# Inspector wants dedicated circuit for fridge??



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

I just had a rough inspection on a new house, its a HUD house and they wanted code minimum so i ran 1 15a circuit for the fridge, range hood, and a single ceiling fixture (max 2 60w lamps). Inspector failed me for it saying fridge needs its own circuit. The 2 SABCs are there, ive never heard of such a thing as a required fridge only circuit, just that it cant be on the SABC. im pretty sure its not in the code. its a easy fix, receptacle is 3' from the panel and im not going to make a fight out of it but i say BS. what do you guys say?


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

Fridges get dedicated circuits up here.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Read 210.52(B)(1) and 210.52(B)(2) ex 1&2 Hippie....~CS~


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

the refrigerator is allowed on the SABC


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

fridge CAN be on the sabc, but if it isn't then it can be on a dedicated 15 amp circuit minimum.

no other loads can be run off of that circuit. that's the problem you are running into


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

Cs says you are wrong and the inspector is right. CS is always right.


----------



## ablyss (Feb 8, 2014)

Hippie said:


> I just had a rough inspection on a new house, its a HUD house and they wanted code minimum so i ran 1 15a circuit for the fridge, range hood, and a single ceiling fixture (max 2 60w lamps). Inspector failed me for it saying fridge needs its own circuit. The 2 SABCs are there, ive never heard of such a thing as a required fridge only circuit, just that it cant be on the SABC. im pretty sure its not in the code. its a easy fix, receptacle is 3' from the panel and im not going to make a fight out of it but i say BS. what do you guys say?


what Drspec said


----------



## 3xdad (Jan 25, 2011)

What ablyss said.:thumbsup:


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

jza said:


> Fridges get dedicated circuits up here.


Except we can put a plug in clock on the circuit. 

PLUG IN CLOCK! :laughing:


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Except we can put a plug in clock on the circuit.
> 
> PLUG IN CLOCK! :laughing:


Ah yes, the old clock plug exception.

Thank God that remained in the 2012 version.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I've done the very same thing but it wasn't on a job that got inspected. :whistling2:


----------



## Nick0danger (Aug 19, 2012)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Except we can put a plug in clock on the circuit.
> 
> PLUG IN CLOCK! :laughing:


also has to be single recessed plug.


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

Nick0danger said:


> also has to be single recessed plug.


I have never in my life done a single recessed plug.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Except we can put a plug in clock on the circuit. PLUG IN CLOCK! :laughing:


Yup, a recessed clock receptacle is great. It can also be used for hanging pictures and having a light for the picture..










I have a few of these in my home. My wife likes to decorate.


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

drspec said:


> fridge CAN be on the sabc, but if it isn't then it can be on a dedicated 15 amp circuit minimum.
> 
> no other loads can be run off of that circuit. that's the problem you are running into


well dang looks like i was wrong lol.. thanks guys


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

Wirenuting said:


> Yup, a recessed clock receptacle is great. It can also be used for hanging pictures and having a light for the picture..
> 
> I have a few of these in my home. My wife likes to decorate.


thats the only thing ive ever used one for.. i dont think ive ever seen a plug in clock other than in school buildings


----------



## wcord (Jan 23, 2011)

FrunkSlammer said:


> I have never in my life done a single recessed plug.


used them on microwave shelves, when the customer buys a huge mic, and the cord pushes the unit out too far.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Hippie said:


> well dang looks like i was wrong lol.. thanks guys


Yes well, as you're shunned and flogged w/salt thrown in your wounds, just remember we've all been tied to the code whippin' post Hippie....~CS~


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Yes well, as you're shunned and flogged w/salt thrown in your wounds, just remember we've all been tied to the *code whippin' post* Hippie....~CS~


.......and a mighty post it is here at ET.:whistling2:


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

Ultrafault said:


> Cs says you are wrong and the inspector is right. *CS is always right.*



We need a ++unlike button on ET.


