Can 14 AWG copper conductors be used to supply a light fixture on a 20 amp circuit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnny123

Member
Location
New York
Let's say there's a branch circuit protected by a 20 ampere breaker. A 12/2 (with ground) NM cable runs from the breaker, out to a switch box. Inside the switch box, the ungrounded conductor of the 12/2 cable is connected to one terminal of the switch. A 14/2 (with ground) NM cable runs between the switch box, and a box where a lighting fixture will be installed. The ungrounded conductor of the 14/2 cable connects to the other terminal of the switch, the grounded and grounding conductors from the 12/2 cable are connected to the grounded and grounding conductors of the 14/2 cable. Also everything is properly grounded at all locations.

The light fixture being installed is a 3 bulb fixture, rated at a maximum of 180 Watts.

Would the use of the 14/2 cable be a violation of NEC? If in the switch box another 12/2 cable was connected to extend the circuit, does this change anything?
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
There was a recent thread on essentially the same question.
This is not a motor circuit or any of the other exceptions to the maximum branch circuit OCPD size for #14.
It is not fixture wire.
It is not a tap with overcurrent protection at the load end.
It is not a fixture whip since it goes from box to box.
There simply is no exception or special case here that allows that use.

Tapatalk!
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
However.......

You could change that 20 A rated OCPD to a 15 A rated OCPD and in my opinion be compliant.

I can only assume that the question is that someone wants to extend from a 12/2 that supplies a branch circuit required to be 20A and this is a quick fix to get a new luminaire located where the customer wants one and only have 14/2 on the truck. I may be stretching here but that's what it sounds like.

However, as you have presented it in your original post, NO you are not protecting the conductors in accordance with the NEC. Someone could argue that an inspector would make you change it because someone "could" put a 20 A OCPD back on it. Well, inspectors are not expectors, so what someone does after an inspection is summed up by this statement..."you can't fix stupid" so to speak.

Just some thoughts on the issue.
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
Contrary to what others have said, the installation you describe is a proper branch circuit tap under 210.19(A)(4) Ex 1(a).

The tap conductors would only be permitted to supply the single luminaire, not additional outlets.
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
I don't see that as circumventing 240.4(D)(3).

240.4(D) says that unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G), then small conductors shall have overcurrent protection in accordance with (D)(1) through (D)(7).

240.4(E) is for branch circuit tap conductors, and references 240.21.

240.21(A) references branch circuit tap conductors meeting the requirements specified in 210.19...

Which brings us back to 210.19(A)(4) Ex. No. 1(a.).
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Contrary to what others have said, the installation you describe is a proper branch circuit tap under 210.19(A)(4) Ex 1(a).

The tap conductors would only be permitted to supply the single luminaire, not additional outlets.

That section is very much on point, and shows that it is seldom safe to over generalize, but with the "18 inch beyond the luminaire" limitation it is unlikely to help the OP who wants to go from a switch box to an outlet box to feed the luminaire.
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
That section is very much on point, and shows that it is seldom safe to over generalize, but with the "18 inch beyond the luminaire" limitation it is unlikely to help the OP who wants to go from a switch box to an outlet box to feed the luminaire.

I don't read it like that. Compare the wording to 210.19(A)(4) Ex No 1(c)..."Individual outlets, other than receptacle outlets, with taps not over 18" long."

Ex 1(c) limits the tap length supplying an individual outlet.

Ex 1(a) has no length limit on the tap supplying the individual luminaire, but allows the tap conductors to extend beyond the luminaire, presumably to a control device.

If Ex 1(a) had the intent to limit to tap conductors to 18" in length, then there would be no need for Ex 1(a), as Ex 1(c) says the same thing.
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
\

The 18" limitation does figure in anywhere...in the proposed installation, the tap conductors do not extend beyond the individual luminaire at all

Ahh..but you agree they are "TAP" conductors supplying this luminaire right. So the whole intent of 210.19(A)(4) Ex.1(a) is dealing with tap conductors and they would in my opinion(it is ok to be contrary) be extending beyond the luminaire and thus based on the question proposed in my view a violation. Unless of course they follow my original advice...;)

Just sayin...;)...and be nice as I am new ;)
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
I don't read it like that. Compare the wording to 210.19(A)(4) Ex No 1(c)..."Individual outlets, other than receptacle outlets, with taps not over 18" long."

Ex 1(c) limits the tap length supplying an individual outlet.

Ex 1(a) has no length limit on the tap supplying the individual luminaire, but allows the tap conductors to extend beyond the luminaire, presumably to a control device.

If Ex 1(a) had the intent to limit to tap conductors to 18" in length, then there would be no need for Ex 1(a), as Ex 1(c) says the same thing.

IMHO (c) covers a tap running to an outlet, which is what the OP is talking about, and it explicitly includes the 18" limit on tap length.
While (a) covers the wires running from the outlet to the luminaire (fixture whip, surface mount wires, etc) and also explicitly includes not an 18" overall limit but an 18" beyond the fixture limit. Think of an 8' fluorescent luminaire that is installed with the ballast and wiring compartment at the opposite end from the power source. You can run the tap conductor the full 8' length of the fixture plus an additional 18" past the end of the fixture to the outlet without having to use fixture wire type. (separate exception elsewhere.)
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
Ahh..but you agree they are "TAP" conductors supplying this luminaire right. So the whole intent of 210.19(A)(4) Ex.1(a) is dealing with tap conductors and they would in my opinion(it is ok to be contrary) be extending beyond the luminaire and thus based on the question proposed in my view a violation. Unless of course they follow my original advice...;)

Just sayin...;)...and be nice as I am new ;)

Yes, they are "tap" conductors. I pointed that out in post 5.

They MEET the requirements of 210.19(A)(4) Ex 1(a), how would that be a violation? 210.19(A)(4) Ex 1(a) permits #14 awg tap conductors to supply an individual luminaire on a 20A or 30A branch circuit. That is what is described in the OP.
 

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Yes, they are "tap" conductors. I pointed that out in post 5.

They MEET the requirements of 210.19(A)(4) Ex 1(a), how would that be a violation? 210.19(A)(4) Ex 1(a) permits #14 awg tap conductors to supply an individual luminaire on a 20A or 30A branch circuit. That is what is described in the OP.

I agree...as long as it is not over 18" (in my opinion).

No worries my friend, we can agree to disagree. We will let his AHJ be the final arbitrator in the deal as I wish the OP good luck with that interpretation and I would just suggest he have a 15A OCPD handy so that my solution sets him free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top