# New Deck Drives a Service Change



## Glenn (Nov 7, 2012)

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 (Nov 7, 2012)

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 (Nov 9, 2012)

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 (Nov 9, 2012)

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 (Nov 9, 2012)

codeworks said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 9, 2012)

> 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 (Nov 9, 2012)

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 (Nov 10, 2012)

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 (Nov 10, 2012)

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 (Nov 10, 2012)

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 (Nov 10, 2012)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 10, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 10, 2012)

> 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 (Nov 10, 2012)

Good grief.

:surr


----------



## ICE (Nov 10, 2012)

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 (Nov 11, 2012)

Greetings

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

BS


----------



## Glenn (Nov 11, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2012)

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 (Nov 11, 2012)

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 (Nov 11, 2012)

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 (Nov 11, 2012)

Glenn said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2012)

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 (Nov 11, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 11, 2012)

Glenn said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 11, 2012)

ALL:

I perhaps see where some misunderstanding is coming from.  This is the difficulty of working between so many code editions.  The requirement for AFCI on extending circuits is new in the 2011 NEC and 2012 IRC.  I did not make that clear in the video the way I did with the 20 sf threshold.

The above video states it is based on the 2009 and 2012 IRC.  I am adding some notes right now to the video to make it clear that the extension is only in the 2012 and 2011 codes.  I am also including the mention of a receptacle AFCI device that can be installed at the first receptacle.

NOTE:  See the every slow progress toward AFCI protection across the land...and why I interpret it like I have:

2005 NEC:  Bedrooms only

2008 NEC:  Now we expand it to a bunch of other rooms

2011 NEC:  Now we sneak it a little further and it applies to extension of circuits.

2014 NEC:  Do you think it will sneak a little further?  I hope not.

We should all live in dark caves.  Electricity is far to dangerous.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 11, 2012)

Glenn, 

JMHO if it's not a general introduction on receptacle placement the video may need to be produced or broken into parts i.e. part 1, part 2, etc., especially when numerous code sections need to be clarified as applicable. 

As does the Prescription Deck Construction Guide I suggest reference all the code sections as Jeff mentioned earlier in thread. 



The first disclaimer for example IMO depending on interpretation of AHJ the administrative section does not require existing buildings not being altered to have the receptacles installed with these types of additions. 



Receptacles where required are provided for convenience whereas illumination when stairs are included are required for safety. As presented in the video the trip hazards and dangers associated with the used of extension cords makes an argument for safety. However at the risk of unintended consequences of that interpretation one could bypass the receptacles; the deck could be built inches off the exterior wall with guard rails and thus the exterior wall is no longer serves the deck. Also one could in placed of the “other exterior doors” install a replacement sliding door for a deck that does not require a permit (200 sf. or less) and not have to install receptacles. In other words IMO the charging language for receptacles is for convenience not safety in regards to the administrative requirement for additions of decks, porches and balconies. Should a new room addition include the deck, porch or balcony then I would require the receptacle(s). 



I think the safety provisions for receptacles are the wiring and circuit requirements such as arc-fault, GFCI, covers, tamper-proof, etc.



I can also see where there could be need for clarification with deletion of the 200 sf. in the 2012 IRC; is it a landing and not a porch, deck or balcony? 



In the video example for a single receptacle to serve "multi-level" decks can be supported with the definition of story above grade.



It’s commendable to provide a video interpretation; U-tube is a sign of the times. And aware it takes considerable amount of time and research; and after all that is invested; there will be errors found, missing information and changes needed to further clarify. 



I've not read all the replies since yesterday; so this message may seem out of place.

Francis

*R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. *

_Additions,_ _alterations _or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated._ Additions,_ _alterations_ or repairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building.


----------



## codeworks (Nov 12, 2012)

the reason for my original post, thank you, bs. common sense aint to common these days .


----------



## jar546 (Nov 12, 2012)

Glenn said:
			
		

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


I don't like the word "pirating".  There was a combined effort between the ICC and the NFPA when this was done.  I still think they should have simply referenced to the NEC instead of rewriting it to "simplify" it for the IRC


----------



## jar546 (Nov 12, 2012)

102.7.1, gotta love that one.  Some interpret it to mean they don't have to do a damn thing or enforce a damn thing.  Not what it means.  Always an excuse for laziness though.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 12, 2012)

I actually didn't mean pirate in a negative way.  I guess I should have thought about Somalia before that selecting that choice of words.

I will be more careful in the future.  The NFPA has the history behind them for electrical codes and I do respect that.  I am wondering, however, the direction in which they are going.  Thus my reference to living in caves.


----------



## ICE (Nov 12, 2012)

Glenn said:
			
		

> I guess I should have thought about Somalia


That would've done it for me....or Johnny Depp

Now the NFPA being cavemen.....that's a tough one.  Thick eyebrows?  Pterodactyls?  Fred & Barney?  Oh I know, Geico.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 12, 2012)

Confirmed in my 2011 NEC Handbook today (it was at the office over the weekend)

NEC 2011: 210.12(B) is the same language as in the 2012 IRC.  Modify, extend or replace "wiring" within the listed room... you bought yourself AFCI protection.

We may not write it; we make not like it.


----------



## ICE (Nov 12, 2012)

> 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.


How did that happen when the misapplied code for that hasn't been adopted yet?


----------



## Glenn (Nov 12, 2012)

7-1-11  Colorado adoption date.  As well as a handful of other states over a year ago.

Mike Holt


----------



## BSSTG (Nov 12, 2012)

codeworks said:
			
		

> the reason for my original post, thank you, bs. common sense aint to common these days .


Amen brother

BS


----------



## ICE (Nov 12, 2012)

Glenn said:
			
		

> 7-1-11  Colorado adoption date.  As well as a handful of other states over a year ago.Mike Holt


Now I'm lost...doesn't Colorado follow the 2009 IRC with it's electrical code?  I don't know what is says so perhaps you can post it.

And now I'm found....as in I found this above:



> The above video states it is based on the 2009 and 2012 IRC. I am adding some notes right now to the video to make it clear that the extension is only in the 2012 and 2011 codes. I am also including the mention of a receptacle AFCI device that can be installed at the first receptacle.


You might show this to your inspector.  I wouldn't include the part about the receptacle AFCI device.  There's no sense in confusing him with stuff that hasn't been adopted yet.

How's that for some good news?


----------



## Glenn (Nov 13, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Now I'm lost...doesn't Colorado follow the 2009 IRC with it's electrical code?  I don't know what is says so perhaps you can post it.You might show this to your inspector.  I wouldn't include the part about the receptacle AFCI device.  There's no sense in confusing him with stuff that hasn't been adopted yet.
> 
> How's that for some good news?


Colorado is a home rule state, so each local jurisdiction can adopt it's own code.  However, the electrical code is established at the state level.  The date I posted is the date the 2011 NEC was adopted in CO.  The words "mike holt" in the previous post is a link to a website that shows all the state NEC adoptions.

I am sorry that I have thrown this whole topic of "receptacle on decks" into a whole different discussion about extensions of AFCIs circuits under a code that is not yet widely adopted.  That, and the construction at my house, were not really supposed to be the topic.  I used my current remodel as an example of how code can take a domino effect if not considered carefully.  However, this is my analysis of what is required by the code in my house.  I do not want to throw my friends in my local building department under the bus as has happened.  They did not make the call on me, I did.  The deck has indeed been built, and that is my old horrible service panel in the video, and the path of the code "from a deck to a service change" is a scary possibility for some (sans the use of the AFCI receptacle at the first receptacle).  I am still under construction too, as there is other remodeling taking place.  I admit it was a bit of a stretch how I presented it in my previous post.  I apologize for misleading.  It still is makes the point that the code is getting a bit of a long reach.

Did anyone notice that the 2008 NEC/2009 IRC only requires the receptacle on decks with 20 sf of "usable space", but that under the 2011/2012 ALL decks, porches and patios require one.  That is an example of how I believe it's getting ridiculous.  Notice the small little landing in my video...a receptacle...really?  For what?


----------



## Dennis (Nov 13, 2012)

Here is an Nema State Map as of today.  It gives a good idea of where everyone in the country is at.  It does not seem to get the local thing but it is pretty accurate.


