Another thread, about switch legs, brought up the old issue of 'code minimum' vs. 'design.' Maybe we need to think about that again.

How often does someone tell you they ;just want what the code requires?' How often do you find yourself arguing that something 'meets code?' Or, that 'code allows' something? Why, I ask, is there all this focus on "code?"

That one must follow the law is assumed. Yet, simply not having any electric work done at all will 'meet code.' I don't think we really want our customers to make that choice!

Conversely, we're often cast as the 'bad guy' when our 'customer' isn't the guy who actually has to live with our installation. Receptacle in a bad spot? Well, the GC we were hired by didn't ask / care / know what the homeowner wanted. Or, the 'manager' who hired us didn't have the least interest in the cares of those who would actually sit in the office we remodeled - how were we to know that the file cabinet would go in front of the switch? Or that something would block the occupancy sensor?

Future needs is another concern. Code makes no allowance - does that mean we should also ignore the topic? Are we simply traind chimps with tool belts, doing simply what we're told?

This is not only an academic discussion. It goes to the heart of our jobs, and the role the NEC plays in them. The past several code editions have made many 'design' choices for us - sometimes directly, and sometimes 'steering us' in certain directions. (For example, who ever separated bedroom circuits from the rest of the house, before the NEC mandated AFCI's for bedrooms?)

Let the discussion begin.

Reno:
I'll start only on this comment...

"That one must follow the law is assumed. Yet, simply not having any electric work done at all will 'meet code.'"

For resi, how can 'not doing any electric work' possibly fly? You can't do an addition (habitable space) without the 'minimum' NEC required receptacles, and a lighting outlet controlled by a switch, and possibly smoke detectors. Can you 'finish' a basement without required wiring?

Receptacle locations are usually installed at 'code' required spacing, and anything 'additional' goes back to design intent, as we see in a 'basic' SFD or in multi family condos/apts/townhouses, etc.

Comm is another issue, as we all know the 'plain vanilla box' routines.

As to office finishes not being compatable with the electrical device locations, that is 100% design.

Reno, I'm not sure what your point is. There absolutely are code minimum resi designs out there. I've wired lots of 'em, and while I don't like them I do not consider it my job to change them all once it has been clearly established that they exist on purpose. I don't think that makes me a trained monkey.
Some future capacity is mandated. Everything else that you insist on for the future of unknown owners and tenants is either going to be installed by you for free, or agreed to before you put it in. Thats life, thats business. I didn't become an electrician to save the world.

An engineer explained it like this: An airplane is designed to 110% of expected load. The construction is closely monitored and regular maintenance has to be done. However, buildings are designed to 200% or more of expected load. Then, if the construction crew does half a job, it will still hold up.

The electrical code is well above 100% of expected load. Look at the insulation on wire. It has a temperature rating. I'm certain that I've never felt a conductor anywhere near it's design temperature. Code minimum already provides leeway for poor installation.

Some electrical engineers spec #12 wire for fire alarms. Try pulling a device out of the box with four #12 wires on it! We (Canada) must leave 6 inches of conductor in a box. Why not improve on that and leave a couple feet? More isn't better.

The code is based on engineering and experience. Code isn't minimum. Code is simply correct.

twh:

"The code is based on engineering and experience. Code isn't minimum. Code is simply correct."

I agree with your comment, but there are some instances where 'minimum' is code. It all depends on who is reading the 'code' and what that persons definitions for the word 'minimum' are.

And, yes, in some instances, more is definitely not better.

It sometimes seems to me, when reading things here at ECN from far away across the Atlantic, that in some respects with your Code the tail is waving the dog. I can see that the electrical supply has to be regulated safe, fit for purpose and built to minimise risk. But what logic dictates that receptical numbers, spacing, heights etc. have anything to do protecting consumers, apart from easing their bad backs and maximising the number of appliances they can use all at once? Don't get me wrong, living in a Country with a bad cavalier attitude to risk, [ "You built a house, it fell over, what's that got to do with me?"] I often wish we had more logic thinking applied to building construction.

Alan:
Receptacle spacing in resi is 'code' so that no receptacle is greater than 6' from any point on a wall, and any wall 24" or greater has a receptacle. Basis is lamp type cords are 6' in length, and the spacing eliminates (reduces) the use of extension cords.

The counter top in kitchens is 4; spacing, as most appliances have 2' cords, and required recepts on both sides of sinks prevents cords in the sink.

I could go on-and-on as to why, but the 'code' is the code, and we have to enforce it and/or live with it.

I'm glad we have a discussion started - that was my desire ... rather than to air any particular gripe.

Alan, I think you hit the nail on the head- when you use the code to determine the design, it's the tail waving the dog.

HotLine, you brought up a good example to make my case: receptacle spacing. Strict adherence to the code rule - using your tape measure to carefully space your receptacles exactly 12-ft from each other - will nearly always result in the receptacle being placed dead-center behind the couch or the bed. For those who remember the introdiction of the AFCI, it was the 'extension cord pinched by furniture' that was the original reason we 'needed' this new technology.

Sure. placing the receptacle behind the bed 'meets code' - but don't you think that, perhaps, we'd be better off placing the receptacles somewhere else?

I can use my screwdriver as a punch or pry bar. Ever notice that Klein ("The best in the world") will not honor their warranty if there's evidence of such use? It's their position that you have abused the tool, used it as it was never intended.

Ditto for the code. Right in the beginning it says it's not a design manual. Why do we let it be used as one? Why do customers tolerate it? After all, the housewife won't tolerate a styrofoam countertop - even if it 'meets code.'

As for the code being 'simply correct:' I'm not sure I understand that response. It has been my observation that while good design invariably meets code, 'code minimum' is rarely good design. Do you disagree?

I don't think anyone here believes code minimum is good design. The problem is we, as a society, have decided price is more important than quality. If you can't turn that corner with your customer, the guy down the street will beat your bid every time but in the end the customer will not be as happy, so your job is to explain the difference.
Believe it or not, I think most customers will spring for the extra bucks if they understand what they are getting for the extra money.
Things like a few extra receptacles or an extra 3 way switch or two are insignificant in the price of a $200,000 house but they make a lot of difference in the enjoyment of living in that house.
The builder should walk the house with the customer before the drywall goes up and talk about each room. (where do you think the furniture will go, how will you use this room etc) That is the last easy chance to fix design flaws or just personalize the home to the home owner. The original plan should have already taken into account door swings and convenient outlet placement. This is just the last easy chance to fix things.

My experience is limited to commercial.

For our jobs, Code minimum work is rarely acceptable. The Contract specifies wire sizes beyond the Code, etc.

-------

Out in California, Title 24 supersedes the Code -- and it's growing like cancer.

-------

Ten years ago I had the displeasure to completely renovate a 1927 office tower downtown. My genius boss always stayed with copper and 2" EMT unless otherwise specified for feeders. (200A 3-phase)

This being his first (and only) high-rise it was news to him that copper feeders can only dangle so far until they reach support. Since the verticals had already been installed (and encased in concrete) the solution was Aluminum.

Fortunately his (4) feeder runs to the roof had been mis-calculated. He'd wildly over-sized the neutrals and wildly under-sized the bonding conductors. So the EMT was big enough to tolerate Aluminum.

When the bill came in he was $6,000 UNDER budget on the wire. (Remember what prices were?)

Overnight, he informed all of his foremen to upsize all underground feeders from now on: Aluminum to be used whenever the contract permitted.

(Albertson's accepts Aluminum feeders for all but motor circuits.)

This is but one example of how Code minimum thinking is ruinous.

----

As for the residential practice of routing the most complexity into the overhead/fan boxes -- I'd hate to have to correct any circuit faults there!

In my world, I attempt to keep high junction boxes as simple as possible. I also favor generous gutters. The labor drain and high danger of working in packed gutters makes them losers. (I've seen guys knocked out by a sweet jolt of 277V -- the can was a nasty ball of connections -- and he had to brace himself against the strut rack to work it. Talk about well grounded, through the heart!)

Reno:
Sounds like we may need a furniture placement 'code'?

