Results 1 to 32 of 32
Thread: Rough In Question
-
09-21-2019, 08:50 AM #1
Rough In Question
I am building my own house for the first time. Mostly fun with some stressful moments. I'm doing most of the work myself. The electrician and I work together, which is fun and saves me a boatload of money. There are two interpretations here that I am curious about from other parts of the country.
We are setting up a conduit across a vaulted ceiling for a photovoltaic system that will be mounted on the roof. We will not have access across the attic once the insulation is put into place. The local electrical inspector requires Schedule 80 PVC conduit, instead of Schedule 40 because it is "subject to damage". I think this is hilarious since we are allowed to run NM B wiring in the same space, but whatever. Anyone else see that? I know most of us are not pro electricians so may not actually be getting inspections anymore.
The second one is for lights such as shop lights and garage lights, if we put in the normal round lighting junction box, it gets flagged later if a larger than average light fixture is put under it. The call is that it is "covering a junction box". Again, this could be interpreted by every ceiling light fixture using that logic, but whatever. We rough in with a wire hanging down from the framing with no J box. Looks weird but I can live with it. Same anywhere else?
We are limited to 8 receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. No real logic behind it but not a big deal. I have plenty of breaker space in the panel. I think state by state that is not uncommon, just with varying numbers for the number of breakers. At least with the lighting we go with an actual load calculation. The LED stuff is pretty impressive. We could do the entire house on 2 circuits if we wanted to. We used 4 x 15 amps for all of the lighting, with plenty of headroom.
It's been almost two years since we broke ground, and I am finally getting the rough in wiring inspection and can move forward. I do have a plumber, and a good concrete / excavation contractor. Other than that I have done most of it myself with a few helpers. Hoping to move into the house in less than a year from now.
Similar Threads:Jim Robinson
New Mexico, USA
-
09-21-2019, 11:09 AM #2
Re: Rough In Question
Hi Jim,
First thing, the reality is that the inspector can interpret how he/she likes. I have found that some inspectors don't like working with owner/builders and choose to yank them around. Clearly, you can question or challenge anything they require. This might cause them to see that you are not ignorant about building or it might raise hackles and cause more problems. Or, you can say "yes sir", do as you like and they probably won't remember what they were whining about the next time they come through for an inspection. A lot of times around here, it will be a different inspector with a different interpretation.
Just out of curiosity... at first it sounded as though this conduit is exposed at the ceiling, but after re-reading your post, I believe it is concealed under the drywall. If it's exposed, why not conceal it? If it's in a potentially high-heat location (New Mexico can get pretty warm and I bet attic are downright toasty), I would be more concerned about derating the conductors than the type of conduit. Around here, it would not be considered "subject to physical damage" if exposed at a vaulted ceiling or enclosed under the drywall and SCH 40 would be acceptable (as would EMT or NM-B). Above the roof would be a different matter.
I believe that is also an incorrect interpretation. For the same reason that you cite. What I have done in shop/garage light situations is provide receptacle outlets and then plug the surface-mounted or hung strip lights into the outlets.
That might be a local requirement rather than a code thing. The number of receptacle outlets on a branch circuit is not checked around here by the inspector and I don't recall ever seeing it on an electrical plan in the house blueprints (commercial is different). As far as I know, it is up to the electrical contractor to calculate the branch circuit loads. Frankly, I wouldn't even know where to start. That would require some research. The only place that I would personally be concerned about the number and balance of receptacle outlet circuits would be the kitchen. I have LOTS of counter-top appliances, live in an older home and am CONSTANTLY tripping kitchen circuit breakers because the kitchen was not originally designed for dishwashers, toasters, microwaves, coffee makers, etc.
Good luck with your project. If I were to do something like that today, I would stick to the things that I really want to do and leave the rest to trusted subs (but, I would certainly be examining their work). However, I am older than you and just don't have the drive and stamina.
Hopefully, Jerry will chime in and give you some feedback. He worked as an AHJ for some years and understands that process much better than I do.
Department of Redundancy Department
Supreme Emperor of Hyperbole
http://www.FullCircleInspect.com/
-
09-21-2019, 02:47 PM #3
Re: Rough In Question
Schedule 40 is not listed for protection against physical damage, Schedule 80 is.
Was that a blanket statement the inspector told you before looking at it, or did the inspector see some of it installed and then state that?
