14 tied to 12 on 20 amp breaker

[david luchini]

Each one is an individual lampholder or luminaire. That is, you can run a tap conductor to each individual fixture. You just can't supply two or more through one set of tap conductors. The down side would be that all 5 fixtures would have to be within 18" of the JB (if you limit your interpretation to the exceptions only ).

Yes, you could make 5 (or more) taps to an individual fixture for each tap.

But no, there is no limitation that the luminaires need to be within 18" of the JB that they are tapped from. There is no limit on the length of the conductor from the tap point to the luminaires in exception (a).

 

[tallgirl]

Yes, you could make 5 (or more) taps to an individual fixture for each tap.

But no, there is no limitation that the luminaires need to be within 18" of the JB that they are tapped from. There is no limit on the length of the conductor from the tap point to the luminaires in exception (a).

I concur.

(Since others have agreed and I don't want to be a copycat ...)

 

[Smart $]

Yes, you could make 5 (or more) taps to an individual fixture for each tap.

But no, there is no limitation that the luminaires need to be within 18" of the JB that they are tapped from. There is no limit on the length of the conductor from the tap point to the luminaires in exception (a).

That's not how I read Exception No. 1 (a)...

(a) Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps extending
not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion
of the lampholder or luminaire.

Of course, literal interpretation of code wouldn't restrict one to the Exception for the taps... thus no 18" limitation... but no one sees it the way I read it.

 

[david luchini]

That's not how I read Exception No. 1 (a)...Of course, literal interpretation of code wouldn't restrict one to the Exception for the taps... thus no 18" limitation... but no one sees it the way I read it.

The 18" limitation is for extending "beyond and portion of the luminaire."

There is no limit on the length of the tap from the branch circuit to the individual luminaire. But once the tap conductors reach the luminaire, the could extend another 18", presumably to a switch.

 

[Smart $]

The 18" limitation is for extending "beyond and portion of the luminaire."

There is no limit on the length of the tap from the branch circuit to the individual luminaire. But once the tap conductors reach the luminaire, the could extend another 18", presumably to a switch.

I see where it could be interpreted that way... but do not believe that to be the intent. I see it more as "regular sized" BCC is run to the lampholder/luminaire, then perhaps a switch leg for the lampholder/luminaire is broken out as a tap conductor...

...But I'm not going to argue, as I been saying all along that literal interpretation of the general provision permits the taps without resorting to the Exception.

 

[david luchini]

I see where it could be interpreted that way... but do not believe that to be the intent. I see it more as "regular sized" BCC is run to the lampholder/luminaire, then perhaps a switch leg for the lampholder/luminaire is broken out as a tap conductor...

That's an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure how you arrive at it, considering the exception says "...these tap conductors supply any of the following load (a) individual luminaires or lampholders..."

The tap conductors supply the luminaire, not the original BCC.

Again, that's interesting. I don't see how a literal interpretation of 210.19(A)(4) permits taps without resorting to the Exception. But maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Smart $]

That's an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure how you arrive at it, considering the exception says "...these tap conductors supply any of the following load (a) individual luminaires or lampholders..."

The tap conductors supply the luminaire, not the original BCC.

I believe both supply the luminaire.

Continued...

Again, that's interesting. I don't see how a literal interpretation of 210.19(A)(4) permits taps without resorting to the Exception. But maybe I'm missing something.

Literally, you are looking to (A)(4) Exception No. 1 because it uses the word "tap", ot variations thereof. Where does it say only reference to "tapping" can apply. Read (A)(4)'s general provision. It says the conductor must be of sufficient size for the load supplied. Do not the tap conductors mentioned in the Exception meet this requirement... so why the Exception. Exceptions are, in the literal sense, there for when compliance with the general provision does not permit the installation... hence an exception to the general provision. Look at the purpose of Exception No. 2. I believe both Exception's can be interpretted such that tap conductors smaller than #14 are permitted to be used. That is also why there is a distinction between 15 and 20 ampacities with respect to OCPD rating in Exception No. 1.

Now getting back to the first part of your reply, if you rely solely on use of the word tap and variations thereof, Exc.#1(a) does not say taps can be of any lenght. It says, "...with taps extending not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion of the lampholder or luminaire." From outlet to luminaire in terms of wiring is no different than from luminaire to outlet. The magnitude of a distance can be measured in either direction. The taps supplying the luminaire are the taps... it matters not whether they feed or control. So at best, your outlet must be within 18" of the luminaire as does any type of control device.

