New Deck Drives a Service Change

[Glenn]

How could building a small backyard deck cause an owner to have to get a new electrical service panel?

The requirement for a receptacle outlet on decks, porches and patios from the 2008/11 NEC and 2009/12 IRC is explained in this educational video. There's a lot to it, and something that building inspectors should understand.

Enjoy,

[video=youtube;BaEuccHtJzo]

 

[Dennis]

Well it could warrant a panel change but not a service change. One could also just add a sub panel and move a few circuits around. It is an issue and more so then in just old homes. Take a MWBC in a newer home. If you add an outlet to one part of the MWBC then a afci is needed but not every brand of panel makes a dp afci. This can be a huge PITA.

 

[Keystone]

This discusion was had in our office, talk about stiring up the hornets nest with deck builders.

Some of the decks in the video must part of the file marked, c.c, "crap construction".

 

[codeworks]

i would'nt think adding a few outlets for deck would require a new service unless the existing was totally maxed out. were talking service calculations. if the bedroom has fewer than 9 oulets, i'd pull one off the bedroom. or, as in the previous post, add a subpanel. some of this stuff is ludicrous

 

[Glenn]

i would'nt think adding a few outlets for deck would require a new service unless the existing was totally maxed out. were talking service calculations. if the bedroom has fewer than 9 oulets, i'd pull one off the bedroom. or, as in the previous post, add a subpanel. some of this stuff is ludicrous

I take it you didn't watch the video?

New ground level deck = receptacle outlet required = extension of circuit to add receptacle = AFCI protection of circuit required = UH, OH!! 1958 service panel does not have compatible AFCI devices = Service change that rivals the cost of the simple deck = I haven't got past final inspection yet for the deck, because I've now got a big electrical job to do.

True story...my house.

 

[ICE]

NEC

210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.

(B) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20- ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.

This may only work in California [Ca. didn't adopt the el. portion of the IRC] but I don't see decks mentioned. Unless a circuit extension supplies an outlet in one of the mentioned rooms, I don't see how it would require ARC fault protection.

Well that's good news because you know that the contractor will wait for the final inspection of the deck before he tells the owner that the building dept went off it's rails and is requiring an electrical service upgrade.

Oh and Glenn, you probably shouldn't tell people that you bumped your head on you own house.

I haven't got past final inspection yet for the deck, because I've now got a big electrical job to do.True story...my house.

Another thing is the in-use cover that you mentioned...not required.

 

[Glenn]

And which circuits are the most convenient and common ones for extending to a new outdoor receptacle? The rooms with the door to the new deck...that's right...the family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms and of course...similar rooms.

When remodeling my 1950's home I...gee...caught a few snags, delay's and unplanned expenses...I "bumped my head" Yup, I did...welcome to reality, humility, wife and kids.

How is the in-use cover not required on a receptacle in a wet environment? I'm not talking about under a roof, where damp. Please explain.

 

[jar546]

Glenn,

great video, loved it. Very simplistic and conveys the information easily. I would recommend that you include IRC code references in future videos. This would help drive home the requirements and provide the needed reference. Good job.

 

[ICE]

Perhaps the IRC contains a provision that would force ARC fault protection for the example in your video but the NEC does not.

The extension of the circuit does not supply outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas and therefor does not require ARC fault protection.

A new circuit to an outlet supplying a receptacle serving the exterior of a dwelling would not require ARC fault protection.

A new circuit for a yard light could require ARC fault protection if there is an outlet for a switch on the inside of the dwelling and located where it requires arc fault protection.

These are examples of receptacle covers that are listed for a wet location. In-use covers aren't required unless an attachment plug is always plugged in, such as for a tank-less water heater or a timer for yard sprinklers etc.

The "bumped your head" remark has to do with you selling your expertise.

First of all, I am somewhat dumbfounded that you have been given free reign to do that here at this forum. The association with this forum lends credence to your abilities that may not be warranted but that is up to Jeff Remas.