I ask because, like NM cable, Schedule 40 needs to be protected from nails and if the Sch 40 was within 1-1/4" of the bottom of the truss top chords/rafters, or within 1-1/4" of the truss bottom chords/Ceiling joists (is it a conventional framed rafter/ceiling joist with the roof sheathing on the top and drywall ceiling on the bottom? if so, what size lumber and what size conduit? and how much clearance from the top/bottom to the conduit?). NEC 352.12 Uses Not Permitted, (C) Physical Damage Where subject to physical damage unless identified for such use ... (Sch 80 is identified for such use, Sch 40 is not) ... ; (D) Ambient Temperature. Where subject to ambient temperatures in excess of 50?C (122?F) unless listed otherwise ... (check, likely okay)
Where do I get the 1-1/4"? From 300.4 (A) Cables and Raceways through Wood Members.
The second one is for lights such as shop lights and garage lights, if we put in the normal round lighting junction box, it gets flagged later if a larger than average light fixture is put under it. The call is that it is "covering a junction box". Again, this could be interpreted by every ceiling light fixture using that logic, but whatever. We rough in with a wire hanging down from the framing with no J box. Looks weird but I can live with it. Same anywhere else?
Leaving the cable hanging without a proper junction box will raise issues, such as what type and size box are you installing ON THE SURFACE (because you will either install a box which is flush with the ceiling, or install a box on the surface, and that surface box may cause you problems of a different kind. Years ago that was allowed when fluorescent lights were to be installed, however, those fluorescent lights were not listed as a junction box, so boxes were required for them too - better to use smaller boxes which are flush mounted, avoid a 4" box, go with a 3-1/2" box, and if the fixture canopy is less than that, then contact the manufacturer of the lighting fixture for the appropriate box to use.
We are limited to 8 receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. No real logic behind it but not a big deal.
The NEC, for non-dwelling unit load calculations used/uses 180 volt amps per receptacle outlet for 120 volt receptacle outlets (Jim, Bill, or someone may provide the section as I didn't look it up), and with two receptacle outlets per duplex receptacle (there are single receptacles, but not often found in a residence), so make sure to count duplex receptacles as "2 outlets".
120 volt circuit x 20 amps = 2400 watts (volt amps) x 80% loading of the circuit = 1920 watts (volt amps) / 180 volts amps per outlet = 10 outlets (actually, 10.67, but I have yet to see a successful attempt at that 0.67 outlet) / 2 = 5 duplex receptacles per 20 amp branch circuit
120 x 15 = 1800 x 80% = 1440 / 180 volt amps per outlet = 8 OUTLETS / 2 for duplex receptacles and that is only 4 duplex receptacles ... and they are giving you 8 duplex (I suspect that they forgot to finish the calculation and were not realizing that each duplex receptacle is actually "2" "outlets". Shhhh ... don't point that out to them ... but that does not apply to dwelling units any way, unless there is a local code stating that.
The real answer to the question of "How many receptacles outlets does the NEC allow to have a 15 amp branch circuit?" is this: How many do you want? The breaker will trip and protect the circuit, but you are allowed (by the NEC) to put a receptacle outlet every 6 inches around a room on a single 15 amp branch circuit. I'm not sure why you would want to, but you would be allowed to (by the NEC).
-
09-22-2019, 01:45 PM #4
Re: Rough In Question
The issue of schedule 40 vs schedule 80 in an attic ? That's a local issue with the AHJ - is it a written and legally adopted amendment ? If not the inspector is jerking you around or just plain making up crap. He does this because the people he does it to just roll over and play dead, thus allowing him to do it.
YES I preach on this because it is WRONG and should not be tolerated !! YES I have confronted inspectors who have tried that crap. YES I did have success in that.
The issue of placing the light fixture over a ceiling mounted box is:
You MUST be able to access the wiring in the ceiling box. A ceiling mounted fixture has the wiring on the back of the fixture so you MUST take the fixture down to access the wiring thus the ceiling box is also accessible. The problem arose when people started splicing the wires in the ceiling box and leaving long tails that they would stick into a surface mounted fluorescent light through a 1/2 " knock out. The fixture is often toggle bolted to the sheetrock ceiling or screwed to the trusses/ floor joists. This method makes the wiring in accessible. The way around this is to knock a hole large enough to access the ceiling box and the wiring. You can also do as you stated, just drop NM cable through the sheetrock and terminate it directly into the surface mounted fluorescent fixture.