 

[david luchini]

I believe both supply the luminaire.

Continued...

OK, the tap conductors "directly" supply the luminaire.

Literally, you are looking to (A)(4) Exception No. 1 because it uses the word "tap", ot variations thereof. Where does it say only reference to "tapping" can apply. Read (A)(4)'s general provision. It says the conductor must be of sufficient size for the load supplied.

I'm am looking at (A)(4) Ex.No.1, not specifically because of the word "tap," but because 240.4(E)(1) directed me there to allow the OCP for the conductors to exceed the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4. Elsewhere in 240.4 (240.4(D)), it tell me to protect #14cu at 15A. I am protecting #14 "tap conductors" in accordance with what 210.19(A)(4) tells me I can do with "tap conductors" because of 240.4(E)(1).

As far as I know, all conductors (service conductors, feeders, feeder taps, branch-circuit conductors, branch-circuit taps) must have an ampacity sufficient for the loads served. The issue is not that they have an ampacity sufficient for the load served, but how the rating or setting of the OCPD that protects the conductors.

Do not the tap conductors mentioned in the Exception meet this requirement... so why the Exception. Exceptions are, in the literal sense, there for when compliance with the general provision does not permit the installation... hence an exception to the general provision.

So why the exception at all? Under what situation would the conductors have an ampacity insufficient for the loads served? I cannot think of any. And the exception would not allow any. So, by your reasoning, the exception no.1 in 210.19(A)(4) serves no purpose?

Look at the purpose of Exception No. 2. I believe both Exception's can be interpretted such that tap conductors smaller than #14 are permitted to be used. That is also why there is a distinction between 15 and 20 ampacities with respect to OCPD rating in Exception No. 1.

I believe exception no. 2 allows both branch-circuit conductors and branch-circuit tap conductors to be smaller than #14 when they are flexible cords or fixture wires (when installed where permitted by Art 400 & 402.) For instance, on a 20A branch-circuit, a #14AWG HSJO cord would be allowed. It has an ampacity of 20, it is protected by a 20A OCPD. On a 20A branch-circuit, a #16AWG HSJO cord would be allowed as a "tap" conductor, as its ampacity is 15 and it is tapped from a circuit rated less than 40A, per 210.19(A)(4) Ex.No.1.

Now getting back to the first part of your reply, if you rely solely on use of the word tap and variations thereof, Exc.#1(a) does not say taps can be of any lenght. It says, "...with taps extending not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion of the lampholder or luminaire." From outlet to luminaire in terms of wiring is no different than from luminaire to outlet. The magnitude of a distance can be measured in either direction. The taps supplying the luminaire are the taps... it matters not whether they feed or control. So at best, your outlet must be within 18" of the luminaire as does any type of control device.

To my mind, the word "beyond" means 'on, at, or to the farther side of, or past.' This implies (to me anyway) directionality. The directionality starts at the location that the tap conductors are tapped to the branch-circuit, and extends to the individual luminaire. I see no limit on length of those conductors. But going past the luminaire or extending beyond the luminaire, the exception limits you to 18".

 

[Smart $]

...I'm am looking at (A)(4) Ex.No.1, not specifically because of the word "tap," but because 240.4(E)(1) directed me there to allow the OCP for the conductors to exceed the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4. Elsewhere in 240.4 (240.4(D)), it tell me to protect #14cu at 15A. I am protecting #14 "tap conductors" in accordance with what 210.19(A)(4) tells me I can do with "tap conductors" because of 240.4(E)(1).

Aye... but your looking to 210.19 for specific provisions for "tap" conductors. As mentioned earlier, BCTC's are still BCC's. What does the general provision start with? Does 240.4(E) or (1) thereof give any specific reference to 210.19(A)(3&4)... or just the general. Have you not seen elsewhere in the Code where Exceptions are referenced specifically???