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

FrunkSlammer said:


> I have never in my life done a single recessed plug.



They are great for around Christmas time when you have run your light strings all backwards :whistling2:


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

five.five-six said:


> They are great for around Christmas time when you have run your light strings all backwards :whistling2:


thats an inlet not an outlet


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Hippie said:


> thats the only thing ive ever used one for.. i dont think ive ever seen a plug in clock other than in school buildings


At my old house there was a picture clock on out basement wall left by the former owners. It was above our old counsel TV. 
Behind that wall was our laundry furnace room.. One day out humidifier was leaking real bad, dumping water all over the flow and under the wall. I had a heck of a time squeezing behind the furnace and wall to cut and repair the water leak..

2 years later I took that ugly picture clock down as we were selling the house.. 
Wouldn't you know it, behind that dog ugly picture clock was a framed cut out thru the wall. It was there for repairing that darned humidifier..


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Yes well, as you're shunned and flogged w/salt thrown in your wounds, just remember we've all been tied to the code whippin' post Hippie....~CS~


as much as i hate being wrong im not afraid to admit it when i am. at least this inspector actually does his job, the reason i was so sure i was right this time is because i have gotten away with doing the exact same setup numerous times by the other inspector i deal with (FWIW hes an all in one everything inspector)

also honestly i never wired a house and did hardly any residential work at all before i started my business


----------



## five.five-six (Apr 9, 2013)

Hippie said:


> thats an inlet not an outlet


That all depends on how you wire it :whistling2:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

First thing I'd ask the expector (er, sorry........ INspector) for is a Code Reference backing up his requirement.


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

480sparky said:


> First thing I'd ask the expector (er, sorry........ INspector) for is a Code Reference backing up his requirement.


Come on 480 lighten up on the poor inspector. He is right at least.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Hippie said:


> as much as i hate being wrong im not afraid to admit it when i am. at least this inspector actually does his job, the reason i was so sure i was right this time is because i have gotten away with doing the exact same setup numerous times by the other inspector i deal with (FWIW hes an all in one everything inspector)
> 
> also honestly i never wired a house and did hardly any residential work at all before i started my business


Understandable circumstances Hippie, been there myself. 

You'll find resi , at first sniff, _easy_. In fact most of the sparkies on ET will claim a first/second yr apprentice should be able to lay it all out :no:

That those same sorts will create 20 pages threads on the_ details_ says it all:whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Understandable circumstances Hippie, been there myself.
> 
> You'll find resi , at first sniff, _easy_. In fact most of the sparkies on ET will claim a first/second yr apprentice should be able to lay it all out :no:
> 
> ...


It is rather difficult to have all the codes readily accessible (in your mind) if you don't deal with resi and commercial/industrial on a regular basis.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Ultrafault said:


> Come on 480 lighten up on the poor inspector. He is right at least.


Then the Code reference is.........?


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Read 210.52(B)(1) and 210.52(B)(2) ex 1&2 Hippie....~CS~


This


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

is there anyway you can squeeze a few more bucks out of the change order?


:laughing:


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Then the Code reference is.........?


210.52(B)(1) ex. #2


----------



## te12co2w (Jun 3, 2007)

*ref*

I must be missing something. The way I read 210.52 (B) (1), it looks like it says the refrigeration equipment shall be served by the 2 or more sabc. I don't know if the last code cycle had the same wording. This is in the 2014 NEC. That said, I have had one inspector tell me the refrigerator must be on a separate circuit. That requirement was for that city only though.


----------



## kdoyle2011 (Feb 8, 2013)

Does anyone know where in the NEC it says u can't hard pipe a motor.


----------



## EBFD6 (Aug 17, 2008)

kdoyle2011 said:


> Does anyone know where in the NEC it says u can't hard pipe a motor.


Dude, you already started 2 threads asking this same question. Why don't you check there for the answer?


