It is a very common practice around here to have a blank cover for the lighting outlet, even on a $800,000 house.
Is an electrical inspector correct for asking that a lighting fixture (or lampholder) be installed at lighting outlets where they exist instead of a blank cover, such as in a kitchen or bathroom, or in any other location before allowing occupancy?
Although it's as tacky as it can be, I agree that by definition, the outlet is required, but the utilization equiptment (the light in this case)isn't. Having argued the technicality of the NEC, I'd always install a light, even if only an open-bulb plastic light (75 cents?). I wouldn't want to loose a customer over a few dollars.
#90099 - 10/31/0410:26 PMRe: Final Electrical Inspection Includes Completion
George, are you saying you would fail a final if there was a burned out bulb?
#90103 - 11/01/0411:57 AMRe: Final Electrical Inspection Includes Completion
It's pretty common in the Denver area as well. Here is the scenario: Family room,(Or other room)has switched receptacle to meet the intent of the code. Then a switch and lighting opening are roughed in for a ceiling fan and it is an option to either hang a builder furnished fan at the time the home is built or have a blank installed for installation at a later point. In this situation I would rather see a blank plate than a keyless.
#90104 - 11/01/0401:29 PMRe: Final Electrical Inspection Includes Completion
Well I can see both sides of this one.We regularly have a blank where additional fans lights maybe installed at home owners leisure.But in most cases there`s some source of lighting to meet code.Because they won`t pass off on blank cover say in kitchen.Sometimes we get by with the over sink light.I mean everyone knows a nice light will be installed but I guess is it installed properly and by whom could be the question