under-cabinet lights

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

410.30 addresses the installation of the cord to the fixture and in no way addresses the installation of the fixture on a small appliance circuit. What is the point of injecting 410.30 in this debate?

The original post addresses using a small appliance circuit to supply a light fixture, so lets try to stay with this point in this debate.

Where I see a lot of confusion in this matter comes with the word ?receptacle? and the misunderstanding of just what this device is. It is an outlet, a place to receive current for a piece of equipment. When a piece of equipment is plugged into a receptacle it becomes an outlet for that piece of equipment. A good example of this would be found in 210.52 (F), ?at least one receptacle OUTLET shall be installed. The receptacle outlet described here is called ____?

I have made this statement; ?If a receptacle has a lamp plugged in it then at the point of plugging in the lamp that receptacle becomes a lighting outlet.
Then George asks, ?show me a reference to back that up. Unless there is some other section that modifies the definition of "lighting outlet", that statement is false.?

George the statement, ?a receptacle that has a light of any kind plugged into it becomes a lighting outlet? is true just as the receptacle that has a washing machine plugged into it is the laundry outlet.

The receptacle is an outlet and what ever is plugged into it will denote what the outlet is called. Most of the 15-ampere receptacles that are through out a house are referred to as general-purpose outlets.

This train of thought that a receptacle is not an outlet leads me to believe that the definition of receptacle outlet as found in article 100 should be eliminated.

A simple question about this under cabinet light that could clear things up is, when we finish using this light will it be put away like the mixer, vacuum cleaner and other appliances? If the answer is no it will remain attached to the under side of the cabinet then there is a problem.

 

[dana1028]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by physis:
Thanks for the heads up. I can't find the stupid energy code here anymore.


50% of the lighting in watts?

So we're going to be on 2005 in October?

for those electricians/inspectors in CA, thought I'd add this comment on the new Energy Codes.

Sam -

Yes - the 2005 CA Energy Codes go into effect on Oct. 1, 2005

The link to the CA Energy Commission is:
www.energy.ca.gov

In the right column is the heading - Energy Efficiency, at the bottom of that list is: Title 24 Building Standards...links you to all the CA Energy Codes.

BTW - PGE offers a free 3-hr. class on the new Energy Lighting requirements in their San Francisco office. (These classes are offered state-wide for free) http://www.pge.com/education_training/
- this is the link to the PG&E training site.

Another BTW - the new lighting standards will effect every single light in and out of the house; I don't think there is anything you are now doing (with respect to lighting & controls) that will pass come Oct. 1.

 

[milwaukeesteve]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Somewhere (I don't know off hand) there must be a definition of what a small appliance is. And somewhere they are regulated. That might be NEC, NFPA, UL... some where it does regulate small appliances. I thought that was why they only have 2ft cords. Sure manufacturers would like to save on cord costs, but I believe they are regulated to be no more than 2ft long.
Hopefully someone can help me out on this.
I don't think you'll find that a U/C light meets the requirments or is listed as an appliance.

 

[physis]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Another BTW - the new lighting standards will effect every single light in and out of the house; I don't think there is anything you are now doing (with respect to lighting & controls) that will pass come Oct. 1.

Great. :roll:

 

[paul]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW,

I will have to disagree with your reasoning concerning the use of kitchen (small appliance) circuits. Once installed, you can plug whatever you wish to plug into them. No code is going to stop you from doing so. We, as electricians, just plan for the worst and hope for the best. That's why they're 20 Amp circuits. The code does not care what is plugged into it.

The only violations are from the fixture being wired with a cord and plug. If you set in on the counter and used it as a lamp, you're okay. But once you turn it into a fixture, a new set of rules apply.

Is it going to hurt anything? Who knows? But most likely not. Try and put this item in before a final and see what the AHJ has to say about it.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Maybe if we took the time to look at things from outside the box we could better understand the concept of circuits.

