I think to many it exactly does imply that, or else (for example) you use 'every' instead of 'each'. Whether you regard that as lack of consensus as to the meaning or a minority who are 'incorrect.' The 'dedicated disconnect' part of 705.12 had the word 'each' removed a couple cycles back to avoid this sort of confusion.
Interesting. For me, even colloquially, if I wanted to convey exclusivity, I would say "each shall have its own" rather than just "each shall have."
You're using your outside knowledge that two people can't share a chair. So it's not the content of the sentence that implies exclusivity, it's the added context you're bringing to reading the sentence, the knowledge of how a student uses a chair.
To resolve the intentions in this case, we can refer to the "2022 Nonresidential and Multifamily Compliance Manual" available from this web page: https://www.energy.ca.gov/publicati...family-compliance-manual-2022-building-energy
Not if the spacing is (almost) 12' between receptacles, which is the minimum required to fulfill the first requirement above. With that minimum frequency of receptacles, each receptacle would need to be duplex and split-wired.
Which is the obverse of the issue--there's not a limitation on where the controlled receptacles can go, there's a limitation on where the uncontrolled receptacles can go. If you want an uncontrolled receptacle in location X, you need to ensure that X is within 6' of a controlled receptacle, by adding a controlled receptacle if necessary.
If in the conference room you put all the required receptacles on a single wall section that is under 12' wide, and you put one controlled receptacle in the middle of that 12' wide section, then every receptacle has a controlled receptacle within 6' of it.
Ahhh, yes. I see that. Thanks Wayne.
Thanks so much Michael. There is a lot of good info in here, but there was one section in particular I think helps state the requirement more plainly, also reinforcing what others have stated in here. That is this:
If you just treat each duplex as 2 receptacles (which is what the cited definitions say), you can just drop the part about split-wired receptacles (it could be deleted from the Energy Code). Having just one of the receptacles of a duplex be controlled (via split-wiring) satisfies the requirement for any uncontrolled receptacles within 6' of that single controlled receptacle.
I am really sorry if this refuels the fire and refutes what was stated earlier, but based off that statement from the 2019 Energy Code Ace summary, as well as a graphic in another section of it showing only duplex receptacles for controlled receptacles, i.e. both "outlets" or "receptacles" of the duplex were being controlled. In other words, the way I view their interpretation disagrees with your last statement. You must either have a one controlled duplex receptacle (both "outlets" controlled) within 6ft of an uncontrolled receptacle OR you must install split-wired duplex receptacles throughout the entire space where half of ALL of them are controlled and the other half is uncontrolled. It may be really thin, but the fact that the 6ft radius is only mentioned in the first of the two options backs this claim. If it was ok to have a split-wired receptacle in the first part, they would have included it. The fact they did not mention the 6ft radius in the section part is because it doesn't matter when ALL of the receptacles are split-wired, 1/2 controlled, 1/2 uncontrolled. I take it you disagree?
Meaning what piece or pieces of code, exactly?
This would be a correct interpretation if 130.5(d)(2) said "Install at least one controlled duplex receptacle. . ." But it does not, the word duplex is not there.
2020 NEC said:
