In the case of dwelling unit dinning rooms where 210.52[B],1 Exception 1, refers to 210.70[A],1 Exception, which states "In other than kitchen and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled from a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets". Wouldn’t the term "in lieu of" indicate that these switched receptacles are only allowed in place of lighting outlets, but not in addition to, meaning, either one or the other, but not both? This would of course be in addition to the one or more 20A small appliance branch circuits mentioned in 210.52 [B],1 and not included in the required receptacle spacing in 210.52[A],1.
The opening of that section (210.70) refers to one or more wall switch controlled lighting outlets. Please note that there is no limit on the number of lighting outlest, or the number of wall switches.
Likewise, in no place does the NEC define a switched receptacle as a "lighting outlet." The exception simply says that such a receptacle MAY be considered as a lighting outlet.
As for your second contention, a minor change in the 2008 language addresses this point. That is, IF you are counting that receptacle as one required by spacing, then you can switch only one half of that duplex receptacle. Otherwise, an additional receptacle would be needed.
I agree that one or more is allowed, but was merely asserting that the wording could have been better, maybe something like "in lieu of or in addition to the one or more required lighting outlets..." What I don’t understand is why the NEC is so adamant about having that 20A small appliance branch circuit with other outlets and not allowing it to be switched to control lighting, but will allow a 15A general-purpose branch circuit to be used for both receptacles and in place of lighting outlets in a dinning room. Maybe they just thought it would be a good way to double up on AFCI sales.
Kjay,I read this, as long as you have met the SABC req. in 210.11(c)(1),210.52(A)(1) & 210.52(B)(1). Your good to go,add as many switched rec. as you want on a general purpose ckt.
-IF you are counting that receptacle as one required by spacing, then you can switch only one half of that duplex receptacle. -
Where is this? I've looked.A switched receptacle is still a receptacle. However 210.11(C)(1) & 210.52(A)(1) have to be met first.So I don't see where spacing would come into play. 210.70(A)(1) deals solely with 'Lighting outlets'.
That the NEC is a grammatical horror is no surprise. What do you expect from a bunch of engineers playing at being lawyers? Or, for that matter, silken tongued manufacturers' lobbyists attempting to 'tweak' the code to favor their products?
Yet, all of the matters you raise predate the AFCI silliness. If you're saying that the NEC crossed over into design work with the kitchen small appliance circuit requirements, you may be correct.
Remember that the separation of lighting circuits from convenience receptacle circuits is also a trade practice, and not a code requirement.
It is funny, though, the conventions we get used to. For example it is written nowhere that bedrooms and kitchens get ceiling lights, while the living room uses table lamps; yet, that is exactly how 90% of our homes are arranged.
The thing that I find strange is that for years, we’ve been told that all dinning room, kitchen and pantry receptacles had to be on one or more 20A SABC’s with no other outlets, because of concern over the heavier loads associated with cord and plug connected small appliances used in these areas. Then they allow the use of receptacles fed from a 15A general purpose branch circuit to be installed in place of lighting outlets and also allow them to be used as general-purpose receptacles as long as only one-half of each duplex is switched. I just can’t see that the homeowner is going to care, as to which circuit is which when he’s plugging something in.
So, I guess it seems that as far as the NEC is concerned anyway, I could install one dinning room receptacle from a 20A SABC, and then wire the rest of my dinning room receptacles in 14/2 on a 15A circuit, as long as I switch one-half of each of the duplex receptacles, maintain spacing requirements and have AFCI’s on both branch circuits. Seems like a giant step backward to me, but I suppose the upside to this is that I could save money by not using so much 12/2 NM.
You're making things harder than they have to be ...
You need switch half of only one receptacle to meet the 'lighting outlet' requirement. The dining room you mention is the only instance where the 'no other loads' issure might arise; in other instances, the lighting outlet can quite happily be on the same circuit as the rest of the receptacles.
As for extending the small appliance circuits into the dining room, well, that's another discussion. I don't want to go off on that tangent.
"Sharing" a duplex receptacle this way is also only an issue if you are trying to instal the absolute minimum number of receptacles. The issue goes away completely if you instal an additional receptacle. I daresay that these conundrums only arise if you're trying to use the NEC as a design manual ... see Article 90 for a caution against that!
Which, of course, again brings us up against 'professional judgement..' You're being paid to think - not just check off the boxes!
I think back to the home I grew up in, and I can't imagine any food serving equipment being set there. In that house, extending a kitchen circuit into the formal dining room made no sense at all.
Fast-forward to a "McMansion" I recently visited. This place had "Butlers' pantry," "breakfast nook," "bar," "island," and "craft" area adjacent to the kitchen, all in a manner that encouraged them to be used as part of food serving and preparation. Add to that a kitchen counter design that, despite the 14 ft. length, allowed only one receptacle. I'd defy anyone to confine the "kitchen" circuits to the kitchen proper!
Indeed, looking at home design trends, it almost seems that architects are deliberatley designing homes to confound code definitions. Again, that's a topic for another thread; let's just say that no rule book can be a substitute for good design.
Well... I see where your coming from, but everything else aside, what I’m attempting to do is set up a hypothetical minimum code compliant installation for these areas and without confusing or interchanging the application of lighting outlets with receptacle outlets. I guess what I am driving at is that it seems in kitchens, pantries and dinning rooms, where all wall and floor receptacle outlets are required to be supplied by the one or more 20A SABC’s, the exception that allows one or more switched receptacles supplied from any 15A general purpose branch circuit to be used in lieu of a lighting outlets, could also be considered as meeting the requirements for receptacle outlet spacing if they were only one-half switched, as is often done. With the receptacle outlet spacing requirement being met by these half-switched receptacles supplied from a general purpose 15A branch circuit, wouldn’t this seemingly negate the need to further extend the 20A SABC beyond the first receptacle outlet, such as in a dinning room, effectively bypassing the requirement that all receptacle outlets serving these areas be on at least one of the required 20A SABC’s? Obviously, this is inadequate and I’m sure none of us would do this, but wouldn't this be a bare minimum code compliant installation?
Then again, if true, this could make that next lowball bid just that much harder to beat!