Max number of recepts per circuit

[colosparker]

Lets take this one more time step by step to try to end this thing, I believe your biggest confusion is in who the AHJ really is. I completely agree with you when it comes to a AHJ making interpretations, lets break down this example a little. Again I come to your town and a inspector , lets just say the chief electrical inspector personally red tags me on this issue, stating that his personal interpretation is that there is a limit, I as an electrical contractor disagree, so I file a formal appeal, every month or as needed there is a meeting of the electrical board (either local level or at state) (article 80 2002 NEC) at this meeting , much like in a courtroom, the board will listen to both sides, the inspector will present to the board his personal interpretation and any supporting data, then I will do the same, in this specific instance I would present written statements from hundreds of inspectors across the country , (all members of the IAEC), then I would present written statement from CMP members, then the board (the true AHJ) would vote to decide which interpretation is deemed to be prominent. (1 lone inspector with a big head, or hundreds of contractors, inspectors and CMP members.) now let me tell you Dave personally cause I have done this 6 times in my state, your inspector would loose, and be returned with hat in hand. a interpretation is not made by an individual but by the AHJ, (electrical board) I have the right to appeal any interpretation of any code I choose, this process keeps everything fair. no one person can decide. P.S. many times once a formal appeal has been made the inspector while researching supporting data will come to realize through talking to peers he is wrong and will drop the whole thing, it sounds like no one in your town has a spine

 

[colosparker]

Lets take this one more time step by step to try to end this thing, I believe your biggest confusion is in who the AHJ really is. I completely agree with you when it comes to a AHJ making interpretations, lets break down this example a little. Again I come to your town and a inspector , lets just say the chief electrical inspector personally red tags me on this issue, stating that his personal interpretation is that there is a limit, I as an electrical contractor disagree, so I file a formal appeal, every month or as needed there is a meeting of the electrical board (either local level or at state) (article 80 2002 NEC) at this meeting , much like in a courtroom, the board will listen to both sides, the inspector will present to the board his personal interpretation and any supporting data, then I will do the same, in this specific instance I would present written statements from hundreds of inspectors across the country , (all members of the IAEC), then I would present written statement from CMP members, then the board (the true AHJ) would vote to decide which interpretation is deemed to be prominent. (1 lone inspector with a big head, or hundreds of contractors, inspectors and CMP members.) now let me tell you Dave personally cause I have done this 6 times in my state, your inspector would loose, and be returned with hat in hand. a interpretation is not made by an individual but by the AHJ, (electrical board) I have the right to appeal any interpretation of any code I choose, this process keeps everything fair. no one person can decide. P.S. many times once a formal appeal has been made the inspector while researching supporting data will come to realize through talking to peers he is wrong and will drop the whole thing, it sounds like no one in your town has a spine

Okay scwire, I'm going to suspend logic for a moment and use your interpretation of Article 220.14(J). We will use your example.

First off, we do not use the 2002 NEC in my state. The 2005 NEC was adopted on January 1, 2005. So there is no Article 80. Secondly, you are going to have to go through a very rigid process for becoming a qualified licensed electrical contractor in my state (be prepared to take a Master Electrician examination with a 95% failure rate for first-time takers). Understand you are going to have to use the all of the rules applied to electrical construction in my state.

Now, since you do not specify the type of dwelling in your example, let's say scwire is wiring a new 1000 room hotel on the southside of Denver in the Denver Tech Center. Let's suspend logic when it comes to any type plan review by the city building authority. You are determined to prove the local AHJ wrong with your theory of a "permissive" code. Lets imagine approximately 8 receptacles per hotel room with a total of 8000 receptacles. You being the industrious electrician want to save yourself the cost of all those homeruns and breakers, so you use the logic of this forum and you put all the receptacles on one circuit. After all, you don't have to calculate the load for each receptacle, and according to some of your fellow posters on this forum, you don't have to worry about pesky breaker tripping on your receptacle circuit :lol: Now along comes the inspector and he red tags your installation. You are outraged. You demand a hearing with the local electrical authority. You take all of the huindreds of opinions you have read on these types of forums and you bring them to the hearing. You demand that the electrical board members read your opinions, and listen to your interpretation of the code

Okay, here's where reality kicks in. They (the board) never even give you a chance to get through the door.

