# 2010 CEC - wackiness



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Doing some light reading of the 2010 (effective 2011) california electrical code. (2008 with revisions....)

One of the revisions:


210.50 CEC said:


> _(E) [DPH __w/ exceptions] Installation Height. The center of 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacle outlets required by sections 210-_
> 52 _(A), (B), and (C) *shall be installed not less than *_*12 *_*inches above the floor or working platform.*_​
> 
> _Exception No.1: Receptacle outlets installed as part of permanently installed baseboard heaters are exempt._
> ...


Does this mean - *no baseboard outlets anymore?*​ 
If so....​ 

*COOOL!!!* :thumbsup:​


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

e57 said:


> Doing some light reading of the 2010 (effective 2011) california electrical code. (2008 with revisions....)
> 
> One of the revisions:
> 
> ...


Yes maybe in the next code they will make the minimum hight 48":thumbup::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

e57 said:


> Does this mean - *no baseboard outlets anymore?*​
> If so....​
> 
> *COOOL!!!* :thumbsup:​


I don't see that as meaning no baseboard outlets. I see it as meaning the minimum height requirement is exempt in those cases. Is this an ADA rule?


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I don't see that as meaning no baseboard outlets. I see it as meaning the minimum height requirement is exempt in those cases. Is this an ADA rule?


ADA is 15" CL ???? Changes from time to time as to how written...

This is a minimum hieght where none existed before - to add to 210.52 - which specifically covers dwellings.... (Where it should have been inserted IMO) I guess if the baseboard is >15" you might be able to get them in???


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

E57, am I seeing things or did they actually add something to the code that makes our life easier. After all the stupid things California has added to the code in that last few years, this is something that I can enjoy saying "sorry madam, code won't let us do that".

*Dude that is Awsome.* :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

I concur.

That is awesome. 

Mainly because I hate cutting in baseboard receps.

I'm doing a job right now where this revision could be helpful.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

IMO, this is stupid. It is a design issue, not a safety issue,
and one more example of the CA govt poking its nose where
it doesn't belong. We will be bankrupt shortly due to a
government that does way more than is affordable or makes
sense.

All this bureaucracy simply makes us (at least) one code cycle
than the rest of the country, and unemployment higher than
the rest of the country due to overregulation.

Just saying.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

Rudeboy said:


> I concur.
> 
> That is awesome.
> 
> ...


 
Me too, I have a new house going right now that has most of the receptacles in the baseboards also. The worst of it is the concrete stem wall comes up higher then the recepticle boxes, so we had to block out the forms before the foundations were poured, lots of fun. Thankfully it apears like there will be no more of that. YAA, and let me say again *that is awesome.*


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

I actually mostly agree with you guys, but am just being a devils advocate.

I live in a 100 year-old house, and in the rooms that have original trim,
most of the receptacles are in the baseboard trim. They were cut in
recently, after the fact, and IMO that is the best place for them aesthetically,
as well as practically, since woodlath/plaster doesn't have to be broken
to add them.

If someone wanted to reproduce that look in newly remodeled rooms,
why should that be a CODE violation? This seems ridiculous.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

In the case of an old house I say you are spot on. But in new houses where they have 20 recess lights in each room and 50 switchs on the wall, well putting the plugs in the baseboard adds little to the look.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

acrwc10 said:


> In the case of an old house I say you are spot on. But in new houses where they have 20 recess lights in each room and 50 switchs on the wall, well putting the plugs in the baseboard adds little to the look.


You have a good point; in new houses (some/many/most) people
get carried away with the number of openings and locations.

IMO, you are all spot-on from a design point of view, but my opinion is that
this kind of decision does not belong in what is essentially a fire/safety code.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

acrwc10 said:


> E57, am I seeing things or did they actually add something to the code that makes our life easier. After all the stupid things California has added to the code in that last few years, this is something that I can enjoy saying "sorry madam, code won't let us do that".
> 
> *Dude that is Awsome.* :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


If I get the accronym right it is the Dept. of Public Heath who added it - which may have been a compromis in some other code change some other dope wanted - who knows it could have been worse....

But - I too hate being that low to the floor...



rexowner said:


> IMO, this is stupid. It is a design issue, not a safety issue,
> and one more example of the CA govt poking its nose where
> it doesn't belong. We will be bankrupt shortly due to a
> government that does way more than is affordable or makes
> ...


Is an an example of over regulation? Could have been a compromise from 15"-18" (ADA)



rexowner said:


> I actually mostly agree with you guys, but am just being a devils advocate.
> 
> I live in a 100 year-old house, and in the rooms that have original trim,
> most of the receptacles are in the baseboard trim. They were cut in
> ...


I too think the madating this - well BOGUS! Since you may no longer keep the character of your home in remodels...


----------



## JohnR (Apr 12, 2010)

Seems like floor outlets are no longer allowed either with that code.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

JohnR said:


> Seems like floor outlets are no longer allowed either with that code.


 
There is an exception for floor outlets, but seeing as I also can't stand floor outlets, because no one seems to use them after they piss and moan about getting them in the exact location and they take 10 times longer to install then any other outlet. I hope they are banned too. While we are at it I wish they would ban puck lights, they suck to install. Now that the CEC is a "design manual" and not just a code book, we should have them add no more ________________, (just fill in the blank with what you don't like) and then we can tell the customer "sorry I can't do that, it is not allowed by code." 