As far as the number of receptacles on a circuit, that is a local amendment issue. IF the AHJ does not have written AND legally adopted amendments then they can not legally enforce it. That's a fight / issue you will have to deal with. Me Personally I would question it and ask to see a copy of the amendments. They must be made available to you as once adopted they are law.
As far as if a single receptacle counts as one receptacle and a duplex receptacle counts as two receptacles. There a times when it becomes an issue BUT as for calculating receptacle loads IT DOES NOT MATTER. The NEC uses the same 180 watts ( volt amps) for both a single and a duplex receptacle. It does increase when you have a triplex receptacle or a duplex receptacle ( yes they do make both of them ) the information can be located in article 220
-
09-22-2019, 02:25 PM #5
Re: Rough In Question
Unless ... the Sch 40 is subject to physical damage!
That is not a local AHJ issue, that is an NEC issue, clearly stated in the code.
I have shown the code sections I referenced to electrical contractors who said it was not applicable to INSIDE, and I point out that is does not say that is applicable to outdoors ... it is only applicable when 'subject to physical damage' ... which IS addressed in the code sections.
Not everyone likes to hear the above, but until an electrical contractor can show me a code section specifically stating that it 'does not apply under (gives circumstances under which it does not apply)', then the code sections stating that is does apply ... applies.
-
09-22-2019, 05:39 PM #6
Re: Rough In Question
The methods for protection against damage also has "other approved means" which could be Schedule 40. This would be a judgement call. If someone were to consider wiring to a disposal subject to damage there is no reason to require Schedule 80 simply because it is listed as a means of protection.
First thing, the reality is that the inspector can interpret how he/she likes.
This is absolute BS. The inspector needs to follow the adopted and legally enforce codes. If they are wrong they need to be challenged and made to prove their stance.
Jack covered the other issues well.
All answers based on unamended National Electrical codes.
-
09-22-2019, 08:42 PM #7
Re: Rough In Question
Other approved means would include means of protection by a means rated for protection from physical damage, and Sch 40 PVC is not ... that said ... "approved" is "approved by the AHJ", and I have seen AHJ "approve" many things which should never have been "approved", and have come back to bite the AHJ in their butts - which may be why that AHJ does not "approve" Sch 40 PVC for protection against physical damage.
This is absolute BS. The inspector needs to follow the adopted and legally enforce codes. If they are wrong they need to be challenged and made to prove their stance.
My mind is open, and while I am not from Missouri ... "show me" where I am wrong with a code section.
A code section which does not state 'or approved by whatever the local idiot says' (I'm not referring to all of them as 'local idiots' any more than you are implying they are), but if the AHJ can provide a code section and the other side cannot (you, Jack, that electrical contractor, or anyone else on that side), then 'the other side' needs to go pick on a different topic.
Sounds like your ire has been raised, so do it the simple way, like your tag line says "All answers based on unamended National Electrical codes." ... show us the unamended National Electrical code which says that is permitted.
I have had disagreements with contractors on measurements, my response is 'this is my Stanley tape measure, let's see how it matches up with your tape measure' (hint: the tape measures have always, always, always matched) ... to which my response is 'lets go measure it together' (followed by) ... 'here, I'll take the "dumb end" and hold it right here, you go read the "smart end" with the numbers, if you don't get what I got, we'll get someone to hold the dumb end and I'll go look at the smart end with you to make sure we are reading it the same'. The dispute goes away because either a) they are wrong; or b) I am wrong (it happens, but at least we all agree what the measurement is).
-
09-23-2019, 07:13 PM #8
Re: Rough In Question
I'd really have to see the framing and installation to comment on SCH 40 VS SCH 80. If, in fact, NM-B is allowed in the same space, it's hard to see the justification for SCH 80 unless the space would prevent the 1.25 inch space from a fastening surface.
New Mexico does have several amendments to the NEC published in the state building statutes. Currently (last revision 2017) it says any circuit with receptacles must be a minimum of #12 and have a max. of 10 outlets - either receptacles or light fixtures and receptacles. --- Unless it is a small appliance circuit then a total of 4 receptacles or if a dining area only,6. Receptacles are counted "per yoke".
220.14 (I) addresses the 180 VA load per receptacle found for certain applications, and the value is "per yoke", that is, a simplex or duplex receptacle. The requirement for fewer receptacles per circuit is load driven.