My second thought is, just how sharp is this guy if he didn't see it coming. That's why I said you shouldn't mention bumping your head. If you want folks to pay to hear your opinions, you need to maintain the aura of the Wizard. That's not to say that you are actually, factually a dufus. It's just better to avoid looking like one given what you are trying to do.

Me? Well I'm free to be the village idiot because I don't want their money.

Again I say that your code may be different from mine and in any event, you are free to interpret the code as you see fit.

I am only telling you how we do it here.

I am not telling anyone how they should do it there.

 

[gfretwell]

The NEC says the 15 & 20a receptacles in wet locations must be the in use type. Damp locations can use a snap cover only weather proof with the plug removed.

(B) Wet Locations.(1) 15- and 20-Ampere Receptacles in a Wet Location. 15- and 20-ampere, 125- and 250-volt receptacles installed in a wet location shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof whether or not the attachment plug cap is inserted. ...

(A) Damp Locations. A receptacle installed outdoors in a location protected from the weather or in other damp locations shall have an enclosure for the receptacle that is weatherproof when the receptacle is covered (attachment plug cap not inserted and receptacle covers closed).

 

[ICE]

The NEC says the 15 & 20a receptacles in wet locations must be the in use type. Damp locations can use a snap cover only weather proof with the plug removed.

Again I say that your code may be different from mine and in any event, you are free to interpret the code as you see fit.

I am only telling you how we do it here.

I am not telling anyone how they should do it there.

406.8 Receptacles in Damp or Wet Locations

(B) Wet Locations.

(1) 15- and 20-Ampere Receptacles in a Wet Location.

15- and 20-ampere, 125- and 250-volt receptacles installed in a wet location shall have an enclosure that is

weatherproof whether or not the attachment plug cap is inserted. All 15- and 20-ampere, 125- and 250-volt

nonlocking receptacles shall be listed weather-resistant type.

(2) Other Receptacles.

All other receptacles installed in a wet location shall comply with (B)(2)(a) or (B)(2)(b).

(a) A receptacle installed in a wet location, where the product intended to be plugged into it is not attended while

in use, shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof with the attachment plug cap inserted or removed.

(b) A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it will be attended

while in use (e.g., portable tools) shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof when the attachment plug is removed.

Perhaps the "other receptacles" is where we are coming from. I don't know for sure but I do know what we require.

 

[Glenn]

The "bumped your head" remark has to do with you selling your expertise.

First of all, I am somewhat dumbfounded that you have been given free reign to do that here at this forum. The association with this forum lends credence to your abilities that may not be warranted but that is up to Jeff Remas.

My second thought is, just how sharp is this guy if he didn't see it coming. That's why I said you shouldn't mention bumping your head. If you want folks to pay to hear your opinions, you need to maintain the aura of the Wizard. That's not to say that you are actually, factually a dufus. It's just better to avoid looking like one given what you are trying to do.

I am sorry you that my contributions to this forum are so offensive and disappointing to you.

I have never claimed Wizard status, nor will I ever. Let me check my pulse...yup...I'm human. I might spill my coffee on my shirt this morning too...it's possible. Note the tagline at the end of all my videos..."thank for learning WITH me today". As in...we are both learning.

The greatest teacher is one willing to learn from their students, their experiences and their own mistakes. Your continued attacks at my character, expertise or contributions to this forum will not change that. In fact, I am even learning something from them too... You are welcome to find videos from a more pompous, elite and egotistical person if that's what you prefer.

Jar... thanks for the comment. I have already edited the video on youtube to include the IRC references. (see 2.06 minutes)

thank you for the quoted code section, gfretwell, that is supportive to the content of this discussion.

 

[ICE]

Your continued attacks at my character, expertise or contributions to this forum

Pardon me for thinking that you were incorrect.....but hey wait a minute.....I'm in attack mode am I.....alrighty then

I am sorry you that my contributions to this forum are so offensive and disappointing to you.

I am sorry that my disagreeing with you is so offensive and disappointing to you....NOT.... You forgot the word not.... but we do get the point don't we?

