404.2(C)(5)- 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Can anyone make sense as to why this rule is as written. Looks like if there is a 3 way in a room and both switches are in the room then no neutral is needed. Here is the actual text which is basically an exception

(5) Where multiple switch locations control the same lighting load such that the entire floor area of the room or space is visible from the single or combined switch
locations


ry%3D400
 

jumper

Senior Member
Would not you only need one occupancy sensor for that set up, so only one of the locations would need a noodle?

Edit: The noodle should be at one of the 3 ways for the recessed lights I think? :huh:
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Would not you only need one occupancy sensor for that set up, so only one of the locations would need a noodle?

Edit: The noodle should be at one of the 3 ways for the recessed lights I think? :huh:


Look at the diagram.. No neutral at either switch-- that is my confusion
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
It seems to be saying that only if the switches are in different rooms so you can't see them both from the room do you need a neutral. This does not seem correct to me.
 

jumper

Senior Member
It seems to be saying that only if the switches are in different rooms so you can't see them both from the room do you need a neutral. This does not seem correct to me.

As I understood it this is correct: if the switches are in different rooms(areas) so you can't see them both from the do you need a neutral, but a neutral should be at the one of the switches for the recessed lights. I think.

(5) Where multiple switch locations control the same light-
ing load such that the entire floor area of the room or
space is visible from the single or combined switch
locations

And what I also find screwy is that where the graphic is showing a noodle seems to be switches for an outside light.

(4) Where a switch does not serve a habitable room or
bathroom.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
As I understood it this is correct: if the switches are in different rooms(areas) so you can't see them both from the do you need a neutral, but a neutral should be at the one of the switches for the recessed lights. I think.



And what I also find screwy is that where the graphic is showing a noodle seems to be switches for an outside light.

Yeah, I agree the graphic is screwy but I am also confused by the wording and what the cmp is trying to accomplish
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Is that what was born out of this proposal?

9-89 Log #3086 NEC-P09 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(404.2(C) Exception No. 2 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
TCC Action: It was the action of the Correlating Committee that the panel
reconsider the new Exception No. 2 regarding the use of the words “most
areas” with respect to enforceability.
This action will be considered as a public comment.
Submitter: Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc. / Rep.
Massachusetts Electrical Code Advisory Committee
Recommendation: Insert a new exception as follows:
Exception No. 2: Where multiple switch locations control the same lighting
load in an interior room or space, a grounded conductor of the lighting circuit
shall not be required at each such location if one has been provided at one or
more switching points that is (are) visible from most areas within the room
including all principal entry points. Where a switch controls a receptacle load
or a lighting load that does not serve a habitable room or bathroom, or where
automatic control of lighting has been provided or the switch is not within the
lit area, a grounded circuit conductor shall not be required
Substantiation: The 2011 NEC did a good job of framing what is in effect a
wiring method exception, which avoids the neutral provision requirement in
instances where it can be easily added in the future. However, this provision is
sorely lacking an application exception addressing instances where an
occupancy sensor would be redundant, excessive, or impossible to install.
Unfortunately, this question was not addressed by CMP 9, largely because no
public comments mentioned it.
If a three-way switch loop controls the lighting in a space, and the switches
both see the room, why force a grounded conductor into every switch location?
Very frequently three-way switches will be arranged in a two-gang arrangement
where one of them will be on the opposite side of a wall from the illuminated
space it controls; how could that switch ever be replaced by an occupancy
detector? Note that 210.70 requires switch control of lighting loads in a space,
but the switch does not need to be in that space.
In addition, although 210.70 (A)(1) Exception No. 1 clearly allows switch-
controlled receptacles to substitute for luminaire outlets in dwellings, and this
substitution is entirely unregulated in other occupancies, no occupancy sensor
will ever likely be listed for use with receptacle outlets because the character of
the connected load is inherently uncontrollable in many aspects. Some
switches, such as closet door-jamb switches, control loads for which occupancy
sensors are not appropriate. Some wiring designs use conventional snap
switches wired to turn lights off if needed, but in series with an occupancy
sensor in the ceiling. This allows for automatic lighting control, but also a
means to force the lights off in an occupied room in order to show slides on a
screen. The proposal completes the action CMP 9 took for the 2011 cycle by
addressing these issues.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the submitter’s wording to read as follows:
Exception No. 2: Where multiple switch locations control the same lighting
load in an interior room or space, a grounded circuit conductor of the lighting
circuit shall not be required at each such location if one has been provided at
one or more switching points that is (are) visible from most areas within the
room including all principal entry points. Where a switch controls a receptacle
load or a lighting load that does not serve a habitable room or bathroom, or
where automatic control of lighting has been provided or the switch is not
within the lit area, a grounded circuit conductor shall not be required.
Panel Statement: CMP 9 corrected the term “grounded conductor” to
“grounded circuit conductor”.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
 