Well after all that is said, I will bet this code section is not inforced. Just like Ca. passed a law saying all building dept. must have an ADA certified inspector on staff by 2012. Well all the local building dept. said  we can't afford it and are not going to do it. That would have made a hell of a lot more sense then "all recepticles must be 12'' AFF" because there are many buildings that don't comply with ADA codes due to the fact no one knew what was required at plan review. Then they get built and some lawyer comes in and files a law suit against the building owner, who is ultimately responcible and has to pay a settlement and tear out and fix the violation.


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

*Dph*

After all that, the section is a "DPH" provision and will not affect 99.9% of the installations. "Dept. of public health" if it was "BSC" Then it would apply to us. I knew it sounded to good to be true.:laughing:



Originally Posted by *210.50 CEC* 
_
(E) [DPH w/ exceptions] Installation Height. The center of 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacle outlets required by sections 210-
52 (A), (B), and (C) *shall be installed not less than **12 **inches above the floor or working platform.*​

Exception No.1: Receptacle outlets installed as part of permanently installed baseboard heaters are exempt.
Exception No.2: Required receptacle outlets shall be permitted in floors when adjacent to sliding panels or walls.
Exception No.3: Baseboard electrical outlets used in relocatable partitions, window walls or other electrical convenience floor outlets are not subject to the minimum height requirements.​_


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

acrwc10 said:


> After all that, the section is a "DPH" provision and will not affect 99.9% of the installations. "Dept. of public health" if it was "BSC" Then it would apply to us. I knew it sounded to good to be true.:laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So in canada it is illegal to install receptacles in wide baseboards to achieve the historical look?


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Unless it has to do directly with earthquakes, the dry soil conditions, or the gardener making electrical repairs, the CEC should SFU.


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Shockdoc said:


> So in canada it is illegal to install receptacles in wide baseboards to achieve the historical look?


Canada?!? :blink:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Shockdoc said:


> So in canada it is illegal to install receptacles in wide baseboards to achieve the historical look?


I know we make fun of Canada a lot here but isn't calling them California just kinda low? 


:laughing:


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> I know we make fun of Canada a lot here but isn't calling them California just kinda low?
> 
> 
> :laughing:


Yeah.... :whistling2:


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

Shockdoc said:


> So in canada it is illegal to install receptacles in wide baseboards to achieve the historical look?


NO, AFAIK Canada's only receptacle height requirement in a 
residence is for an electric range (Section 26-744, subrules 4 and 5;
Canadian Electrical Code, 2009), and that is <= 130mm. 



> 26-744 Supply connections for appliances
> (1) Electric heating and cooking appliances shall have only one point of connection for supply.
> (2) Where an electric clothes dryer having an input in excess of 1500 W at 115 V but not exceeding 30 A
> is intended to be installed in a dwelling unit, a receptacle of CSA Configuration 14-30R, as shown in
> ...


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

This thread sure (as Bugs Bunny would say) "took a wrong turn at Albacurky" and wound up in Canada some how. The problem with Canada "to many hosers". The problem with California, our legislators, What a group of crack heads.:whistling2:


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

acrwc10 said:


> After all that, the section is a "DPH" provision and will not affect 99.9% of the installations. "Dept. of public health" if it was "BSC" Then it would apply to us. I knew it sounded to good to be true.:laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So how do you figure it does not apply???



> *
> [SFM]​*_​_​​​​This symbol identifies which State agency(s), by its "acronym", has amended a section of the model code. For a complete listing of the State agency acronyms, see the Application Section within Chapter 1.​


if it only apllies one place over another please let me know - and how to tell it isn't - Since BSA adopted the whole chapter and ammendments as far as I know.... ( to include this BS)


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

*California Matrix Adoption Tables*​ 

The agencys that adopt them put an X in the box. I would copy the whole page but it doesn't want to print the table so you need to look at the book. :blink: clear as mud.
Because the section say's DPH right in front of it, only that agency inforces it. You will see it through the whole book where only one agency like OSHPD has enforcement of that code.​


----------



## e57 (Jun 5, 2009)

acrwc10 said:


> *California Matrix Adoption Tables*​
> 
> 
> The agencys that adopt them put an X in the box. I would copy the whole page but it doesn't want to print the table so you need to look at the book. :blink: clear as mud.
> ...


You - like I - may have to deal with them wacky SF inspectors - the ones who enforce that 5' from shower OSHA switch and recept stuff - so... what do you say to them????


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

e57 said:


> You - like I - may have to deal with them wacky SF inspectors - the ones who enforce that 5' from shower OSHA switch and recept stuff - so... what do you say to them????


When in SF, I always have my code book sitting there at inspection. This way I can say, "show me". Second thing is I leave it where they can see it right when they walk in, and they know they are going to be taken to task if they call some Bull Sh--.


----------



## wayne g (Nov 28, 2010)

Ct is under the 2005 NEC, wiring $300,000.00 per condo sub division has all duplex receptacles located only in the living rooms cut into the baseboard.
This installation in CT is legal. Not sure of the 2011 code and do not even have a copy quite yet.


----------