I have never claimed Wizard status

What status do you claim? Shirley there is a reason why you expect people to pay you to talk.

The greatest teacher

It's not too late...a tad bit lofty but you might surprise yourself.

we are both learning

Tell me again, who is paying who?

You are welcome to find videos from a more pompous, elite and egotistical person

So what? You fall short in those areas?

 

[Glenn]

Good grief.

:surr

 

[ICE]

Well then, that worked better than I would have predicted. Or was I tricked into giving away good advice....I hate when that happens....If that's what you're up to Glenn, I'm gonna need a retainer fee.

 

[BSSTG]

Greetings

HaHaHa. A great reson why the IRC is not the law of the land in Texas as an electrical code!

BS

 

[Glenn]

Greetings HaHaHa. A great reson why the IRC is not the law of the land in Texas as an electrical code!

BS

The IRC electrical codes are just a pirating of the NEC. Same provisions.

 

[ICE]

I don't have access to the electrical portion of the IRC but I think that the IRC mirrors the NEC and Glenn got it wrong. It happens to us all....of course few of us go to the trouble of memorializing our mistakes with an Internet video.

Videos have their place but the enforcement scheme at work in the USA is fractious to the point that a video should start with a list of states where it is applicable. That we are this far into the thread and the question is raised as to which code is in play says it all.

That Glenn has a wrong advice video at YouTube points out another foible of videos....you have no clue if any or all of the content is right or wrong.

If I could get paid for my mistakes, I wouldn't have to work another day and the money would be rolling in.

 

[Glenn]

I am still not following you, ICE. What did I get wrong?

My video is primarily about the requirement for an electrical receptacle on a deck. The "deck drives a service change" just provides a story for that education to follow. It is meant to get folks to consider the FULL result of some of the code that get changed. Sometimes I don't think this stuff it thought all the way through. Like in the 2011 NEC where they removed the 20 sf threshold. Why?

There would be the option to use a device-type of AFCI on the first receptacle outlet. That is one thing that could be included in the discussion.

In a simple and constructive manner, please, how did I "get it wrong". I would like to fix it if I did.

I don't understand why above you even mention the "other receptacles" provision. That would not come into play for the 15 and 20 amp circuits in a home.

 

[BSSTG]

Greetings again

I beg your pardon. I had not seen that requirement in the NEC. Nevertheless, it's pretty crazy to think that the addition of 1 required outlet would require a new service. Anybody that would tell that to a customer should have their head analyzed IMO. It's another prime example of the Code writers over stepping their bounds both in the NFPA and ICC. I'm sorry if people are so stupid as to string cords as in the video. For too many years government has legislated and codified all these rules to fix stupid. I've been a master electrician for a real long time only to see about 3 houses a year burn down in our community of 20000 from bootlegged old crap and other crazy stuff. We even had a lady killed from smoke inhalation in a house that had all kinds of crazy bootlegged crap recently. An improperly wired 220v outlet killed her. I would like to think that common sense would drive some of this stuff. I guess not. Maybe I'm too old fashioned in my opinions. But then look where we are in our nanny state.

To all veterans. Happy Veteran's Day!

BS

 

[ICE]

What did I get wrong?

It started with making a video and got worse from there.

You fabricated code.

Post #6 #9 spelled it out. I can't explain it any better than that.

I don't understand why above you even mention the "other receptacles" provision. That would not come into play for the 15 and 20 amp circuits in a home.

I'm with you on that one Glenn. I don't get it either. After gfretwell posted a code blurb, I went looking for it. Attachment plug is mentioned 254 times in the NEC so it took a couple of minutes and there it was. Big as life and a stupid idea. We haven't enforced it that way.....ever.....that could change. I'm going to keep this quiet for as long as I can.

 

[Glenn]

BSSTG. I totally agree. My teaching of the code does not reflect my opinion of whether the code is just or not. That's not the place for it. I work with a lot of contractors across the country and you wouldn't believe what some code administrators are requiring. It's sad really. They get excited to make people do a service change for a receptacle.