Lets travel down 1-25 to Douglas County and use the same example on a 30,000 sq.ft. dwelling (the average dwelling size in this county). You use the same interpretation of Article 220.14(J) when determining how you are going to wire all the receptacles in the dwelling. You have one branch circuit feeding all three hundred receptacles. By the time you get to the last receptacle in the Entertainment Room, you have gone through 4000 feet of 14-2 romex. Mr. Homeowner moves into his new home, and his first night he turns on his $15,000 65" Plasma HDTV. Poof. The TV is somehow affected by the voltage drop and fries all the internal circuitry.

Again, reality kicks in. You never managed to get this installation "approved" by the local electrical authority.


Most educated and logical electrical inspectors/AHJ's are going to look at the intent of the code. Without the benefit of a magic number, or a calculation in reference to 220.14(J), they are going to make an interpretation. They are going to use reasonable expectations for a good installation. They are going to let you put 50 receptacles on one branch circuit if the the receptacles are all in the same room. Spread those 50 receptacles over a 2500 sq.ft. house and they are going to expect you to evenly divide the number throughout the required general lighting load branch circuits. Common sense, it applies to the electrical trade regardless of any one persons opinion of the code. All you, and the rest of the posters on thread have given me are opinions.

Have a Happy Easter.

Dave

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Dave,

All you, and the rest of the posters on thread have given me are opinions.

As you have given us.
Don

 

[colosparker]

Dave,

All you, and the rest of the posters on thread have given me are opinions.

As you have given us.
Don

Point taken, Don.

Have a Happy Easter!

 

[George Stolz]

The 2005 NEC was adopted on January 1, 2005.

Actually, Colorado adopted on July 1, 2005.

Understand you are going to have to use the all of the rules applied to electrical construction in my state.

Dave, the test is based on the NEC. They do not focus on any local amendments (are there any at the state level?), because you don't have access to them when you take the test.

Moving on...

By the time you get to the last receptacle in the Entertainment Room, you have gone through 4000 feet of 14-2 romex. Mr. Homeowner moves into his new home, and his first night he turns on his $15,000 65" Plasma HDTV. Poof. The TV is somehow affected by the voltage drop and fries all the internal circuitry.

What killed the TV? Was it the 400 receptacles or the 4000' of voltage drop due to a poorly designed system? Who died as a result? Did the structure survive? Will the free-market system not take care of this problem?

The EC will buy a new TV, or will correct the system, or will go to court, or skip the country. Stuff happens every day. Voltage drop happens every day, and the code is nearly silent on it.

They (inspectors) are going to use reasonable expectations for a good installation.

But that leaves the realm of safety and becomes design. 90.1(A), (B) and (C) are screaming it from the rooftops. It is not a design manual. Whenever it delves into designing, as it does in 210.52, it becomes a fiasco. Something that seems so clear to CMP-2 results in heated, month-long debates around here.

When you chase the devil out of the forest, you'd best be prepared for the winds on the plain. Once real written rules are left behind, then anarchy is the result.

What happens when the inspector's version of common sense is no more than two receptacles per circuit? Or if you're all done, and the guy says, "I'd like to see that xxxx on it's own circuit" despite your own careful thought and planning and signature on the design?

There are plenty of good inspectors in this state, there's no reason to coddle the bad ones. Bad ones enforce questionable principles not directly related to safety. If there is a clear danger evident that the code does not address, then a good inspector will step forward. But when it comes down to failing for if's and maybe's and could-happen's, it is generally a textbook case of somebody in the wrong position, IMO.

Happy Easter, Dave. Don't let this stuff mess up your weekend!

Edit to add: For the philosophers out there, click here.

 

[colosparker]

The 2005 NEC was adopted on January 1, 2005.

Actually, Colorado adopted on July 1, 2005.

Understand you are going to have to use the all of the rules applied to electrical construction in my state.

Dave, the test is based on the NEC. They do not focus on any local amendments (are there any at the state level?), because you don't have access to them when you take the test.

Moving on...

By the time you get to the last receptacle in the Entertainment Room, you have gone through 4000 feet of 14-2 romex. Mr. Homeowner moves into his new home, and his first night he turns on his $15,000 65" Plasma HDTV. Poof. The TV is somehow affected by the voltage drop and fries all the internal circuitry.

What killed the TV? Was it the 400 receptacles or the 4000' of voltage drop due to a poorly designed system? Who died as a result? Did the structure survive? Will the free-market system not take care of this problem?

The EC will buy a new TV, or will correct the system, or will go to court, or skip the country. Stuff happens every day. Voltage drop happens every day, and the code is nearly silent on it.

They (inspectors) are going to use reasonable expectations for a good installation.

