The guy that says he needs to put a receptacle every six feet has no clue. The rule is within 6' of an opening and then every 12' apart maximum.

Whether this is correct or not is up to your local jurisdiction. It may very well be code required to bring the house up to code as opposed to simply replacing/repairing what is there.
I'd call your local building dept directly for the answer.

tyne, where i am as soon as you start replacing/extending wiring you have to bring the whole cct up to code. like petey said, check with your local building department.

Which brings up a question to those in the "business". Do you always insist on pulling a permit regardless of the extent of the work. I'll sight an example. There is a line of receptacles and switches made especially for aluminum wiring. It has long been the pratice to pigtail copper to the aluminum so regular fixtures could be used. Recently a customer was losing power to some receptacles and had us come in and eliminate all copper pigtails and wire directly to the aluminum rated fixtures. Since we were not adding anything new we did not pull a permit.

It's actually, no point upon a wall that's longer than 2 feet can be further than 6 feet from a receptacle (measured along the base of the wall). 6' from the door and then every 12' just gives you the compliance with the minimum number of receptacles.

Three ways are usually obligatory for stairs, not usually elsewhere (thought it is oft a matter of convenience when there are multiple accesses to the room).

>> The rule is within 6' of an opening and then every 12' apart maximum.

That could have been what he meant, I don't know, but I tried calling the city. Seems that inspectors are only in the office in the morning, so I'll try again tomorrow. I'm also going to stop at a bookstore and see if I can find myself a book on code.

The thing that seems weird, and I'll use the dining room as an example, is this. The room is about 13' x 15' and two walls are outside walls. The inside walls have doorways. One doorway is standard size and one doorway is very wide. Neither has an actual door that you can close. It looks like this: _______WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW_______
: 1 2 :
: :
:
:B
: :B
: :B
: :B
: 3 4 :
: :
: :
------- -------
1, 2, 3, 4 are outlets
B is a brick chimney
W is a large bay window
1 is in the baseboard
2 is in the window trim
3 is on the floor
4 is on the wall

The room was like this when we purchased the house. Anyway, on the two outside walls, one guy wants to eliminate numbers one and two and add four more outlets on the wall (presumably reusing number four) for a total of four outlets on 28 linear feet. Seems like overkill to me, but what do I know.

If I had my way, I'd like number one moved to the left of the window, number two moved to by the chimney, and number three moved to the baseboard or wall, though that would leave a hole in the hardwood floor, so maybe I'd prefer that number three just be updated to code where it is currently located.

Assuming electricians need to follow the 6'/12' rule, what would you do to this room?

As with virtually any other "law", it is all-too-easy to interpret electrical code so literally and precisely that the original intent and societal benefits of the law are lost in the shuffle.

The code attempts (with considerable success, I'd add) to prescribe a formula for reducing the number of dangerous situations that arise when outlets are too scarce. The specific danger is the overuse of extension cords, which are dangerous physically (e.g., you can trip over them) and electrically (e.g., they can put too much power over lightly-rated cables and overload circuits).

Ascribing more weight to the "spirit" of the law than the "letter", I'd ask whether the current outlet configuration in this dining room is adequate in actual use. Does it really serve the need for receptacles in this room? (My guess is: Yes, unless the Christmas tree goes in an electrically sparse corner and requires a bunch of extension cords stuck into adapters!)

Does the absence of a receptacle in any particular place result in the use of extension cords? Or, do you use adapters to plug in four or five things into a single receptacle?

Do you have six or eight plug-in lamps in your dining room?

If not, I'd opt for an electrician who'll "work with you", applying common sense. When planning out outlet placement from scratch, it's a good idea to have an outlet within 6' of any place along a wall you might need one. When upgrading, the "rule" can be taken to an extent that is anal, and of little value.

...one guy wants to eliminate numbers one and two and add four more outlets on the wall (presumably reusing number four) for a total of four outlets on 28 linear feet. Seems like overkill to me...

