The problem with 210.52(E) & 210.63

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
This is a spill over from another thread where I said that the 25 foot limit of 210.63 was stupid. Here's the problem with the real life application of the 25 foot rule.

The electrical in 50 to 75% of all of the houses that go up in our county are done by the lowest bidder that is pursuing work with the builder. They bid by code and only get more money for a very short list of extras:
Bigger service than what would be demanded by load calc
More switching thruout the house than required by NEC

So 210.52(E) is 2 plugs and 2 plugs paid for only. And that's the way it stays.

Most houses around here have either a back porch or deck where people hang out and entertain. The natural place for the back plug is on or right next to that porch/deck. That plug gets 365 days a year of use or something close to that amount.

The closest plug to the AC gets a servicing tool plugged into it maybe once a year, or more likely only one single time in 2 to 10 years. But the back plug is required by 210.63 to be within 25 feet of the AC so the back plug gets moved from its best location to a point on the house that's within 25 feet of the AC.

Now this is what pisses me off.

Just so that the AC service guy can stroll in with only a 25 foot cord once every 1 to 10 years, there are extension cords run across the back of the house to the back porch/deck 365 days of the year.

I see this all the time and it just pisses me off that it's being done for no good reason. And before anybody responds by saying that the electrician should just install a 3rd outside plug, the builder won't pay for it and there's no owner yet if it's a spec house. I personally would just throw in the 3rd plug because it irritates me so much to see the result pandering to the HVAC service workers lobbyists. But most elec contractors aren't willing to give anything away after they've been beat so badly by the builders just to get the job.

So all of the back yards have extension cords permanently strung across the back wall, some neatly tucked into the long grass next to the basement block wall and others disguised in the mulch bed.

Thanks for paying attention. I feel better now that I've said my piece.

David
 
David
There is such an easy resolve to this situation... have them move the deck;)


Another note. Every area of the country is different. The A/C guys have yearly plans here, and sometimes are at the residence more that once a summer.

210.63 is not in place just for new homes. Some homes do not have A/C or outside receptacles (older homes), so when the new A/C is installed, the 210.63 receptacle is also installed.
 
If the 210 code panel just added one sentence to 210.63 then I would be happy.
They could just add:
This receptacle must be in addition to any required by 210.52(E)
 
mpd said:
david

look at 90.1 (B)
Click to expand...

Ah, but doesn't 210.52(A)(1) & (A)(2)(1) exist to eliminate the "hazards" of extension cords ?

Having extension cords strung in the wet location outside and next to grass that's run over with a lawnmower isn't just an issue of "efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service".

As written 210.63 creates a hazard. The code writers might have created the hazard unwittingly but they did in fact create one.

David
 
david

what extension cords are you talking about? would you rather have the HVAC contractor use alligator clips & a receptacle and tap power out of the air cond. disconnect?
 
Builders want cheap because thats what sells.What they get is 1 or 2 year helpers wiring there house.The 25 foot cord issue is crazy.A 50 foot rule would make more since.What gets me is that on small office buildings this required outlet for ac is often off an allready loaded circuit with computers.It is asking for a problem.Also on roof tops it often means several outlets because of distance being over 25.
 
210.63 does not require one to use loaded computer circuits, it does not require having extension cords installed. If those conditions should arise, it is a design issued that is developed by "cheap" people, not code requirements.

Also adding 210.63 as an additional receptacle to the required back yard receptacle is sort of going against the grain of thought here isn't it??? Why ask for more to be installed because there are a few lazy/cheap people out there?

I do not see this as an issue where we live/work.

A pet peeve should not become a code requirement.

Just my 5 cents worth;)
 
It is requiring a receptacle for the ac service man.This could be a dedicated or shared branch circuit.If you care to give money and time away thats up to you.When i am doing a house and asked to keep the bid low then i will by placing the front and back receptacles not only so that one will service the ac but also at the cheapest location for me.Years ago this often was the rear one from kitchen SA circuit and front from a bedroom or livingroom.Now with code changes the SA is not allowed and taking it off an afci circuit while legal is a bad idea.At 40 cents a foot for romex we must do things we know are poor design just to win the bid.There was a time back in the 80's that a one man shop wired houses for a good paycheck and the customer received a quaility job from a master.Times have changed at least here.Unless nec changes the rules for location then nothing will change.Bottom line is you get what you pay for.
 
The imortant thing to focus on is that the Code process is by public review. The last pages of the book and the NFPA web site will provide a form for proposals to create new Code language or modify or remove existing language. The proposals for the 2011 edition will be due no later than November of 2011. You may request copies of the Repot of Proposals for the 2008 NEC by calling the NFPA. They will send them to you for Free!!!.

If this subject has been raised through this cycle you will have a vehicle by which to make coment during the seconded consensus period.

Strong feelings sometimes promote afirmed actions and create changes. Be part of the solution.

Just a thought!

