NEC2014 and Garages

[abrace]

All,

Looked through some previous posts regarding 210.52(g)(1) and am still a little confused. There is a requirement to have one receptacle outlet per garage bay, and that the branch circuit for these receptacles cannot supply any outlets outside of the garage. Based on other posts, some seem to have interpreted this as a complete ban on any general purpose receptacles being installed in the garage and also feeding receptacles outside of the garage.

Is there a general consensus on this?

Lets say that someone installs a duplex receptacle for each car space and that the branch circuit feeding these required receptacles feeds nothing else. Does the language in 210.52(g)(1) therefore prohibit a second branch circuit from being installed for general purpose use that is feeding both interior and exterior outlets for the garage?

---Aaron

 

[MasterTheNEC]

All,

Looked through some previous posts regarding 210.52(g)(1) and am still a little confused. There is a requirement to have one receptacle outlet per garage bay, and that the branch circuit for these receptacles cannot supply any outlets outside of the garage. Based on other posts, some seem to have interpreted this as a complete ban on any general purpose receptacles being installed in the garage and also feeding receptacles outside of the garage.

Is there a general consensus on this?

Lets say that someone installs a duplex receptacle for each car space and that the branch circuit feeding these required receptacles feeds nothing else. Does the language in 210.52(g)(1) therefore prohibit a second branch circuit from being installed for general purpose use that is feeding both interior and exterior outlets for the garage?

---Aaron

Greetings Aaron -

The charging statement of Section 210.52(G) says "at least one receptacle outlet". it would be my opinion that as long as you met the requirements of Section 210.52(G) and (G)(1) that you could indeed have additional branch circuits and other receptacles installed in the garage with no concerns. During the ROP process on this the concern was more over these required circuits and receptacles dedicated to the car spaces (bad wording...is changing in 2017) as the potential for lack of receptacles resulting in extension cords and use of these receptacles for EV vehicles. The potential concern was for the fact the EV Vehicles charging (Type 1 or 2 typically) would be considered continuous loads [625.41] which helped spawn the notion of adding Section 210.17, which was a NEMA proposal.


The concern was that those specifically required "car spaces" receptacle are dedicated to the space and potentially other outlets outside of the garage were loads they could not control. However, we know that outlets in the garage mean more than just receptacle outlets so....anyway the "no outlets outside of the garage" part to me is foolish since we have adequate overcurrent protection in place and I see no safety concern and more of a design standard that the NEC is not supposed to be dabbling in.:angel:

But anyway..enough of my opinion (it's not usually welcome...:ashamed1 clearly if you were installing an outlet for an EV vehicle you would be able to do so and supply it by a separate branch circuit in the same garage and that would be considered additional outlets....and acceptable. Remember Section 210.17 does not require such an outlet...but if you put one (for EV) then the separate branch circuit is required and that is partially the argument for keeping the "car space" receptacles off other loads outside of the garage..as a safeguard to potentially use on EV vehicles purchased and used in garages with no separate EV outlet.

Anyway....thats my take.......

 

[abrace]

Greetings Aaron -

The concern was that those specifically required "car spaces" receptacle are dedicated to the space and potentially other outlets outside of the garage were loads they could not control. However, we know that outlets in the garage mean more than just receptacle outlets so....anyway the "no outlets outside of the garage" part to me is foolish since we have adequate overcurrent protection in place and I see no safety concern and more of a design standard that the NEC is not supposed to be dabbling in.:angel:

But anyway..enough of my opinion (it's not usually welcome...:ashamed1 clearly if you were installing an outlet for an EV vehicle you would be able to do so and supply it by a separate branch circuit in the same garage and that would be considered additional outlets....and acceptable. Remember Section 210.17 does not require such an outlet...but if you put one (for EV) then the separate branch circuit is required and that is partially the argument for keeping the "car space" receptacles off other loads outside of the garage..as a safeguard to potentially use on EV vehicles purchased and used in garages with no separate EV outlet.

Anyway....thats my take.......

Thanks, we are in agreement. I saw some other previous posts that took a different take hence why I wanted to ask again.

The whole thing seems a little silly to me since the justification behind 210.52(g)(1) seems to be for potential EV use, but 210.17 limits those to be for that purpose only anyways, and every EV charging system I have seen pretty much wants a 240/30A or a 240/50A anyways!

Thanks for weighing in!

 

[kwired]

Thanks, we are in agreement. I saw some other previous posts that took a different take hence why I wanted to ask again.

The whole thing seems a little silly to me since the justification behind 210.52(g)(1) seems to be for potential EV use, but 210.17 limits those to be for that purpose only anyways, and every EV charging system I have seen pretty much wants a 240/30A or a 240/50A anyways!

Thanks for weighing in!

Correct - they tried to fix a problem that didn't exist.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That rule needs to go away. It is a design and not a safety rule and it won't serve the intended purpose of providing a power source for electric vehicle charging.

In addition, even with the proposed change in the required location to "vehicle bay" there is no real guidance as to where this receptacle needs to be located. In many cases the vehicle bay is not bounded by a physical barrier that you can install an receptacle on.

 

[ActionDave]

That rule needs to go away. It is a design and not a safety rule and it won't serve the intended purpose of providing a power source for electric vehicle charging.

Agree.

In addition, even with the proposed change in the required location to "vehicle bay" there is no real guidance as to where this receptacle needs to be located. In many cases the vehicle bay is not bounded by a physical barrier that you can install an receptacle on.

Well, that's what you have to do when you try to make design rules into code.

I think there needs to be a new panel that is charged with trying to reign this kind of stuff in.