?
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Question:
Re: CQD answer published Tuesday, November 7, and Monday October 30, 2017 -
I am glad that this question has garnered conversation. In my discussions with my employees I also brought up this point to get them thinking on the subject. I thank you for posting the question for all the folks here.
As a follow up to the response printed Monday, 11/07/2017. The "what ifs" in the field are not dealt with in the code. There are plenty of "what ifs," e.g., what if the circuit breaker feeding the outdoor receptacle is off? They also will not have power at that outlet. This does not make it any less of an outlet. Because "Front and back of dwelling unit" 210.52(E) is a requirement that may also satisfy the required receptacle, this would be a leniency that would be code compliant. The same argument would be for a commercial building, multiple tenants, with a number of Roof Top HVAC Units and a single receptacle within 25 feet of all of them. The single receptacle is not required to be fed from any one particular tenant, rather it is the convenience receptacle that is needed without concern for who is paying for the electricity used at that receptacle. "Stealing" electricity to use for the servicing of a condenser unit does not seem to be an issue with the NEC. (Although they charge a lot for their code books it is not called "stealing.")
All the best, Jeff Glanstein
A
Answer:
Hey Jeff thanks for your comment, you have many good additional points. Sometimes the "what if's" are addressed but if you think the NEC is expensive check the prices of standards for other countries.