Charlie
 
Another feature of 210.63 that is ridiculous is "accessible from grade." A receptacle could be 5 feet away from the A/C unit, but on an accessible porch (which is above grade), and not be allowed to serve 210.63.

And, before someone says, "Yeah, right, no one would enforce it to that extreme..." rest assured, I've had to talk my way out of adding a receptacle in just such a circumstance. A proposal is in order.

Don has posted an ROP where the CMP actually stated that the receptacle must be accessible while standing on the ground. A proposal to change this would have to be very compelling to change their minds on this, I imagine.
 
georgestolz said:
Another feature of 210.63 that is ridiculous is "accessible from grade." A receptacle could be 5 feet away from the A/C unit, but on an accessible porch (which is above grade), and not be allowed to serve 210.63.

And, before someone says, "Yeah, right, no one would enforce it to that extreme..." rest assured, I've had to talk my way out of adding a receptacle in just such a circumstance. A proposal is in order.

Don has posted an ROP where the CMP actually stated that the receptacle must be accessible while standing on the ground. A proposal to change this would have to be very compelling to change their minds on this, I imagine.
Click to expand...


Actually, George the requirement is that the receptacle be on the same level as the equipment. For ground based equipment "accessible from grade" would be an improvement to the current wording. If a porch with a set of steps allowed the receptacle to be accessed from the ground then it should be permitted to serve as the required receptacle within 25'. You're right this needs to be re-worked.
 
infinity said:
Actually, George the requirement is that the receptacle be on the same level as the equipment.
Click to expand...
Whoops, I didn't look before I posted. I was mixing in 210.52(E) a bit. 210.52(E) is the one that requires accessible from grade, as in, no climbing steps to use the receptacle. This is the one I believe to be a bigger nuisance than it's brother, 210.63.

For ground based equipment "accessible from grade" would be an improvement to the current wording. If a porch with a set of steps allowed the receptacle to be accessed from the ground then it should be permitted to serve as the required receptacle within 25'.
Click to expand...
I agree, and the same principle should be applied to 210.52(E). :D
 
Ok. so it sounds like houses are being wired "cheap" because of GC's who will not pay more than a nickle profit on a house. I have a solution for this. Looks like all electrical contractors need to go up on their prices. I will make this prmoise. If everyone else goes up, after a few years of making sure they are good to their word then I will go up !!!!........That is a win -win deal for sure !!
 
I don't work for GC's that are so cheap I can't tell them that I need to provide a back porch receptacle and a service receptacle for the AC and not get paid for it. I also locate a receptacle next to the Furnace even if one is going to be placed 10' away. I think it is a quality thing to do. People rely on us to provide them with a good electrical system, that includes other trades who will be working at the home that is purchased by the person who deserves to have a receptacle where it is most useful to them. Do both and get paid, tell the GC I do good work not minimum work. If they are doing the minimum and expect you to do so, do you really want your name on the panel?
 
Last edited:
bikeindy said:
I don't work for GC's that are so cheap I can't tell them that I need to provide a back porch receptacle and a service receptacle for the AC and not get paid for it. I also locate a receptacle next to the Furnace even if one is going to be placed 10' away. I think it is a quality thing to do. People rely on us to provide them with a good electrical system, that includes other trades who will be working at the home that is purchased by the person who deserves to have a receptacle where it is most useful to them. Do both and get paid, tell the GC I do good work not minimum work. If they are doing the minimum and expect you to do so, do you really want your name on the panel?
Click to expand...

You're fortunate that you have builders who are not building to absolute minimums. But they're out there. Around here we call them "builder special homes" where everything in the place is based solely on one thing, price. If someone who prides themself as a quality contractor doesn't want to build that way then their competitors will be working and they won't. I love when the homeowner asks why there bathroom exhaust fan sounds like a plane taking off. I tell them that they got what their builder was willing to pay for.
 
infinity said:
You're fortunate that you have builders who are not building to absolute minimums. But they're out there. Around here we call them "builder special homes" where everything in the place is based solely on one thing, price. If someone who prides themself as a quality contractor doesn't want to build that way then their competitors will be working and they won't. I love when the homeowner asks why there bathroom exhaust fan sounds like a plane taking off. I tell them that they got what their builder was willing to pay for.
Click to expand...

oh they are here I just won't deal with them. I am at those homes fixing and improving all the time. I know the EC's who are doing the work cuz thier name is on the panel and the homeowners won't call them, because they blame them for the low quality work. I don't want my name associated with that.
 
bikeindy said:
oh they are here I just won't deal with them. I am at those homes fixing and improving all the time. I know the EC's who are doing the work cuz thier name is on the panel and the homeowners won't call them, because they blame them for the low quality work. I don't want my name associated with that.
Click to expand...

The customer is blaming the wrong person.But then its them that wanted cheap to start with.Now they are willing to pay.
 
I think it should be in addition to 210.52(e)and within 10ft, but then people will bitch that the ones to satify 210.52(e) can't be used to satify 210.63.
and what does "on the same level" mean??

I'll bet there will be a deck receptacle required before long.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top