But that leaves the realm of safety and becomes design. 90.1(A), (B) and (C) are screaming it from the rooftops. It is not a design manual. Whenever it delves into designing, as it does in 210.52, it becomes a fiasco. Something that seems so clear to CMP-2 results in heated, month-long debates around here.

When you chase the devil out of the forest, you'd best be prepared for the winds on the plain. Once real written rules are left behind, then anarchy is the result.

What happens when the inspector's version of common sense is no more than two receptacles per circuit? Or if you're all done, and the guy says, "I'd like to see that xxxx on it's own circuit" despite your own careful thought and planning and signature on the design?

There are plenty of good inspectors in this state, there's no reason to coddle the bad ones. Bad ones enforce questionable principles not directly related to safety. If there is a clear danger evident that the code does not address, then a good inspector will step forward. But when it comes down to failing for if's and maybe's and could-happen's, it is generally a textbook case of somebody in the wrong position, IMO.

Happy Easter, Dave. Don't let this stuff mess up your weekend!

Edit to add: For the philosophers out there, click here.

George,

I was refering to the fact that scwire would need to pass the test in this state to be a licensed contractor. No more, no less. And yes, it is based solely on the NEC. July 1, 2005-My bad.

Go to Article 90.1 Purpose. It states: The purpose of this code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity." Notice the words "property". Safeguarding of property. Nobody has to die for an electrical inspector to approve or not approve an installation. The electrical inspector can base his approval on the safegurding of property. I once had a temporary installation turned down in this state due to voltage drop. The inspector did not want the power we were running for some remote TV camera equipment to be affected by the voltage drop. Only a FPN in the NEC, but he still can base his approval on the principle of "safeguarding" property. For you , or anyone on this forum to suggest otherwise, is flat wrong.IMHO

We are not talking anarchy here. Written rules are not being left behind, as you suggest. We still have an electrical board that makes final judgement on everything. An inspector that says "two receptacles" on a general lighting load branch circuit still has to answer to the board. The board does give the inspector the right to "approve" an installation based on their field inspections. It says so right in the state of Colorado's electrical rules.

I had a great Easter, Thank you. This "stuff" entertains and educates me. I always like to get see the differing views on electrical installations.

Dave

 

[dlhoule]

Inspectors are among the most celebrated members of the forum, because for the most part they are among the most knowledgeable end educated.

Dang, George; What are you trying to do suck up to those lousy inspectors. :twisted:

Actually if all of the electricians were good enough, we wouldn't even need those pesky inspectors. :twisted:

 

[charlie b]

I prefer to think of it as being the job of the Inspector to protect the public from good electricians who make the occasional human error.

 

[dlhoule]

Are you implying that all you fine inspectors never make those occasional human errors?

 

[colosparker]

BTW: Article 110-2 "Approval" in the National Electrical Code provides that; conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only when "approved."....... The Board reserves the right of its inspectors to reject any conductors or equipment which in [pay real close attention here] their opinion may be unsafe or injurious to life or property."

Now there's a concept! The Colorado State Electrical Law, Rules and Regulations Section 6.2; gives their electrical inspector a right to an "opinion" on an installation.

It's interesting to me when I read peoples opinions on an electrical installation, and an AHJ's right to "approval". I can Google the words "electrical inspection" and come up with several million hits. Start reading through some of the local AHJ's rules and regulations pertaining to electrical installations, and you begin to understand just how different the requirements are throughout this country. What may apply to your jurisdiction, does not necessarily make it right in mine. The saddest stuff I come across in this business is the installation that was done without the benefit of an inspection. You may think it's wrong for an inspector to put a limit on the outlets (including receptacles) on a general lighting load branch circuit in a dwelling, but I say more power to them! :wink:


Dave

Without the benefit of those pesky electrical inspectors with opinions, we have anarchy!
Dave

 

[allenwayne]

For years we were under the points on a circuit rule .When that was removed some saw that as a rule to wire till they were tired.Common scense has to be used when determining what will be on a circuit.take a wall common to a living room and a family room a hall and 2 or three bedrooms.Is the inspector going to trace any of the several cables running through the studs.None I have met,it falls on the wireman and his conception of a safe and adaquete install.There are so many receptacles in a new home that might not ever be used but when wiring it doesn`t take a rocket scientest to figure which will get the most use.Bedrooms will use the switched recep if installed and the one nearest the cable jack,halls will get a vacum,l/r and or fam.room will get the ones closest to the entertainment center loaded and some for lamps.I`ve seen eave receptacles wired with as many as 15 on one circuit.The idiot that wired it didn`t consider the only reason they were there was for christmas lighting. :roll: I don`t like the option of wiring till somone is tired but it is legal and unless an addendum is made for a jurisdiction the NEC allows it.