Seriously, a resi buyer should 'walk' the structure before the 'roughs' of all trades, but that's in a perfect world.

Should the EC of the job talk to the buyer (with the builders permission) and up-sell the job? I sure would hope so; and that should solve the 'added' receptacles, lights, switches, appliance feeds, jacuzzis, and all the other toys.

As an AHJ, the required items must be installed for me to pass a rough.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be any receptacles behind furniture. In reality, specially with rooms larger than a broom closet, no matter how carefully the original layout has been planned, eventually some pieces of furniture will end up in front of one or more receptacle(s). Even if in a total renovation or new construction the customer already planned the whole furniture layout in advance (which is not all that likely), it will very likely change at some point in the future.
What we can do is supply enough receptacles to make sure that at least some of them will (hopefully) stay accessible in the future. However, that's a design choice between the person who is going to live there and the EC. If the EC works for a developer, landlord or whatever absentee owner who will only pay for minimum work, minimum is what we can do. We can pity the future buers or tenants, but that's it.

And its not only receptacles that get hidden behind furniture. Try looking for phone and cable jacks in some houses.

For some reason my living room phone baseboard jack is dead center on the wall behind my couch.

It does align nicely with the stud bay that the kitchen wall phone jack is on though.

The electrician is the last to be asked, and then only because the light fixtures are on back order. After the money is all spent on HVAC, woodwork, carpets etc. do they ask about the wiring. Code minimum means that you only need one wall switch in a room regardless of the number of doors and size of the room. I remember the arguement about the receptacle in a hallway. One contractor was losing bids because he included them and they weren't required. The electrical trade has to start selling up their jobs.
The customer needs to decide if they want the bare bones, you won't be happy with this, verses the options that make life comfortable.
I'm still waiting for electricians to get into the maintainence contracts with home owners that the other trades are using. Once or twice a year, test all GFI's AFCI's, smoke detectors, and replace burned out bulbs.
Depending on the size of the house charge for two hours of service work and schedule it for your slow times.
If the devices don't work offer to replace at their special discounted price because they are on the contract.
While you're at it ask the bank why the HVAC guy and the roofing or siding guy can get the bank to finance the project , but won't help a homeowner on the cost of a rewire ?
I appologize for the length, but in a quarter century I haven't seen any change in the way electricians are doing business except to get cheaper and then wonder why they don't make any money.
Sell up or you will always be down.

The banks consider an upgrade in HVAC to be an improvement. Out my way the H/O gets a Federal tax credit for such.

Our craft is stuck with being considered a repair or a frivolous 'improvement' that uses even more juice.

Obviously, light bulbs make lousy collateral.

And who could forget that our best work is buried. Such is our trade craft.

It's a no win game. Even if you you perfectly customize the electrical to the current owner the next one will come along and assume your a moron for the way you placed things.

The first custom I was responsible for was tailored to exact specs working closely with the owner. It took forever and my boss wanted to know why I was trying to ruin the company by dragging the job out so long.

As it turns out, some years later they sold that house and the new owners call an electrician who happens to be me.
After much explaining myself and delicately stepping around the fact that is was the former owner and not me who is the moron, I was finally allowed to help in the kitchen remodel. The last thing---the floor plug in the concrete slab is in the "wrong" place. It's about 6" "too far forward" to be hidden properly under their couch.
"Could you move the couch forward 6"? "-----"Oh no, that wouldn't look right."

I'm no fan of coercion but I have to say that "code minimum" probably is the only thing that makes some houses livable to future owners.

Reno:
Just thought I'd throw this in the mix....

Current condo complex (10 bldgs, 22 units each, 5 distinct models in each bldg), pricing from $350k to $450k. Builders concept is "all inclusive"!

The whole project is 'code' recepts, 'code' lighting, 'code' kitchen, etc. NO "extras" offered or allowed.

The townhomes that are in the same complex (15 bldgs' 6 to 8 units each) are 'code' also!

Site was started in mid '07 and on last two condo bldgs as we speak. This is a major national builder & 'code' works for them.