----------



## retiredsparktech (Mar 8, 2011)

FrunkSlammer said:


> Except we can put a plug in clock on the circuit.
> 
> PLUG IN CLOCK! :laughing:


I still use them. One in my home and one in my work shop.
I use them to see how long the power was out. 
Seems like a lot of power failures, here in God's country.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

A Little Short said:


> 210.52(B)(1) ex. #2



"_shall be permitted_" does NOT mean "_dedicated circuit required_".

Back to remedial English for you! :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> It is rather difficult to have all the codes readily accessible (in your mind) if you don't deal with resi and commercial/industrial on a regular basis.



True DeepOne

but all ya gotta do is hire a crackerjack apprentice, they'll make sure your heads _chock full 'o codes_ all day long.....:whistling2::thumbup:~CS~


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Understandable circumstances Hippie, been there myself.
> 
> You'll find resi , at first sniff, easy. In fact most of the sparkies on ET will claim a first/second yr apprentice should be able to lay it all out :no:
> 
> ...


seems to me these commercial/industrial guys claiming residential is simple and romex takes no skill have never actually been there. its IMO a lot harder to walk into a house full of open studs and no/minimal plans and have to gather all the info on appliances, hvac, etc from different contractors, work with idiot homeowners, make it all work and make everyone happy than it is to read a print that tells you exactly where everything goes and what is going there and what size pipe and wire to use. That i could do as a 2nd year, doing this stuff is a learning experience of some kind every day. Learning to run pipe and read prints isnt hard unless youre just not that bright and when you finally figure it out you think youre gods gift to electrical.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

480sparky said:


> "_shall be permitted_" does NOT mean "_dedicated circuit required_".
> 
> Back to remedial English for you! :laughing:


What are you saying?


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

edit


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> What are you saying?


Just because it's_ permitted _to be supplied by another circuit does not mean it's _required _to have a dedicated circuit.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Just because it's_ permitted _to be supplied by another circuit does not mean it's _required _to have a dedicated circuit.


I thought it was established that the fridge, located in one of the areas listed in 210.52 (B)1, would be required to be on either a dedicated circuit or on a SABC.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Just because it's_ permitted _to be supplied by another circuit does not mean it's _required _to have a dedicated circuit.


You have to read the complete section...not just the exception.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

> *(B) Small Appliances.*
> *(1) Receptacle Outlets Served*. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.
> _Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.
> Exception No. 2: The receptacle outlet for refrigeration equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from an individual branch circuit rated 15 amperes or greater._


So where does Ex. No 2 *require* a dedicated circuit? It *allows* for the use of one, but does not *require* it.

I can bring another SABC into the kitchen, serve the countertop, dining room, kitchen, and/or breakfast room _and _the fridge on it as well.

Or I can supply the fridge with a non-SABC 15a dedicated circuit _if I so choose_.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

480sparky said:


> So where does Ex. No 2 *require* a dedicated circuit? It *allows* for the use of one, but does not *require* it.
> 
> I can bring another SABC into the kitchen, serve the countertop, dining room, kitchen, and/or breakfast room _and _the fridge on it as well.
> 
> Or I can supply the fridge with a non-SABC 15a dedicated circuit _if I so choose_.


You are correct, according the OP, the inspector was requiring a separate circuit for the fridge, however, the initial responses to the OP cited the correct information. So, unless there is a local amendment, the inspector is wrong.

Edit to add: The inspector was correct in failing the OP's installation.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

480sparky said:


> So where does Ex. No 2 *require* a dedicated circuit? It *allows* for the use of one, but does not *require* it.
> 
> I can bring another SABC into the kitchen, serve the countertop, dining room, kitchen, and/or breakfast room _and _the fridge on it as well.
> 
> Or I can supply the fridge with a non-SABC 15a dedicated circuit _if I so choose_.


This thread was about the refrigerator being on a 15 amp circuit with other loads on the same circuit.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

480sparky said:


> First thing I'd ask the expector (er, sorry........ INspector) for is a Code Reference backing up his requirement.