Occam's eraser: The philosophical principle that even the simplest solution is bound to have something wrong with it.
-
09-23-2019, 07:21 PM #9
Re: Rough In Question
Jerry, we might be splitting words, but approved by other means gives the inspector the option to make an informed decision about other methods to meet the desired requirements of the code. To say that EMT or Schedule 80 is required simply because it is one of the specified options when lesser means would be perfectly adequate is unreasonable. The code cannot forsee every possible condition that could arise. As such it has the option of leaving things up to interpretation and rationalizing a solution. As you stated not everything will work out, but the same is true of code specified solution also. For instance a Schedule 80 conduit or sleeve is used to protect wiring emerging from the dirt. The lawn scalper is in a hurry and does not watch closely and hits the conduit and it breaks and the wiring is damaged. An approved means was used and yet there was still a negative result.
All answers based on unamended National Electrical codes.
-
09-23-2019, 08:05 PM #10
Re: Rough In Question
-
09-24-2019, 04:21 PM #11
Re: Rough In Question
Hi Jim,
To a certain degree, I have found this to be true. For example, exactly at what point is NM subject to "physical damage"? Different inspectors can and do interpret differently, but still remain within the code. Around here, NM is allowed unprotected in a garage when it is 8' or more above the floor; however, I have seen pole saws leaning against NM that was higher than 8'. Since subject to "physical damage" is subjective, a different inspector could well interpret differently.
Also, the local inspectors are not requiring "running boards" 334.15
Yes, the inspector can be challenged, but some will stick to their requirement and not bend. On those occasions, it's sometimes best to just do what they want (as long as their interpretation is possible).
Department of Redundancy Department
Supreme Emperor of Hyperbole
http://www.FullCircleInspect.com/
-
09-25-2019, 02:52 PM #12
Re: Rough In Question
In this situation, I wanted to run pipe anyhow because it gives us some options of adding photovoltaic capacity later if the market makes it a good move. For now I am trying to cover our use and a little extra, but not buying more capacity than that. There is no reason for me to get on the inspectors bad side just to save $20 in conduit cost, so I see no reason to do anything other than what the electrician says he will want to see. As for the J boxes for my garage lights, I have a feeling they will show up after the rough in inspection is completed. I will be using either 1' x 2' LED panels or 2'x 2' panels, which are designed to mount to a junction box.
Jim Robinson
New Mexico, USA
-
09-25-2019, 04:29 PM #13
Re: Rough In Question
Jim,
Are the lights designed to mount to flush junction boxes (most likely are) or to surface mount junction boxes (would need to have the back of the light spaced down from the ceiling, or have a deep enough canopy to cover a surface mount junction box, in which case supports for the corners of the panels may be needed).
Something you may want to check on with the mounting of the lights.
-
10-02-2019, 08:32 AM #14
Re: Rough In Question
The limitations on luminaires supported by outlet boxes is by weight and has nothing to do with the dimensions of the luminaire. As for concealing the outlet box such boxes are required to accessible but not readily accessible.
That might be a local requirement rather than a code thing. The number of receptacle outlets on a branch circuit is not checked around here by the inspector and I don't recall ever seeing it on an electrical plan in the house blueprints (commercial is different). As far as I know, it is up to the electrical contractor to calculate the branch circuit loads. Frankly, I wouldn't even know where to start. That would require some research. The only place that I would personally be concerned about the number and balance of receptacle outlet circuits would be the kitchen. I have LOTS of counter-top appliances, live in an older home and am CONSTANTLY tripping kitchen circuit breakers because the kitchen was not originally designed for dishwashers, toasters, microwaves, coffee makers, etc.
I know that we all love inspectors that make up rules as they go through the inspection even if it is only in that NOT sort of way!
--
Tom Horne
-
10-02-2019, 08:59 AM #15
Re: Rough In Question
And here I always thought that the Maxim of the law is that "silence is consent." I have been involved in a few appeals in 50 years in the craft. In the 2 that ended up in court the judge asked what section of the code forbid the installation that the inspector had refused to approve. The local government attorneys seemed flummoxed by the question and in both cases tried to say that approval was the sole province of the AHJ. Both Judges said that no legislative body at any level of government can delegate it's legislative powers to any other entity. Any citizen has to be able to know what the law is in advance of it's being applied. There big point was that anything the law did not specifically forbid was allowed as a basic principal of law. Ergo if it is not in the list of "uses not permitted" then it's use is permitted. It does not have to be in the uses permitted list of the code unless the language clearly states "and for no other use."