And don't forget about the one's who hold a serious grudge with you personally for "ruining" the look of their painstakingly selected and very intricate tile back splash with all of those annoying required small appliance receptacles. Or marring the look of the look of the kitchen island (and the inside of it too) with the required receptacles in it and the necessary boxes and conduit.

And then there are the hours spent, going hoarse at times, explaining why we here in CA have to decide for the owner what type of lighting they are allowed to use and where, where oc sensors have to go and under what conditions, and where they must install dimmers whether they want to pay for one or not. And of course they still don't understand when you are done and "illegal" fixtures show up and must be taken back.

ChicoC:
Yes, the Golden State is way, way ahead of us here in NJ. Energy Code is sitting on the horizon electrically speaking. Rumors on the street are leaning toward 'coming soon'.

Here is my 2 cents on this. I was on a job years ago and wiring up a resi living room. There were 3 entrances to the room and the builder just wanted 1 switch to the room. I asked him if the HO wanted a 3 way. He said what is the Min. code and he just wanted 1 switch. Couple years later the HO asked me why I didn't put in a 3 way and the answer was that since I was working ( and paid) by the GC, I had to follow his orders. I asked the GC if I could ask the HO about the 3 way but was told I couldn't. The HO said that they wished the 3 way went in.

Of course, there is a difference between code minimum and bad judgment. I take it back about the code being right - at least it isn't always right.

I'm frustrated, though, by electricians who go over code where it isn't necessary and trash-talk me because I do my work differently. Those are just arbitrary rules some guy makes up as he goes along. It reminds me of the "Dukes of Hazzard" when the sheriff stands a speed sign up behind a tree. It just isn't fair.

This topic hit a little too close to home.

twh,

When I became an AHJ I told myself that I wasn't going to judge the EC jobs I see by what I use to do. If the job meets code, then so be it! I See too many times where the AHJ would criticize the EC for doing the work in their own way and not to what the AHJ likes. When you have 10 EC's they will do it maybe 10 different ways. If they all meet code they should all pass.
Going above and beyond the code is always welcome. The only bad thing I see about that is when a HO tries to compare 2 bids to a job. The HO might only look at the bottom line and not realize that EC # 1 is going above and beyond the code.

When I use to bid jobs, I would always bid it exactly to what the print said. Then I would also hand them another bid for the "Extras" that were needed in order to get the job passed. Many times Arch. people would forget to add HVAC units, recpt. in basement, or in front/back yards, etc.

We are quick to criticize someone who wastes natural resources - like water, gas, plastic or paper. Shouldn't we also fail the wire size that is too large as a waste of copper and the energy taken to mine, refine, manufacture and ship? Future generations might think so.

If you look at copper.org, they say using larger wire saves electricity. (less I2R losses)

In some ways, I'm almost glad that someone brought up "environmental" issues. While I don't intend to open the entire environmental debate here, you have opened the door to some other 'angles' to the 'code minimum' contradiction.

The first, most obvious point to make is that if we wanted to be 'energy efficient,' we wouldn't have so many square corners. Want greater comfort and lower HVAC bills? Restore vaulted ceilings; they allow for much better convection. Likewise, a lot of mold issues would be prevented with 'better than minimum' bath fans- and a vent in the door!

To return to an example cited earlier, that second light switch might mean more wire - but also means the light won't be left on nearly as often.

More basic, you bring into this discussion the interplay between the various codes. Especially with the introduction of 'energy codes,' knowing only the NEC simply isn't enough. "Bid to print" and you're setting the stage for quite a dispute when the electrical plans cause the HVAC to fail inspection.

I think it comes down to the 'golden rule:' He with the gold writes the rules. I suppose it's no surprise that GC's and developers want as little as possible; they won't be living there! The situation is only made worse by a legal climate that ensures that no reputable contractor will ever get involved in building tract homes.

That last part is critical; something as simple as the route a wire takes can make a huge difference to the ease with which later modifications are made.

One of the biggest problems I see when people up size the wire, is that they forget to up size boxes. I have seen HO's try to stick 3 #12/2 ga cables into a standard size (3" X 2" X 1-1/2") metal nail on box. Then they don't understand why they fail a job.