Without a specific reference to Exception No. 1, the general provision applies. Also, later in your post you go on to mention tap conductors under Exception No. 2... It does not mention tap conductors. In a literal interpretation using your logic, you would not be able to jump to Articles 400 & 402 without a specific reference to tap conductors. The other side of the coin using your logic, if 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 2 applies to tap conductors, then so does 210.19(A)(4) general provision... and we know Articles 400 & 402 permit a #14 to be protected by a 20A OCPD under certain conditions... but Exception No. 2 says shall be permitted to be smaller than #14, which further emphasizes the general provision being applicable.

As far as I know, all conductors (service conductors, feeders, feeder taps, branch-circuit conductors, branch-circuit taps) must have an ampacity sufficient for the loads served. The issue is not that they have an ampacity sufficient for the load served, but how the rating or setting of the OCPD that protects the conductors.

Agreed... but we've already established that by going through 240.4 that #14tap conductors are permitted to have OCPD in excess of 15A. Yet 240.4(E)(1) says in accordance with 210.19(A)(3&4), i.e. the subsections in their entirety... not just the Exceptions thereto.

So why the exception at all? Under what situation would the conductors have an ampacity insufficient for the loads served? I cannot think of any. And the exception would not allow any. So, by your reasoning, the exception no.1 in 210.19(A)(4) serves no purpose?

It serves the purpose of permitting a tap cnductor which is smaller than #14.

I believe exception no. 2 allows both branch-circuit conductors and branch-circuit tap conductors to be smaller than #14 when they are flexible cords or fixture wires (when installed where permitted by Art 400 & 402.) For instance, on a 20A branch-circuit, a #14AWG HSJO cord would be allowed. It has an ampacity of 20, it is protected by a 20A OCPD. On a 20A branch-circuit, a #16AWG HSJO cord would be allowed as a "tap" conductor, as its ampacity is 15 and it is tapped from a circuit rated less than 40A, per 210.19(A)(4) Ex.No.1.

Commented on above...



To my mind, the word "beyond" means 'on, at, or to the farther side of, or past.' This implies (to me anyway) directionality. The directionality starts at the location that the tap conductors are tapped to the branch-circuit, and extends to the individual luminaire. I see no limit on length of those conductors. But going past the luminaire or extending beyond the luminaire, the exception limits you to 18".

 

[billsnuff]

But going past the luminaire or extending beyond the luminaire, the exception limits you to 18".

I agree, but it makes more sense if you read 410.117 which is another allowance.

 

[Smart $]

I agree, but it makes more sense if you read 410.117 which is another allowance.

How does it make more sense?

In 410.117(C) the tap conductors are required to be at least 18" but no longer than 6'. Of course this is limited to flush and recessed luminaires. But somewhere in 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1 it was determined that (a) and (b) somehow contradict each other, and thus both are included.

Also note the directionality... "Tap conductors... shall be permitted to run from the luminaire terminal connection to an outlet box..."

 

[jxofaltrds]

News alert!!!!

Home Depot and Lowes stopped selling 14-2 wg AWG copper.

We no longer have to worry about 14 AWG being tapped from 12 AWG in a residential setting.

Unless an unqualified electrician brings 14-2 on a residential job.

 

[david luchini]

Aye... but your looking to 210.19 for specific provisions for "tap" conductors. As mentioned earlier, BCTC's are still BCC's. What does the general provision start with? Does 240.4(E) or (1) thereof give any specific reference to 210.19(A)(3&4)... or just the general. Have you not seen elsewhere in the Code where Exceptions are referenced specifically???

Again, I am not looking for specific "tap" provisions in 210.19. I think you are projecting that onto my argument. I agree, wholeheartedly, that branch-circuit tap conductors ARE branch-circuit conductors. I argued that earlier in the thread. I also agree that 240(E)(1) references 210.19(A)(4), and not just Ex.No.1 of 210.19(A)(4). But this not change what I have been arguing. I will try to further explain my argument below.

Without a specific reference to Exception No. 1, the general provision applies. Also, later in your post you go on to mention tap conductors under Exception No. 2... It does not mention tap conductors. In a literal interpretation using your logic, you would not be able to jump to Articles 400 & 402 without a specific reference to tap conductors. The other side of the coin using your logic, if 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 2 applies to tap conductors, then so does 210.19(A)(4) general provision... and we know Articles 400 & 402 permit a #14 to be protected by a 20A OCPD under certain conditions... but Exception No. 2 says shall be permitted to be smaller than #14, which further emphasizes the general provision being applicable.