----------



## Dennis (Nov 13, 2012)

BTW here is the pdf for that map.  *Click Here*


----------



## jar546 (Nov 13, 2012)

It does not matter who has adopted what code cycle because the code references are distinguished by year in the video and those that have those years adopted will know which apply.  I see no problem with the video as long as the code references are there.

Every code class that I have ever taken has had some controversial topics that appear to be more opinion of the instructor whether it was her/his pet peeve or her/his opinion of a gray area.  No code class is perfect but as long as the core information is there, the student can formulate his/her own opinion, and usually do.

Our industry is riddled with inconsistencies between inspectors and I see no change in sight anytime soon.  Just look at the arguments on this site over the same black and white code.

It is obvious to me that the OP is looking for feedback on this new material and he is getting it, like it or not.  It is important that as professionals we provide concise constructive criticism or ignore the thread.  If you don't have references to reply with, you are not helping the situation and turning a positive into a negative.  We are all here to learn.

And for the record, the OP contacted me privately to ask permission to do this.  Limits were discussed.  Enough said.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 13, 2012)

Thanks for the map post Dennis!


----------



## Dennis (Nov 13, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the map post Dennis!


 You're welcome.. I find it useful when responding to posts if you know where the OP lives.


----------



## ICE (Nov 13, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> We are all here to earn.


Here kitty, kitty...here kitty, kitty....nice kitty cat.... Yeouch....... damned cat


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Nov 13, 2012)

Glenn said:
			
		

> .  . . The NFPA has the history behind them for electrical codes and I do respect that.  I am wondering, however, the direction in which they are going. . .


On the other side I wonder how many will follow or enforce the code . . .

2011NEC 210.52(E)(3) Building Codes Forum

It seems there is a overlapping protection where an extension cord if used will be on an arc-fault circuit anyways.



Instigator

Francis


----------



## Glenn (Nov 13, 2012)

Thanks for the link to the other thread.  I am surprise how many folks agree with the removal of the size threshold.  It seems a lot of the argument is related to the precense of guards.  However, there is nothing in the code provision about guards.

Here is food for thought.

A small 4x4 elevated deck (like the one in my video) is providing one simple feature...it's a landing for the door and the stairs.  Yet I hear argument for it to have a receptacle...primarly due to the guards being there for holiday lights.

How is that different than a small 4x4 concrete stoop at a grade level door with a few steps off the front (as far as how it's written in the code).  Why wouldn't we call that a "patio" and require a receptacle "within the periphery" of the little concrete stoop.  Probably because we know it's only really serving as a landing.  Or should the receptacle still be provided?

Maybe the code should discuss the precense of gaurds, if that is the real issue on the small decks, porches and patios.


----------



## globe trekker (Nov 13, 2012)

Section E3801.7 in the 2006 IRC requires at least one receptacle at the front &

rear of the dwelling (presumably for convenience of the inhabitants use).

It doesn't say on the landing, ..but rather at the front & rear of the dwelling,

not higher than 6'-6" above grade.

.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 28, 2013)

There's FINALLY some good news for the decking industry...some "deregulation" of sorts.  It's time to update this video to the 2015 IRC now that the 2014 NEC is published!

This section has been modified to no longer require the outlet to be "within the perimeter" of the deck.  It merely has to be "accessible from" the deck.  It turns out that when they removed the 20 square foot threshold in the 2011 NEC, folks finally realized the unintended consequence of the decision.  Sometimes the door assembly on a small balcony takes up all the wall space.

Ahhh...but of course no new code language can come without new issues.  There's another little change to this section, and I can't say it was worded very well.

For reasons not explained in the "Analysis of Changes" document, this provision not only requires the deck to be "accessible" from the dwelling, but now it must also "attached".  Very dumb idea...

While I think they are intending to address a deck that is out in the middle of the yard and not "adjacent" the house, they've now connected the convenience of having a receptacle with the structural design of the deck.  Senseless....

I think "accessible from the house" took care of it just fine.  Little do electrical professionals realize (I presume) that two decks can be built to function identically, serve a door that is not the egress door, and one may be "attached" while the other is not.  That should have no bearing on the requirement for a receptacle...


----------

