2011 code neutral in all switches?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We run into the no neutral problem all the time when people want to add a electronic timer or wireless keypad switches for lighting...We get called out from the AV guys all the time to fish a neutral in later....soooo I kinda like this code but yes it seems it's catering for future wiring....
 
Since I retired from the trade on the 2008 Code, I find this Article interesting. Seems like there will be a lot of dead ended white wires hanging around in switch boxes. Also, the wire fill on boxes will be impacted. I agree with the previous post that this is more a design issue not a Code type of issue.
 
The Code is getting more and more into design, and forgetting their original mandate of safety.

There are a lot of things in the Code that have little to do with actual safety, but are heavy on design, mostly driven by industry lobbyists who stand to benefit from the design-driven mandates being incorporated in the Code.
 
My boss happens to be on that code making panel.

I believe a big part of the reason for requiring the neutral was to discourage the manufacturing of products like this, http://www.smarthome.com/36529/Levi...ner-Wall-Switch-Occupancy-Sensor-White/p.aspx, which actually use the EGC in place of the neutral. From what I understand, these are approved for single replacements, but when you replace more than one switch, you start adding more and more current on the EGC.
 
lauraj said:
My boss happens to be on that code making panel.

I believe a big part of the reason for requiring the neutral was to discourage the manufacturing of products like this, http://www.smarthome.com/36529/Levi...ner-Wall-Switch-Occupancy-Sensor-White/p.aspx, which actually use the EGC in place of the neutral. From what I understand, these are approved for single replacements, but when you replace more than one switch, you start adding more and more current on the EGC.
Click to expand...

Why not just stop allowing them to be listed?
 
lauraj said:
My boss happens to be on that code making panel.

I believe a big part of the reason for requiring the neutral was to discourage the manufacturing of products like this, http://www.smarthome.com/36529/Levi...ner-Wall-Switch-Occupancy-Sensor-White/p.aspx, which actually use the EGC in place of the neutral. From what I understand, these are approved for single replacements, but when you replace more than one switch, you start adding more and more current on the EGC.
Click to expand...

I dont think requiring us to pull a neutral to a switch location is going to discourage the manufacturers from producing them without one.
If the Occ Sensor does in fact induce current on the green conductor then it shouldnt be green or connected to the ground wire, it should be a Neutral and we'll pull one if thats the type Occ Sensor we intend on using.
 
This change will not change anything on the tens of thousands of current installations.
It will take 30-50 years to see a significant change in the field.
 
The hope is that future sensor designs will be such that manufacturers will expect a neutral at the switch location and design them appropriately, instead of the current workaround they have.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's an attempt to nip the problem in the bud before it even gets worse, as energy savings code will rely more and more on the use of these types of devices.
 
I agree that the effort should have been put on UL et al to not approve these products unless they use the neutral. Why were they approved in the first place? I guess we can say the same for dryer & ranges when they used 3 wire.
 
lauraj said:
The hope is that future sensor designs will be such that manufacturers will expect a neutral at the switch location and design them appropriately, instead of the current workaround they have.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's an attempt to nip the problem in the bud before it even gets worse, as energy savings code will rely more and more on the use of these types of devices.
Click to expand...

To me the type of thinking above is completely backwards.
If we need a neutral we pull one, if we dont need one we dont.
but it shouldnt be a violation if we dont pull one when one is not needed at that time.
The way to nip it in the bud is to tell the manufacturers that if thier device requires a neutral then they need to manufacture it as such, and not use the ground wire as a substitute for a neutral.
 
jap said:
To me the type of thinking above is completely backwards.
If we need a neutral we pull one, if we dont need one we dont.
but it shouldnt be a violation if we dont pull one when one is not needed at that time.
The way to nip it in the bud is to tell the manufacturers that if thier device requires a neutral then they need to manufacture it as such, and not use the ground wire as a substitute for a neutral.
Click to expand...

If you don't agree with it then don't pull it. Tell the inspector that you are not going to pull it and he can just deal with it.
Then stand back and watch how he deals with it.
My guess is you will be pulling it or your customer or your bosse's customer won't be moving in.
Besides unless your state has already adopted 2011 it's a moot point until they do.
Lots of things in the NEC I don't agree with but we wire to the code wether we agree with it or not.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of this change and I'm glad Massachusetts gave us this exception. I especially like the second part where it says
" or the switch is not within the lit area .."
Click to expand...
that could exclude quite a few switches all by itself :)

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 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.
Click to expand...
 
qcroanoke said:
If you don't agree with it then don't pull it. Tell the inspector that you are not going to pull it and he can just deal with it.
Then stand back and watch how he deals with it.
My guess is you will be pulling it or your customer or your bosse's customer won't be moving in.
Besides unless your state has already adopted 2011 it's a moot point until they do.
Lots of things in the NEC I don't agree with but we wire to the code wether we agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

Maybe we all should be required to pull an extra neutral in with our feeders and leave them unterminated at both ends too.That way in the future if a harmonics problem arises it will already be there for the next guy to terminate.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
That would be a good exception to the code.
Click to expand...

Done-- I sent it in.

Proposal 404.2(C) exception (3) Boxes used for lights controlled by a door jamb switch.

Substantiation: These door jamb switches are very tiny and adding another wire will make it more difficult for wire fill. It also is unnecessary as an electronic controller cannot be used in jamb switch boxes anyway.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Done-- I sent it in.

Proposal 404.2(C) exception (3) Boxes used for lights controlled by a door jamb switch.

Substantiation: These door jamb switches are very tiny and adding another wire will make it more difficult for wire fill. It also is unnecessary as an electronic controller cannot be used in jamb switch boxes anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Dennis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top