Ultrafault said:


> Come on 480 lighten up on the poor inspector. He is right at least.





480sparky said:


> Then the Code reference is.........?





A Little Short said:


> 210.52(B)(1) ex. #2





480sparky said:


> "_shall be permitted_" does NOT mean "_dedicated circuit required_".
> 
> Back to remedial English for you! :laughing:


No English class needed for me!:no:

Your question implied that the inspector was wrong in failing him.
Why would you ask the inspector for a code reference if what you did was wrong?
I was referring to the fact that the inspector failed him, which was correct. I didn't say a dedicated circuit was required. But if you run one, you can't have anything else on it!

You asked for a code reference and I gave it.
The OP might not have stated exactly what the inspector said, but he was correct in that the other items he had on with the fridge were not allowed. Which IMO, is why he failed.

But if the inspector really meant the fridge *had* to be on a separate circuit period, then he was wrong.


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

A Little Short said:


> But if the inspector really meant the fridge had to be on a separate circuit period, then he was wrong.


im not sure, i wasnt there when he did the inspection but i guess its irrelevant anyway. i even labeled the circuit with the fridge and other stuff as "fridge" in the panel lol i was clearly wrong.. the guy is actually pretty sharp, more than you would think from first impression for sure


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Perhaps the '14 will make the refer concern relevant interpreting the vernacular as to how to keep a resi unit _off_ enhanced protection

~CS~


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

On a recent kitchen remodel, I ran a 12/3 home run to the box for the fridge receptacle, then a 12/2 to the DW receptacle.

I'm thinking this is a violation of 210.52 (B)(1) Ex. 2



> Exception No. 2: The receptacle outlet for refrigeration
> equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from an individual
> branch circuit rated 15 amperes or greater.


This seems to be a contradiction, as it is permitted to have the fridge on the SABC, and there is no requirement that it be an _individual_ branch circuit.

......or am I reading too much into this?


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Barjack said:


> On a recent kitchen remodel, I ran a 12/3 home run to the box for the fridge receptacle, then a 12/2 to the DW receptacle.
> 
> I'm thinking this is a violation of 210.52 (B)(1) Ex. 2
> 
> ...


So the 12/3 fed the dishwasher and fridge on opposite phases? If so, it should be all good.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> So the 12/3 fed the dishwasher and fridge on opposite phases? If so, it should be all good.


Right, but it technically is not an individual branch circuit.



> *Branch Circuit, Individual.* A branch circuit that supplies
> only one utilization equipment.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Barjack said:


> Right, but it technically is not an individual branch circuit.



So what you are saying is that, because of the way the NEC defines MWBC's and individual branch circuits, no MWBC can be a individual branch circuit.

I see what you are saying, but I think you are thinking too deep on this one. If that was the case, you couldn't use a 12/3 to feed the 2 required counter top SABC. It would only be considered one circuit.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> So what you are saying is that, because of the way the NEC defines MWBC's and individual branch circuits, no MWBC can be a individual branch circuit.
> 
> I see what you are saying, but I think you are thinking too deep on this one. If that was the case, you couldn't use a 12/3 to feed the 2 required counter top SABC. It would only be considered one circuit.


Nowhere does it say that the SABC's shall be _individual_ branch circuits.

That's why I believe its a contradiction.

It is required to have the fridge on one of the SABC's (with no requirement that they be individual), but with an exception that if it isn't, it must be on an individual branch circuit 15A or greater.

I'm really just wondering about intent here.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Barjack said:


> Nowhere does it say that the SABC's shall be _individual_ branch circuits.


No, but if you are considering a MWBC is not being individual branch circuit because it supplies two loads, then you are, in effect, saying that a MWBC is one circuit and not two (which is implied in other places in the NEC). That is where my earlier comment was coming from.