 

[iwire]

Now there's a concept! The Colorado State Electrical Law, Rules and Regulations Section 6.2; gives their electrical inspector a right to an "opinion" on an installation.

Luckily that is only one state out of 50.

Here we swing the other way.

We have an amendment that basically says "If its listed the inspector must accept it". (Assuming 'it' is used per its listing)

 

[electricmanscott]

BTW: Article 110-2 "Approval" in the National Electrical Code provides that; conductors and equipment required or permitted by this code shall be acceptable only when "approved."....... The Board reserves the right of its inspectors to reject any conductors or equipment which in [pay real close attention here] their opinion may be unsafe or injurious to life or property."

Now there's a concept! The Colorado State Electrical Law, Rules and Regulations Section 6.2; gives their electrical inspector a right to an "opinion" on an installation.

Based on some inspectors I deal with and some that we have right in this very forum that statement is a scary thought.

 

[tonyi]

unsafe or injurious to life or property

:lol:

That could rule out half the junk...ummm "products" for sale these days.

 

[colosparker]

I don`t like the option of wiring till somone is tired but it is legal and unless an addendum is made for a jurisdiction the NEC allows it.

There is no need for an "addendum". Most AHJ's have the authority to make an interpretation of the code. It doesn't say in the code that you can wire till you are tired. It doesn't say the number of receptacles is unlimited. It doesn't say it is limited. It says "interpret me Mr. AHJ"!

Dave

 

[charlie b]

It says "interpret me Mr. AHJ"!

That is not the same as saying, "Inflict your own will upon me, Mr. AHJ."

To "interpret" is to take words that are written, and to infer their meaning. If there are no words, then you cannot interpret the words. Indeed, to discern that no words are written, and therefore to believe yourself free to make up your own words, is not "interpretation." It is exploitation, and it is abuse of authority.

 

[Mike03a3]

To my everlasting surprise, nobody responded to this one, so I guess I will.

First off, we do not use the 2002 NEC in my state. The 2005 NEC was adopted on January 1, 2005.

We'll have to suffer through a reply based on the 2002 NEC since it's still current here and I do not have a copy of 2005

Now, since you do not specify the type of dwelling in your example, let's say scwire is wiring a new 1000 room hotel on the southside of Denver in the Denver Tech Center. Let's suspend logic when it comes to any type plan review by the city building authority. You are determined to prove the local AHJ wrong with your theory of a "permissive" code. Lets imagine approximately 8 receptacles per hotel room with a total of 8000 receptacles. You being the industrious electrician want to save yourself the cost of all those homeruns and breakers, so you use the logic of this forum and you put all the receptacles on one circuit. After all, you don't have to calculate the load for each receptacle, and according to some of your fellow posters on this forum, you don't have to worry about pesky breaker tripping on your receptacle circuit :lol: Now along comes the inspector and he red tags your installation. You are outraged. You demand a hearing with the local electrical authority. You take all of the huindreds of opinions you have read on these types of forums and you bring them to the hearing. You demand that the electrical board members read your opinions, and listen to your interpretation of the code

Okay, here's where reality kicks in. They (the board) never even give you a chance to get through the door.

No, because I wouldn't be at their door. Totally suspending reality and assuming such a thing was done, my inspector would have documented the NEC violations that caused him to red tag the job. While the NEC places no limit on the number of receptacles per circuit, it does require:

1. 2va / sq.ft. for general lighting in hotel rooms (220.3(A))
2. Enough circuits to serve the calculated load (210.11(A))
3. The load must be evenly proportioned between multioutlet circuits. (210.11(B))

So far we have three red tags for your scenario and my inspector has yet to break a sweat or make an "interpretation".

Lets travel down 1-25 to Douglas County and use the same example on a 30,000 sq.ft. dwelling (the average dwelling size in this county). You use the same interpretation of Article 220.14(J) when determining how you are going to wire all the receptacles in the dwelling. You have one branch circuit feeding all three hundred receptacles. By the time you get to the last receptacle in the Entertainment Room, you have gone through 4000 feet of 14-2 romex. Mr. Homeowner moves into his new home, and his first night he turns on his $15,000 65" Plasma HDTV. Poof. The TV is somehow affected by the voltage drop and fries all the internal circuitry.

Again, reality kicks in. You never managed to get this installation "approved" by the local electrical authority.