Your use of the word "overkill" strikes me as generous.

tom, i have to disagree on a few points...

first, you should always consider the future, instead of now. sure, the amount and placments of the outlets might be fine for the way they are now, but what about when they decide to sell the house. the people who buy it may not want things the way they are.

second, code is code. if code in that area requires a permit for all electrical work (sans replacing a recepticle or changing a light fixture) and a permit is required and an electricial willing to do permitted work should be used. yes, the cost may be more, but what about down the road when they attepmt to sell the house and a home inspection is done and it is discovered that part of the wiring has been updated without a permit and proper insections. unpermitted/undocumented work can kill a sale very fast with some lenders.

now i do understand that it is going to be cheaper to just do what it needs for now, and a homeowner hiring an electrican can mount up fast. its easier to go overkill with open walls then fishing through existing walls... but you always have to consider the future.

my advice to the OP is to follow the 6/12 rule and pay a little bit extra now to save the trouble later.

Which brings up a question to those in the "business". Do you always insist on pulling a permit regardless of the extent of the work?

Repairs generally don't require a permit - at least where I work. New work does. Since your trade insurance likely won't cover your liability in the event of a claim if a permit isn't pulled, ANYTHING that constitutes new work should have a permit pulled. YMMV as different policies have different requirements.

Just draw the line on permits where ever you feel you can personally pay claims that arise from litigation related to new work

arichard21,

You forgot the part about how if there is ever a fire, the insurance company won't pay out because the dining room was short an outlet somewhere. Uh huh.

That would have completed the canonical recitation of trade puffery.

Coming soon, in theatres and houses near you, is the '08 NEC. If you add one frickin' outlet, make sure you change all your breakers (except those exempted) to AFCIs. Yes, if you add an outlet, your house will suddenly become unsafe and you must bring the whole house up to code. That means AFCIs. It's the code. Since the new AFCIs won't fit in the slots occupied by those tandem breakers, you'll need a whole new panel, meter pan and service from the pole. Who cares if the outlet will cost $5,000?

It's code, after all. Last year your house was safe. Now it isn't. Your neighbor (who didn't add an outlet) is still safe, however.

And, sure, that nice Ken and Barbie couple who almost bought the house for the asking price plus 10% is going to suddenly pull out of the sales contract because they want another outlet in the dining room. It happens all the time.

There must be thousands of real-life examples of this happening. When couples don't find outlets exactly where they want them, they rescind the sales contract and walk.

Always think of future risks. In fact, everyone should buy at least $5 million in whole life insurance. Always buy luggage insurance when you travel. Check "yes" on that box to put credit life insurance into effect for your credit card.

You should have your chimney inspected and cleaned twice a year, save receipts for everything in case you have an IRS audit, thatch your lawn and have the soil tested in autumn and spring, put an $8 box of Rid-X in your septic system every two weeks, go to the optician twice a year, brush and floss your teeth five times a day, brush your pet twice a week, defrag your disk drive at least once a week, test every GFCI in your house monthly, drain a gallon of water from your hot water heater, clean your gutters monthly, seal your driveway annually, clean your belts and other leather items with Neatsfoot oil, update your emergency first aid kit, inspect the tags on all fire extinguishers and recharge as appropriate.

Then there's proper foot care, proper earwax removal, and we haven't even begun to delve into proper car care. That has a life unto itself. See a lawyer about updating your will, a financial consultant to examine the mutual fund holdings in your retirement account. There's proper drain care, proper watch care and proper oven care. I have a book that explains proper care of books. Oh yeah, you know that small appliance you bought? The instructions say to put a drop or two of sewing machine oil in the little hole every three months. Heh, does that keep you awake at night?

Never buy anything on the Internet because there are hackers out there. Never drive so much as one mile over the speed limit. Don't eat meat or dairy products.

I heard a plumber the other day say one I really like (and I more-or-less quote): "Violating the electrical code is only a misdemeanor but violating the health code is a felony." I guess that's why the jails are bursting at the seams with folks who got caught putting in a 1 1/4" trap where a 1 1/2" trap was called for.

There's nothing listed above for which someone cannot come up with an annecdote somewhere to "prove" that great and potentially ruinous risks lurk in every avenue of life and that we should always take the safe path by spending more now. Pay me now or pay me later.

Nonsense. If we did not take reasonable risks on a daily basis, we'd all go nuts. All of us adhere to some of the "rules" above; none of us adheres to all of them all of the time.

