suggestions from forum members, here?s what I?m considering as a proposal:

In Annex D, examples D1 through D3 treat General Lighting as continuous in [for] a commercial occupancy and noncontinuous in [for] residential occupancies.There is an implication that general lighting load may be energized for more than 3 hours in a store, but not in dwellings. [This implies a commercial property never has any noncontinuous general lighting load and a residential property never has any continuous general lighting load.]

For proper and uniform component sizing, the examples in Annex D are widely referenced by electricians, by AHJ?s who enforce their own interpretations, by governmental testing agencies (i.e., states) who determine which electricians are competent to perform such calculations, by insurers who award or deny claims based on the NEC, and even by courts who rely on expert witnesses to determine whether a fire-damaged property had satisfied the minimum legal requirements as required by an adopted NEC. [Break this 'paragraph' into several sentences instead of one run-on sentence.]

In regards to the continuous [and/or noncontinuous] nature of general lighting loads in [for] commercial and residential occupancies, it would benefit the entire industry for [the] NFPA to clarify their [its] intent, either in these Annex D Examples, or perhaps in Article 220 (for example a footnote to Table 220.12).

Can anyone point out any flaws for me before I submit to NFPA?

See highlighted suggestions (BTW, JMO).

It appears this is your first. You will soon realize what you wrote is the substantiation part. You have to show what you are substantiating. In this case, you will have to edit the calculations referenced. I did proposed a change to one Example... so I think you have to do each one separately... but you can link or otherwise reference them to each other. I'm sure you'll figure it out as you proceed.

Anyway, if you want to get a rough idea how proposals are worded and formatted, go to the NFPA 70 NEC webpage and access the ROP's through archived revision information link.

 

[SPARKLEY]

thanks again to Smart$ for helping me learn the ropes, excellent suggestions on your part. It?s great how you industry experts provide valuable feedback here on the forum. (I proposed an added note to 220.42)