I believe that I previously argued that 210.19(A)(4) Ex.No.2 would permit tap conductors smaller than #14, only IF those flexible cords or fixture wires are installed as PERMITTED by other sections. I haven't looked thru the whole code, but I think there is something in 240.5 about tap conductors.

Agreed... but we've already established that by going through 240.4 that #14tap conductors are permitted to have OCPD in excess of 15A. Yet 240.4(E)(1) says in accordance with 210.19(A)(3&4), i.e. the subsections in their entirety... not just the Exceptions thereto.

Yes, 240.4(E)(1) does not reference only Ex.No.1, but that does not change my point, as I will explain below. (Hope the suspense is building.)

It serves the purpose of permitting a tap cnductor which is smaller than #14.

Although 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1 MAY serve the purpose of permitting a tap conductor which is smaller than #14, it certainly does NOT permit a tap conductor smaller than #14 when using 60deg terminations, and it certainly does NOT permit a tap conductor smaller than #14 then using 75deg terminations. I suppose if you have 90deg terminations & 90deg conductors, you could use #16AWG (with and ampacity of 18) for a tap conductor per Ex.No.1.



Finally, if I understand your argument correctly, you are saying #14 tap conductors can be tapped from a 20A or larger branch circuit at locations other than those listed in 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1, such as your examples in post #130.

Let me try to better explain why I disagree, and why I am not looking for specific references to "tap" conductors after following 240.4(E)(1) back to 210.19(A)(4).

As has already been noted, 210.20(B) sends you to 240.4 for branch-circuit conductor protection. 240.4(D)(3) requires 15A OCPD for #14AWG, unless permitted by 240.4(E). 240.4(E)(1) permits tap conductors to be protected against overcurrent protection in accordance with 210.19(A)(4). So lets go back to 210.19(A)(4) and see how it permits conductors to be protected against overcurrent protection.

The main section of 210.19(A)(4) says "Branch circuit conductors...shall have an ampacity sufficient for the load served and shall not be smaller than #14AWG." There is NOTHING in the main section of 210.19(A)(4) that talks about overcurrent protection.

210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.2 says "Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be permitted to be smaller than #14AWG as permitted by 240.5." There is NOTHING in the Ex.No.2 of 210.19(A)(4) that talks about overcurrent protection.

210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1 says "Tap conductors shall have an ampacity sufficient for the load served. In addition, they shall have an ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits RATED less than 40 amperes, and not less than 20 for circuits RATED at 40 or 50 amperes and only where the tap conductors supply any of the following loads:"

The ONLY reference to overcurrent protection in 210.19(A)(4), as directed by 240.4(E)(1), is located in Exception No.1.

It is not a reference to "tap" conductors that I am searching out in 210.19(A)(4), as you have suggested. It is a reference to "overcurrent protection" because that is what 240.4(E)(1) tells me to search for.

It is for this reason that branch-circuit tap conductors (other than those permitted in 210.2 and 210.19(A)(3)) are limited to the loads listed in 210.19(A)(4) Ex.No.1.

 

[Smart $]

Again, I am not looking for specific "tap" provisions in 210.19. I think you are projecting that onto my argument. ...

It is not a reference to "tap" conductors that I am searching out in 210.19(A)(4), as you have suggested. It is a reference to "overcurrent protection" because that is what 240.4(E)(1) tells me to search for.

I see your point, and I was likely projecting as you said. I am letting your point sink in for now...

It is for this reason that branch-circuit tap conductors (other than those permitted in 210.2 and 210.19(A)(3)) are limited to the loads listed in 210.19(A)(4) Ex.No.1.

For the sake of discussion, here's another [possible] literal take on the exception...

First it says,

Tap conductors shall have an ampacity suffıcient for the load served.

We know this for BCC in general, but for some reason it is thrown in here anyway for BCTC's.

Then it says,

In addition, they shall have an ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40 amperes and not less than 20 for circuits rated at 40 or 50 amperes and only where these tap conductors supply any of the following loads: ...

Note here that "and only" can be interpreted as meaning the preceding requirements are "only" for the following loads... and not for loads other than the following. Pursuing this line of thought, where does it say, explicitly, tap conductors shall supply only the following loads.

Think on that one for a while...