If it were up to me, and I had a reputable, licensed electrician who would do quality work for me without running up the cost, I'd be inclined to accept his bid in this case. I'm not suggesting that OP skirt the law and conceal electrical upgrades; I'm just suggesting that reasonable risk management may not warrant rewiring the dining room to put in four outlets that may never be used.

In a lot of cases, it makes more sense to pay for it when it actually causes a problem, especially if the likelihood of becoming an actual problem is exceedingly small and there's little or no benefit in the meantime.

I realize this viewpoint may be viewed by sparkies as heretical, but thinking ahead and buying ahead aren't the same things and it doesn't always make sense to buy ahead of a possible problem that is less likely to happen than not unless there is a very large economical advantage to buying now.

BTW, if it were me, I would tend to opt for three-way switches in stairs and halls because these represent true "value added" in terms of safety and convenience.

"It's actually, no point upon a wall that's longer than 2 feet can be further than 6 feet from a receptacle (measured along the base of the wall). 6' from the door and then every 12' just gives you the compliance with the minimum number of receptacles."

Not exactly correct.
Every piece of wall 2 feet or more requires an outlet.
No point along a wall may be more than 6 feet from an outlet.

"its about the home inspection"

If home inspectors knew half of what they THOUGHT they knew, they would be an asset. I deal with them every day. The vast majority are a joke. They do more damage with less knowledge than any other profession I know. Anyone who would take their report at face value is a fool.

Flame suit on...

agreed, BUT they still report to the bank, and the bank will go by what they tell them.

You forgot the part about how if there is ever a fire, the insurance company won't pay out because the dining room was short an outlet somewhere. Uh huh
Do you have some links to back that up. As far I have been able to find out insurance pays out for stupidity(pots on stoves, carless smoking, paint stipping with a blow torch). They don't pay out for intentional arson.

"agreed, BUT they still report to the bank, and the bank will go by what they tell them."

Why would a HI be saying anything to a bank?
Unless the bank hired them and paid for the inspection the report is the property of the purchaser.

Home inspection reports are given FAR too much weight these days.

brickeye, the last few houses bought by people i know have been required home inspections... 2 of them were sent out by the mortgage company, and in another case the mortgage company told my friends to hire one and submit his findings.

it is becoming more and more common for home sales to fall through because of issues that arise from a home inspection.

now, i am not saying that i agree with all the Home inspectors out there, but it is reality now. you have to consider what a HI might find and report to the bank.

my mother works in banking and has spent the last 10 years working in the mortgage department. she says that her bank requires a home inspection on EVERY home purchase (not re-fi or HELOC) of homes that are ANY AGE. they have a department that reviews the reports and have several "red flag" items that are an automatic no go the first 2 items on the list are the roof and electrical. if anything gets flagged, the sale is off until the homeowner fixes the problems. once they are fixed and inspected again the sale can be completed.

arichard...which company does your mom work for? For my day job, I am an executive for one of the largest banks in the country, and THE largest home lender in the country. My people do loans in all 50 states and U.S. Territories. In the thousands and thousands of loans I've seen my folks do, not ONCE have we ever ordered a home inspection. Not one single time. We do require appraisals...which are not home inspections. The only time a home inspection is brought into the transaction is when it becomes part of the contract. i.e. there is an addendum written that addresses problems from the home inspection. Every agent in the world knows to keep those types of comments out of the contract. I have seen sales fall through because of home inspections. They USUALLY are from sensationalized problems...and even just flat wrong...such as the inspector who said the whole house needed rewiring because there was a ground problem in the house. Sure was...the house was old and only had two prong receptacles. What an idiot. But it caused a lot of heartburn to get past it. If someone's lender is requiring a home inspection, it's time to find another lender. Home inspections should be an option...not a requirement. If there is a state that requires a lender to order a home inspection, I haven't seen it. This sounds like lender policy.

Oh yea...then there is the inspector who told his clients (buyers) that he felt the price was too high for the house. That boy won't be doing inspections any longer. The agents on both sides sued his butt...and won.

my mom works for united bank in massachusetts.

i personally dont know anything about banking and mortgages, i am going by what my mom has told me and experiences of people i know.