Same as above, but this time I should have used 3va / sq.ft. for the general lighting load

Most educated and logical electrical inspectors/AHJ's are going to look at the intent of the code. Without the benefit of a magic number, or a calculation in reference to 220.14(J), they are going to make an interpretation. They are going to use reasonable expectations for a good installation. They are going to let you put 50 receptacles on one branch circuit if the the receptacles are all in the same room. Spread those 50 receptacles over a 2500 sq.ft. house and they are going to expect you to evenly divide the number throughout the required general lighting load branch circuits. Common sense, it applies to the electrical trade regardless of any one persons opinion of the code. All you, and the rest of the posters on thread have given me are opinions.

Have a Happy Easter.

Dave

My educated and logical inspector knows that he need look no further than the words in his well-thumbed copy of NEC2002. He also knows, to paraphrase Charlie, that it doesn't say what he thinks it does, nor what he wishes it did, it says what it says. Referring to what it actually says, he will make sure that there are enough circuits for the general lighting load (50 15a circuits for your 30,000 sq. ft monster, 5 for your 2,500 sq.ft. house). (Actually, possibly more. The lighting load is calculated on the outside dimensions of the structure, excluding only porches, garages and areas that cannot be adapted for future use. The "real estate listing" sq. footage excludes some finished and unfinished spaces.)

He also knows that I must have at least two small appliance circuits, at least one bathroom gfci circuit and at least one laundry circuit, all of which can have no other outlets, plus circuits for dryer, stove and other dedicated loads. And he knows that the 5 lighting circuits must be evenly divided.

So, at this point, he really doesn't care how many receptacles I hang on each of the lighting circuits and knows the NEC doesn't either. The NEC has requirements that cause me to install enough circuits to support a minimal dwelling load, with specific requirements to address high load items like appliances. If I choose to spec a box and receptacle on every stud, the inspector may wonder why the owner wants to waste the money, but he has no basis for red-tagging me.

Mike

 

[colosparker]

To my everlasting surprise, nobody responded to this one, so I guess I will.

We'll have to suffer through a reply based on the 2002 NEC since it's still current here and I do not have a copy of 2005

You missed the whole point of the example Mike. Based on what I have heard from some of the "engineers" and electricians on this forum, the number is "unlimited". "Unlimited as defined by a "permissive" code. I ask where the words are in the code that say "unlimited", and where do we get the assumption that the code is all "permissive". You can't red tag my hotel example based on your interpretation of the code.

What does the 2002 NEC say it says that Charlie said it says? :lol:

 

[iwire]

What does the 2002 NEC say it says that Charlie said it says? :lol:

Let me sum up your argument in regards to the NEC.

If I can not find it says I can do something, than you would say I can not? :?:

 

[colosparker]

It says "interpret me Mr. AHJ"!

That is not the same as saying, "Inflict your own will upon me, Mr. AHJ."

To "interpret" is to take words that are written, and to infer their meaning. If there are no words, then you cannot interpret the words. Indeed, to discern that no words are written, and therefore to believe yourself free to make up your own words, is not "interpretation." It is exploitation, and it is abuse of authority.

Don't follow you. We are talking about a written code, which more or less states that we include the receptacles with the general lighting load branch circuit without having to use a load calculation for said receptacles in dwellings, hotels, motels.? These are words, so the inspector can interpret said words.

The reality is that these issues rarely if ever come up in a dwelling inspection. Most electricians evenly divide the receptacles thoughout the required general lighting load branch circuits. The reality is that an inspector can approve an installation based of their interpretation of the rules. You can hang thirty receptacles on one wall and the reality is the inspector will approve the installation. You can put all of the receptacles on one circuit in a dwelling and try to use your interpretation of the code, and I guarantee you he/she/they will make you do it over. It is not a good installation. You can fight the inspectors interpretation of the code, yet I could almost bet you that the law is going to rule in favor of the greater good. The greater good is an installation that meets the intent of the code, which is to divide the receptacles evenly throughout general lighting load branch circuits required by code.

How can protecting the interests of the community at large be an "abuse
of authority"? Every AHJ has an appeals process to allow an electrical contractor to dispute the inspection rulings. Somebody in this thread said the worst that can happen is "nuisance tripping". :wink: That person didn't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to wiring a dwelling. Every new homeowner has a reasonable expectation for a good electrical installation in the home that they buy. That truly is the bottom line, whether you agree with me or not.

AHJ's have been inflicting their will on electricians since the whole inspection process began. They are the police of the electrical trade. They serve the greater good. Without them we have anarchy! :wink:

Have a great weekend.

Dave