Let us begin by looking at the word outlet. As defined by the NEC, Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.
Now look at receptacle outlet, Receptacle Outlet. An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed.
What about a lighting outlet, Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

It is very plain to see that the only difference between an outlet, lighting outlet and a receptacle outlet is that a receptacle allows us to connect and disconnect with out the hassle of wire nuts and covers. All three are outlets.

Now to hold the thought in mind that a receptacle is a receptacle and not an outlet is ludicrous. Any receptacle is an outlet, whether on a general-purpose circuit, small appliance circuit or laundry circuit.

When dealing with the small appliance circuit we are restricted to allowing only small appliances outlets as outlined in 210.52 (B) (2) No Other Outlets.
The whole of 210.52 when referring to the small appliance circuits refers to it supplying the receptacle outlets.
As outlined in the definition above a luminary (lighting fixture) that is connected to a source of power that fixture that holds the bulb becomes a lighting outlet no matter which circuit it is connected to.
Using the thinking that I am hearing about this light, I would be able to plug a fixed light in the receptacle outlet required in 210.11 (C) (2), but I do believe that would be a violation also.

I do agree that we have no control over the homeowner, but again my statements are directed to the electrician who is getting an inspection on this installation and I hope he is. To use the analogy that the homeowner can plug anything into a small appliance circuit and it couldn?t be enforced does not relieve the violation.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Maybe if we took the time to look at things from outside the box we could better understand the concept of circuits.

I have no problem with thinking outside the box. It's part of the reason I get a kick out of writing and critiquing proposals.

It is very plain to see that the only difference between an outlet, lighting outlet and a receptacle outlet is that a receptacle allows us to connect and disconnect with out the hassle of wire nuts and covers. All three are outlets.

Three? The two are types of the first. Yes, lighting outlets and receptacles are of course both outlets. But combining the terms is outside the box to the point of fiction.

Lighting outlets are distinctly different than receptacle outlets. You point that out but don't seem to see it. While they are both members of the same family, "outlets", they serve two totally different purposes and look totally different. How can you say that a receptacle is a lighting outlet, knowing full well the definition does not mesh with that thinking?

If reading the definitions doesn't prove that to you, you're cutting the legs off my argument. I can tell you that water is wet, and give you a drink to prove it; but if you insist you detected no moisture, there's nothing I can do about it.

An "appliance branch circuit" ceases to be one when a luminaire is permanently connected to it, by it's definition. That is fundamental in the definition of the term.

This whole "see if the AHJ buys it" argument is bunkus, too, as they are as human and as literate as you or I. If I had a desire to install U-C's in this fashion, and do so, and the AHJ fails it, we're gonna have the same spat we're having here.

And the wording "permanently connected" in the "appliance branch circuit" definition is directly contrary to your position. If "permanently" were removed from the definition, you'd be right.

Example: If you strung extension cords hither thither and yon, in an attempt to meet 210.52's wall space codes, would a homeowner walking in on this folly say this is a "permanently connected" approach, or a "cord-and-plug connected" approach?

Now to hold the thought in mind that a receptacle is a receptacle and not an outlet is ludicrous.

Who said that?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

George
I am completely confused now. Let me see if I can figure out your statement. You are debating that to install a lighting fixture on a small appliance circuit has no bearing on the circuit and you are using the definition of ?Branch Circuit, Appliance? as your backing. Your quote:

Originally posted by georgestolz:

An "appliance branch circuit" ceases to be one when a luminaire is permanently connected to it, by it's definition. That is fundamental in the definition of the term.

And the wording "permanently connected" in the "appliance branch circuit" definition is directly contrary to your position. If "permanently" were removed from the definition, you'd be right.

The way I read this definition is as follows:
Branch Circuit, Appliance. A branch circuit that supplies energy to one or more outlets to which appliances are to be connected and that has no permanently connected luminaires (lighting fixtures) that are not a part of an appliance.

Take note to the part that states: that are not a part of an appliance.

The very second that I connect a fixture to this circuit I am in violation by YOUR statement.