Azad

Member
Location
Newyork city
Absolutely, the blue print asks for not having the neutral at the switch but it doesn't mean that the lights shouldn't have a neutral at a junction box in the ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I guess so... It looks like a total screw up.
I agree.

Tentative change to 2017 edition...
(5) Where multiple switch locations control the same lighting load such that the entire floor area of the room or space is visible from the single or combined switch locations, the grounded circuit conductor shall only be required at one location.

I have an inkling that is still a screw up. I'm thinking it should be...
(5) Where multiple switch locations control the same lighting load and the entire floor area of the room or space is visible from one or more switch locations, the grounded circuit conductor shall only be required at one such location.

Too late to make a Public Comment.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I'm thinking the 2017 proposed wording will be just fine. At least the intent is obvious there but I can't imagine what the thinking was for this section in the 2014-- I am surprised I have not noticed it sooner. As I was teaching a class Mike's graphic made me take a second look
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I'm thinking the 2017 proposed wording will be just fine. At least the intent is obvious there but I can't imagine what the thinking was for this section in the 2014-- I am surprised I have not noticed it sooner. As I was teaching a class Mike's graphic made me take a second look
FWIW, Mike Holt submitted the public input for the 2017 wording change.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
So we're trying to ascribe sense to a nonsensical requirement? Same old same old... :)
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Neutral at the switch is a design issue and has no business being required by NEC. How does this protect people or property from the hazards of use of electricity?
 

milmat1

"It Can't Do That !"
Location
Siler City, NC USA
Occupation
Controls Engineer
When running the 3-wat switches for a single room, There is no need for a common (neutral) to be at either switch. What are you going to connect it to ? The switches are switching the hot either to the lights or to the other switch. It has no need of a neutral ?? The neutral can go straight to the light(s).
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
When running the 3-wat switches for a single room, There is no need for a common (neutral) to be at either switch. What are you going to connect it to ? The switches are switching the hot either to the lights or to the other switch. It has no need of a neutral ?? The neutral can go straight to the light(s).
You don't need a neutral for a single pole switch either for similar reasons. The neutral is/may be needed if you have some automated switching device like occupancy sensor or timer switch, etc.
 

Fitzdrew516

Senior Member
Location
Cincinnati, OH
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Neutral at the switch is a design issue and has no business being required by NEC. How does this protect people or property from the hazards of use of electricity?

The reason for a neutral in every switch box is for safety. As I remember it's meant to prevent end users from replacing a standard switch with a device that requires a neutral. What ends up happening is they tie the neutral to the ground because they don't know any better. That's a no - no.
 

jumper

Senior Member
The reason for a neutral in every switch box is for safety. As I remember it's meant to prevent end users from replacing a standard switch with a device that requires a neutral. What ends up happening is they tie the neutral to the ground because they don't know any better. That's a no - no.

Actually the problem is the sensor device may be listed as using the EGC as a noodle. The rule was made so UL would quit listing these devices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top