> That's why I believe its a contradiction.
> 
> It is required to have the fridge on one of the SABC's (with no requirement that they be individual), but with an exception that if it isn't, it must be on an individual branch circuit 15A or greater.
> 
> I'm really just wondering about intent here.


You would also have to comply with 210.23 A1, but a 12/16A fridge would, more than likely require it's own circuit in its instructions.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Each circuit of a MWBC is an individual circuit.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

IslandGuy said:


> Each circuit of a MWBC is an individual circuit.


For discussion purposes...prove it.


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

Barjack said:


> On a recent kitchen remodel, I ran a 12/3 home run to the box for the fridge receptacle, then a 12/2 to the DW receptacle.
> 
> I'm thinking this is a violation of 210.52 (B)(1) Ex. 2
> 
> ...


Go back and see what 480 said. 
It is an exception, you can put the fridge on a sabc OR on an individual (dedicated) branch circuit.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Ultrafault said:


> Go back and see what 480 said.
> It is an exception, you can put the fridge on a sabc OR on an individual (dedicated) branch circuit.


Define individual


----------



## FrunkSlammer (Aug 31, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> Define individual


in·di·vid·u·al
adjective
*1. single; separate.*
"individual tiny flowers"
synonyms:	single, separate, discrete, independent, solo; More


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Deep Cover said:


> For discussion purposes...prove it.


Because whether the neutrals are combined at the homerun, or back at the panel, electrically there is no difference to either circuit.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

IslandGuy said:


> Because whether the neutrals are combined at the homerun, or back at the panel, electrically there is no difference to either circuit.


I know, just show me where the NEC defines two 120V neutrals sharing a common neutral is considered two circuits.

I can think of one instance where it is implied, but the definitions seem to say otherwise.


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

macmikeman said:


> Define individual


Good point. I really feel it is a poor wording choice. Mine is not to judge the mighty cmp only to try to interpert. 

My interpretation leads me to believe it is dedicated.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

My thinking is that the fridge can't be on a dedicated multiwire circuit because they are defined separately in Art. 100, and the exception specifically says individual.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Barjack said:


> My thinking is that the fridge can't be on a dedicated multiwire circuit because they are defined separately in Art. 100, and the exception specifically says individual.


 OK, suppose you ran a 14/3 MWBC to a wet bar, landed circuit 1 there, and ran a 14/2 to the kitchen fridge. Is the kitchen fridge not on it's own individual dedicated circuit?


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

IslandGuy said:


> OK, suppose you ran a 14/3 MWBC to a wet bar, landed circuit 1 there, and ran a 14/2 to the kitchen fridge. Is the kitchen fridge not on it's own individual dedicated circuit?


No, it is part of a multiwire branch circuit. A branch circuit consists of ALL the wire between the final OCPD and the outlet. 

An individual branch circuit would be like a 2 or 3 wire circuit to one receptacle only.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Barjack said:


> No, it is part of a multiwire branch circuit. A branch circuit consists of ALL the wire between the final OCPD and the outlet.
> 
> An individual branch circuit would be like a 2 or 3 wire circuit to one receptacle only.


Your definition of "branch circuit" is incorrect...there is no "all" in the definition.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Your definition of "branch circuit" is incorrect...there is no "all" in the definition.


Yes, I did add "ALL" in my definition.



> *Branch Circuit.* The circuit conductors between the final
> overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).


I was only paraphrasing, trying to explain that a Branch Circuit is the whole thing, from the breaker to the receptacle, not just part of a circuit.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

> 210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
> (A) General. Branch circuits recognized by this article shall
> be permitted as multiwire circuits. A multiwire circuit shall be
> permitted to be considered as multiple circuits.


Ahem......:whistling2:


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Ahem......:whistling2:


Ahem....and it doesn't say multiple INDIVIDUAL circuits. 