Now I know that your argument is going to be that it is cord and plug attached is not permanently connected. Take note that I did not say permanently connected as you stated above. The term permanently installed is referring to the fact that this light is attached to the under side of the cabinet.
This in its self indicates that the fixture is to be permanently connected or in other words will always receive power from this circuit

edited to get words in order

[ April 29, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[paul]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
...The term permanently installed is referring to the fact that this light is attached to the under side of the cabinet.

Hence the definition of fixture. Otherwise it would be a portable lamp and we wouldn't be having this debate.

fix?ture
Pronunciation Key (fkschr)
n.

1. Something securely fixed in place.
2. Something attached as a permanent appendage, apparatus, or appliance: plumbing fixtures.
3. Law. A chattel bound to realty.
4. One that is invariably present in and long associated with a place: a journalist who became a Washington fixture.
5.
1. The act or process of fixing.
2. The condition of being fixed.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
You are debating that to install a lighting fixture on a small appliance circuit has no bearing on the circuit and you are using the definition of ?Branch Circuit, Appliance? as your backing.

My point is, since 210.52(B) makes reference to small "appliance branch circuits" then by the definition, we couldn't power permanently connected luminaires on those circuits anyway, regardless of whether 210.52(B)(2) existed or not.

The term permanently installed is referring to the fact that this light is attached to the under side of the cabinet.

Where do you find "permanently installed"?

This in its self indicates that the fixture is to be permanently connected or in other words will always receive power from this circuit

Again, you're muddying terms. Do you think that everything that doesn't move is "permanently connected" to the circuit that supplies it? There is a permanent connection?

Example: My range does not move. (I'm pretending my personal range is electric. )

My range is always going to be in the same spot. If I were worried about earthquakes, I could screw it to the floor. (For argument's sake, let say the range is listed to be screwed to the floor. It has a standard 50 amp cord, which plugs into a receptacle behind it. Since this appliance is fastened in place, is it permanently connected?

422.33(B) Connection at the Rear Base of a Range. For cord-and-plug-connected household electric ranges...

What does this mean, then? By your standard, it's permanently connected.

The fact is, it's not permanently connected.

100-I Attachment Plug (Plug Cap)(Plug). A device that, by insertion in a receptacle, establishes a connection between the conductors of the attached flexible cord and the conductors connected permanently to the receptacle.

Again, we even see the "permanent" versus "cord-and-plug-connected" principle at play even in the definition of a plug.

They are making it clear that the structure's wiring is permanent, whereas cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment is not permanent.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I like the easy ones thanks for the chance.

422.30 General.
A means shall be provided to disconnect each appliance from all ungrounded conductors??.
(B) Appliances Rated Over 300 Volt-Amperes ???..within sight from the appliance or is capable of being locked in the open position.

422.33 Disconnection of Cord-and-Plug-Connected Appliances. For cord-and-plug-connected household electric ranges, an attachment plug and receptacle connection at the rear base of a range, if it is accessible from the front by removal of a drawer, shall be considered as meeting the intent of 422.33(A).

Now I don?t understand what all this has to do about the light that is using the small appliance outlet to receive power. Are you trying to say that the plug is being used as the disconnecting means for this light? Why not mount a toggle switch at the end to control the light?
:roll:

[ April 30, 2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Again, we even see the "permanent" versus "cord-and-plug-connected" principle at play even in the definition of a plug.

They are making it clear that the structure's wiring is permanent, whereas cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment is not permanent.

That is my point.

If a luminaire is not "permanently connected" to an appliance branch circuit, it remains an appliance branch circuit.

A receptacle is not a lighting outlet.

Cord-and-plug-connected is not permanently connected.

The NEC makes these distinctions.

That is my point.

[ April 30, 2005, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Well, now we are starting to agree on a few things. I do agree that a receptacle is not a lighting outlet.

A receptacle is;
A receptacle is a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug.