IRC 2009:

E3902.12 Arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection. All branch circuits that supply 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20- ampere outlets installed in family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreations rooms, closets, hallways and similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a combination type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.

Exceptions: I'm not typing those out.

ADDED IN THE 2012 IRC AND THE 2011 NEC:

E3902.13 Arc-fault circuit interrupter protection for branch circuit extensions or modifications. Where branch circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended in any of the areas specified in Section E3902.12, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:

1) A combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit

2) An outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit.

In my experience, most folks would simply tap into a receptacle inside the room the new deck serves. That room is most often going to be one of the rooms above. If you have to disconnect a receptacle outlet to access the box for the outlet, inside the family room, to "modify" and "extend" the circuit in that room so that it reaches a new outlet outside...it's going to be hard to say that you didn't modify the circuit in that room.

If this is what you are referring to, I completely concede that folks may interpret this differently. That, however, is not a case of right/wrong. It's the issue of what does "modify, replace or extend wiring 'in' a room" mean? NOTE: It does not refer to an "outlet" when talking about the modification, extension or replacement. Rather the subject of the "modification, replacement or extension" is "WIRING". I did not write the sentence that way. But I do read it that way. The "wiring" is indeed being modified and extended "in" that room if you are running new wire from that room out to another location.

I'm not saying I like it. I'm saying this is what deck builders are dealing with. Deck builders are finding their business turned upside down by code in the 2009 and 2012.

Why do you think I talk about the multi-level deck NOT being "three" decks and does not require "three" outlets... Seems like common sense, doesn't it. It's because I work with hundreds of deck builders across the country in my work as the Technical Advisor to NADRA. I have already had members tell me some $%#@ inspectors are doing that. REQUIRING a receptacle on each level of a multi-level deck. Absurd. I try to teach what the code says and put as much "intent and purpose" as I can in to explain it. Sometimes....its very hard...and I'm stuck just saying what the words say.

The words refer to "wiring"

In my research of why AFCI's are growing in the code, I am left with the intent is to slowly get the whole home AFCI protected (and sell a lot of expensive devices). Look at how ACFI already eased in, starting from bedrooms only. With that understanding of why AFCI's are required, the intent seems clear to me (like it or not). If you meddle with a branch circuit...you better AFCI protect it. This is what many professionals are requiring, so I chose to make it clear the ramifications of that choice in my video.

 

[Glenn]

It started with making a video and got worse from there.You fabricated code.

Post #6 #9 spelled it out. I can't explain it any better than that.

Nice.

I've explained myself clearly, and it's not about trying to add "decks" to the list. It's about extending a circuit to a new receptacle. The way it commonly got done.

Run a new circuit, and NO, AFCI is not required. However, that has not been industry standard. I presume you feel the information in the video is misleading, and I will see if I can be more clear for the next recording. Thank you for your feedback.

I will concede the last word to you, as I wipe the mud off my face. I am sure you will have another friendly comment to make to me. This is my last time to engage with you.

Please have a nice Sunday.

 

[ICE]

The IRC electrical codes are just a pirating of the NEC. Same provisions.

Doggone Glenn, you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Unless it's on a theater marquee, the word pirates has a negative connotation. The ICC is stodgy.

E3902.13 Arc-fault circuit interrupter protection for branch circuit extensions or modifications. Where branch circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended in any of the areas specified in Section E3902.12, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:1) A combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit

2) An outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit.

What do you think of the red stuff? Is the deck in any of the areas specified in E3902.12? And wowzer! The IRC IS different from the NEC

There would be the option to use a device-type of AFCI on the first receptacle outlet.

Are they legal per the NEC? The whole IRC Electrical code should be kept under wraps.

This is my last time to engage with you.

Why spurn such a resource? Was it something I said?

Sometimes it's just too damned easy.

Please have a nice Sunday.

I work for the government, It's still Saturday here.