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I just want to know why the exception has "individual branch circuit" in the wording.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Barjack said:


> Ahem....and it doesn't say multiple INDIVIDUAL circuits.
> 
> I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I just want to know why the exception has "individual branch circuit" in the wording.


I appreciate a good debate, but now you are just being difficult. How would you like the exception to read?


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> I appreciate a good debate, but now you are just being difficult. How would you like the exception to read?


It is not my intention to upset you. 

For the record, I see no reason why any appliance shouldn't be on a MWBC. I even wired a new kitchen that way. 

As for the exception, I would have it read something to the effect of: 



> Exception No. 2:  The receptacle outlet for refrigeration equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from EITHER an individual branch circuit OR A DEDICATED LEG OF A MULTIWIRE BRANCH CIRCUIT rated 15 amperes or greater.


Or



> Exception No. 2:  The receptacle outlet for refrigeration equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from a DEDICATED branch circuit rated 15 amperes or greater.


For some reason, I think the CMP has a problem with MWBC's.

Deep, sorry for being difficult. Sometimes I read too far into things.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

The problem is that "dedicated" isn't used in the NEC when talking about circuits.

I say you are just looking at it wrong. I see no reason that if the NEC allows MWBC's to be considered multiple circuits, why each circuit within a MWBC cannot be considered an individual branch circuit if it would normally qualify.


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Now that I've thought about it more, I would change this:



> 210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
> (A) General. Branch circuits recognized by this article shall
> be permitted as multiwire circuits. A multiwire circuit shall be
> permitted to be considered as multiple circuits.


to this:



> 210.4 Multiwire Branch Circuits.
> (A) General. Branch circuits recognized by this article shall
> be permitted as multiwire circuits. A multiwire circuit shall be
> permitted to be considered as multiple INDIVIDUAL circuits.


.....and leave the exception alone.

The intent is that if not on a SABC, the fridge must be on a dedicated circuit.

Since the phrase "individual branch circuit" is used in the exception, and is defined:



> *Branch Circuit, Individual.* A branch circuit that supplies
> only one utilization equipment.


.....and "branch circuit" is defined:



> *Branch Circuit.* The circuit conductors between the final
> overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).


.....now "individual branch circuit" could be interpreted as "The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device and the outlet that supplies only one utilization equipment".

To me, it implies that a MWBC would not be acceptable, since it would supply more than one piece of utilization equipment.

Since there is nothing prohibiting the SABC's be on MWBC's, and that the fridge be on one of the SABC's (unless the exception is followed), why include "individual", other than to require it be dedicated?

You, me, and almost everyone else here would see no problem with the fridge, or anything else on a MWBC.

I think I might submit a proposal for a code change.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

A MWBC can contain two individual branch circuits because a MWBC can be considered two circuits. Each circuit can serve only one outlet.


----------



## ablyss (Feb 8, 2014)

A mwbc can serve one utilization equipment such as a dryer. Do you call this a mwbc just because? No you call it a individual branch circuit.

The intention, imho, for defining mwbc is to establish a distinction of serving multiple equipment _on a single branch circuit_ that share a common neutral, as opposed to multiple equipment that do not.

So by the criteria above, a mwbc is a individual branch circuit, plain and simple.

As for the debate on serving a refrigerator on a mwbc verses a individual branch circuit, that should not be a debate.


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

is this thread really still going on?


----------



## ablyss (Feb 8, 2014)

drspec said:


> is this thread really still going on?


There ain't much else going on, lol.:laughing:


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

IMHO any code change should allow the fridge (up to 36") on a circuit with the microwave and the range if it's gas. And any undercabinet lighting. That way it's all on one circuit if the HO wants to run on a generator.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

IslandGuy said:


> IMHO any code change should allow the fridge (up to 36") on a circuit with the microwave and the range if it's gas. And any undercabinet lighting. That way it's all on one circuit if the HO wants to run on a generator.



That just isn't possible with the draw/specs of a hanging microwave.


----------