And a lighting outlet is:
An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture),

Now the scenario outlined in this thread states that there is a a luminaire (lighting fixture), that is fastened in place, attached, fixed or permanently installed under a cabinet and connected to the small appliance circuit via a contact device and plug.

By the definitions listed in the NEC and stated above this is a violation of 210.52 (B) (2) No Other Outlets

We can have equipment that is either installed permanently and/or temporarily. By this fixture being attached to the underside of this cabinet it is no longer temporary or portable. The fact that it is cord and plug connected plays no part as to whether the fixture is permanent or portable.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Where is the "other outlet"? :roll:

Now the scenario outlined in this thread states that there is a a luminaire (lighting fixture), that is fastened in place, attached, fixed or permanently installed under a cabinet and connected to the small appliance circuit via a contact device and plug.

By the definitions listed in the NEC and stated above this is a violation of 210.52 (B) (2) No Other Outlets

The undercabinet light is not an outlet, it's utilization equipment! You just said in your last post that the receptacle is not a lighting outlet! So how can you try to cite 210.52(B)(2) as the "violation"? Where is the other outlet?

We can have equipment that is either installed permanently and/or temporarily. By this fixture being attached to the underside of this cabinet it is no longer temporary or portable. The fact that it is cord and plug connected plays no part as to whether the fixture is permanent or portable.

The only code relevant to this quote is 210.23. That is the only code that remotely matches what your are saying, with the talk about whether the luminaire is screwed down or not.

I know you think that a cord and plug connection is permanent if the utilization equipment is screwed down, but I've shown you eight different ways it's not.

I'm getting tired of this.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

George
I know that you are smart enough to know a light fixture when you see one.
Now you can try as hard as you want to run around the code book looking for something to support your debate but the only issue is, this is a small appliance circuit that has a lighting outlet as defined by article 100 and 410 attached to it. So let?s try and keep the issue at hand in this debate.

Your referral to 210.23 just doesn?t get it. Did you even read the article? Take a long look at (A) A 15- or 20-ampere branch circuit shall be permitted to supply lighting units or other utilization equipment, or a combination of both,.

Your referral distinguishes the difference between a lighting outlet and utilization equipment and clearly states there is a difference between the two.

Keep trying but don?t forget about 210,52 (B) (2). It is right there in the book as a matter of fact you have said on many occasions that it didn?t matter. Check your April 29, 2005 11:49 PM post

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Guys I have only peeked in on this a bit.

JW is it your argument that it is against the NEC for a consumer to buy a $8.00 cord and plug light strip from the super market, fasten it under the cabinet and plug it into the small appliance branch circuit?

That's a yes or no question.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
George
I know that you are smart enough to know a light fixture when you see one.

...this is a small appliance circuit that has a lighting outlet as defined by article 100 and 410 attached to it.

Oh? Where is the lighting outlet? There is a difference between "lighting outlet" and "lighting fixture." You're confusing your terms! This SA circuit has receptacles feeding cord-and-plug-connected luminaires; not lighting outlets! There's not a lighting outlet to be found!

Your referral to 210.23 just doesn?t get it. Did you even read the article?

It is the only code that remotely resembles your argument. But it doesn't state that "utilization equipment fastened in place" is illegal, it states that your must not make that portion of the load greater than 50% of the rating of the circuit.

Your referral distinguishes the difference between a lighting outlet and utilization equipment and clearly states there is a difference between the two.

Keep trying but don?t forget about 210,52 (B) (2).

What's to forget?

By that last quote, you're saying that "lighting outlet" and "utilization equipment" are the same thing? Sure, why not: "receptacle outlet" means the same thing as "lighting outlet", "lighting outlet" means the same thing as "lighting fixture", "Wheel rim" means the same things as "tire", "dog" means the same thing as "cat", we can play this game all day.

The NEC wouldn't trouble itself to explicitly define all the electrical terms if we were free to just ignore the definitions.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

This is not a lighting outlet:

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by georgestolz:
This is not a lighting outlet:

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

This is a lighting outlet with a lampholder permanently connected to it:

[ May 01, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]