--
Tom Horne
Retired Electrician
-
10-02-2019, 09:47 AM #16
Re: Rough In Question
Not necessarily, depends on what is actually stated, and how it is stated, in "uses permitted".
As to some of your other statements, it depends on what was adopted, how it was adopted, and the wording in the ordinance or statute which adopted it.
Retired Electrical Inspector (not that it matters)
-
10-02-2019, 02:20 PM #17
Re: Rough In Question
Here in BC the inspections are the other way round - homeowner installations get stringent inspections while pro electrical contractors installs are often not inspected as they are signed off by the contractors Field Service Rep.
If the PV wiring runs from panels to a string inverter it may be up to 600V DC, whereas if the panels have microinverters the wiring will be carrying 220V AC. The requirements for raceways/conduits may be different for these two types of system, so if the PV specifications are not firmly established it may be best to install conduit for the higher and more dangerous DC wiring. Just thinking.
-
10-02-2019, 09:07 PM #18
Re: Rough In Question
My point is that the judges in the two appeals that I saw in court said that the code had to specifically forbid a practice for it to be unlawful. I was only telling folks what they said. I know that they are only district court judges but the similarity of their remarks from the bench was quite obvious. Both of them said the same thing in the same way in two different states.
--
Tom Horne
-
10-04-2019, 03:23 PM #19
Re: Rough In Question
Hi yall it has been a while since I have been on. I think the inspector feels that the pv conductors are considered unfused until they land at the panel and therefore requires them to be in conduit. the code requires the unfused conductors to be in conduit and schedule 40 doesn't qualify.
-
10-04-2019, 06:29 PM #20
Re: Rough In Question
If the inspector is considering them that way, basically as service entrance conductors, then even (as I recall, I'm not completely sure of this as I would have to look it up to verify it) RMC would not be acceptable by itself, even it would be required to be encased in minimum of 2" of concrete through the house (through the attic is considered through the house).
-
10-04-2019, 07:41 PM #21
Re: Rough In Question
If the conductors to be protected run between inverters on the roof of a typical house and a breaker panel, then the inspector should not be treating them as service entrance conductors that feed the house from the grid.
The PV/inverter conductors are different because a) unlike service conductors the maximum current if they are short circuited is strictly limited by the power generation capacity of the PV array, e.g. 220V x 30A or so for a typical residential installation, and b) if the short circuit current does exceed the rated inverter current, the roof mounted inverters shut off the power, usually faster than breaker or fuse would do.
On the other hand, if service entrance conductors are short-circuited, we are talking thousands of amps from the outside transformer before something melts, hence the requirement for concrete encasement etc. in the house as noted by Jerry.
-
10-08-2019, 10:05 AM #22
Re: Rough In Question
read NEC sections 690.31A and G and maybe it will clear things up.............or not?
-
10-08-2019, 03:28 PM #23
Re: Rough In Question
-
10-20-2019, 03:18 PM #24
Re: Rough In Question
Follow up:
He didn't care at all about the PVC. It didn't come up at all. I had to make a few corrections regarding the 6/12 rule for spacing. So I added a few receptacles that I don't need and made a few other small corrections. But we are passed and moving forward. We have power into the house now, and can start to work on getting the heat system up and running.
One thing the electrician nor myself saw coming was on the lighting circuits. Because we used a traditional light can with an Edison base, he said we are limited to 10 fixtures for each circuit. Someone "could" not use the LED fixtures that we are planning on, and overlamp the lights. Whatever. Never heard of that one before. Someone "could" screw in a plug adapter and run their hot tub off of the light fixture also, but it is still on a 15 amp breaker. We did the load calc and could run each level off of one 15 amp breaker with the new LED fixtures. We used two to have some extra headroom. He wanted a third circuit for the lower level. The upper level was okay because the fixtures did not have an Edison base. Okay, I dded the third circuit and we are moving foward.
Jim Robinson
New Mexico, USA
-
10-20-2019, 03:54 PM #25
Re: Rough In Question
Inspectors are supposed to be inspecting what is being installed for NEC compliance and how it is to be used according to plans,and other applicable building codes - not what someone will do after he leaves.
