NEC 220.87 loophole

[Tainted]

This might be a stupid question...

Suppose we need additional load to a 60 amp apartment dwelling unit, lets say an electric stove and electric dryer. After doing the calculations per standard method or optional method, it would tell you the 60 amp circuit for the dwelling is not adequate.

Can the tenant do a NEC 220.87 load study to their own apartment to get permission to add the additional loads? What if the tenant does not use a lot of amps on purpose for the duration of 30 days? Code does not cover this loophole, does it? Theoretically the tenant can just use very little or stop using electricity for 30 days on purpose.

 

[HEYDOG]

This might be a stupid question...

Suppose we need additional load to a 60 amp apartment dwelling unit, lets say an electric stove and electric dryer. After doing the calculations per standard method or optional method, it would tell you the 60 amp circuit for the dwelling is not adequate.

Can the tenant do a NEC 220.87 load study to their own apartment to get permission to add the additional loads? What if the tenant does not use a lot of amps on purpose for the duration of 30 days? Code does not cover this loophole, does it? Theoretically the tenant can just use very little or stop using electricity for 30 days on purpose.

This makes no sense what so ever! Why would you do something like that ? Just Up grade the service for the calculated load!

 

[Tainted]

This makes no sense what so ever! Why would you do something like that ? Just Up grade the service for the calculated load!

This is just a theory, I'm not actually going to do that!.. just a discussion. Maybe can be a potential amendment for the future NEC. I think 220.87 should not be allowed for dwelling units unless the load monitored is at the line side of a meter bank.

 

[ggunn]

Just in general, I do not think that we should be looking for and using "loopholes" in the NEC in order to justify doing things that we can see were obviously not intended to be allowed.

 

[petersonra]

I think you to read 220.87 more carefully. They have already considered that someone might try this and excluded it.

The recording shall reflect the maximum demand of the feeder or service by being taken
when the building or space is occupied and shall include by measurement
or calculation the larger of the heating or cooling equipment load,
and other loads that may be periodic in nature due to seasonal or similar
conditions.

 

[Tainted]

I think you to read 220.87 more carefully. They have already considered that someone might try this and excluded it.

I disagree, it's still ambiguous.

 

[electrofelon]

Does it really matter? I mean anyone can fake anything. Not allowing a "tenant" to do it won't change anything. I've got tons of demand readings from power companies, how hard is it to just change the email and then show it to the inspector? I mean if you want to cheat it's pretty darn easy.