After all, you could remove all those nasty AFCIs and install 20 and 30 AMP breakers where there were 15 and 20 AMP breakers before, double tap the range or dryer receptacle so you can run a welder, put a grow area in the place somewhere - you know, stuff like that.
Occam's eraser: The philosophical principle that even the simplest solution is bound to have something wrong with it.
-
10-20-2019, 05:30 PM #26
Re: Rough In Question
The circuit for the recessed is based on the largest size bulb that can be installed, not what is actually installed.
All answers based on unamended National Electrical codes.
-
10-20-2019, 08:26 PM #27
Re: Rough In Question
That was what I figure the intent was. Do you have the section from the code so I can share that with my electrician for next time? I guess there are 200 watt light bulbs out there in the world.
Jim Robinson
New Mexico, USA
-
10-21-2019, 10:45 AM #28
Re: Rough In Question
Checkin' out the ole 'Bay this AM there are Edison based lamps for sale as large as 750 Watt. Somebody 'splain to me how you are wiring the circuit for the largest lamps that can be installed again. Just cause Homer's doesn't have it doesn't mean John Q can't find a way.
Admittedly, the 300 watt and 500 watt variety are a lot more common........
I've seen a 300 in a table lamp before.
- - - Updated - - -
Checkin' out the ole 'Bay this AM there are Edison based lamps (light bulb) for sale as large as 750 Watt. Somebody 'splain to me how you are wiring the circuit for the largest lamps that can be installed again.
Admittedly, the 300 watt and 500 watt variety are a lot more common........
I've seen a 300 in a table lamp before.
Occam's eraser: The philosophical principle that even the simplest solution is bound to have something wrong with it.
-
10-21-2019, 12:44 PM #29
Re: Rough In Question
I believe it is based on "the rating of the fixtures", not "the type of socket".
One could have a plastic medium base (Edison) socket and pushing much over 60 watts in a recessed fixture is going to crumble that plastic in not too long of use. Replace the plastic socket with a cheap porcelain socket and you can probably safely push that to 75 watts. Replace that with a heavy duty porcelain socket and you can probably push that to 150 watts for most recessed light cans, and 250 watts for recessed heat lamp cans (and use 250 watt heat lamps).
As you said, go to a mogul base (Edison) socket and the wattage can go way up. I don't recall seeing cheap plastic mogul base sockets (but that does not mean they don't exist).
-
10-21-2019, 05:49 PM #30
Re: Rough In Question
Yes, the circuits should be wired by the rating of the fixtures. In the case of 60 watt lamps that winds up being 24, divided by the lamps per fixture: at 100 watts that's 14 divided by lamps per fixture. 10 is a bit arbitrary I think
I didn't say anything about mogul base lamps. The lamps I found are indeed Edison medium base lamps. and would install into a can light fixture. The ceramic socket could probably handle the higher wattages - the wire not so much`
Occam's eraser: The philosophical principle that even the simplest solution is bound to have something wrong with it.
-
10-21-2019, 10:12 PM #31
Re: Rough In Question
The CEC rule is max 12 duplex outlets or light fixtures for each 15 amp circuit.
That rule goes back to the dawn of the electrical code in Canada.
For a 20 amp circuit in Canada, the max load goes up to 16, JFYI.
As far as we know, there is no such rule in the NEC.
Congrats on your progress so far. I had to install AFCI's in my addition, even tho the 1983 house has none. But in three years, no tripping, so it is all good.
John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455
www.allsafehome.ca
-
10-22-2019, 07:47 AM #32
Re: Rough In Question
Looked at our state amendments. I think this is where the inspector is coming from:
Section 210.11 Branch circuits required. (a) 210.11 (A) Number of branch circuits. See this section of the NEC and add: In dwelling units, branch circuits for 125-volt, 15- and 20- ampere general purpose lighting and receptacles outlets shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10) lighting and/or receptacle outlets per branch circuit. Single and duplex receptacle outlets are considered to be one receptacle outlet. Exception: Branch circuits serving only lighting loads may be calculated per article 220 of the national electrical code.
My electrician feels that since these circuits are definitely only lighting, the 10 rule should not apply, regardless of the type of base. I agree. But it's already done and I'm moving on. It wasn't a general purpose lighting AND receptacle circuit. Otherwise, why approve the circuits without the lamp bases? Framing inspection today. Probably a few new "whatevers" coming.
Jim Robinson
New Mexico, USA
Bookmarks