210.12 (D) exception

Status
Not open for further replies.
construct

construct

Senior Member
Location
Branson, Missouri
My jurisdiction is moving from the 2011 NEC to the 2017 NEC. It looks like a change in the 2014 included this exception not requiring AFCI protection where extensions of existing conductors is not more than 6 ft and does not include any additional outlets or devices.

Not having read the supporting documents, was part of the logic to address the scenario where an existing distribution panel becomes a junction box to extend branch circuits to a new distribution panel located near it?

Thank you for any feedback.
 
My understanding is that scenario was the reason for the exception.
 
You don't even need to use the panel as a JB, under the 2011 if you spliced on 6" of conductor in the panel to make it longer to reach the breaker the AFCI requirement would kick in.
 
Last edited:
Netpog said:
Rob, I'm pretty sure you meant to say either "under the 2011", or "before the 2014", yes? Didn't the 2014 NEC introduce the exception to avoid that problem?
Click to expand...

That is correct. The new section was introduced in the 2014. Before then you couldn't add 6"
 
Netpog said:
Rob, I'm pretty sure you meant to say either "under the 2011", or "before the 2014", yes? Didn't the 2014 NEC introduce the exception to avoid that problem?
Click to expand...

That's correct I meant to say under the 2011. I've fixed it. :)
 
ptonsparky said:
Then you have modified it:D
Click to expand...

:slaphead:

Should have looked first, "modifications" is in the title of the article. Extensions seems to be talked about the most though.

I guess before this rule was changed not only couldn't you add 6 inches to a conductor if it won't reach it's destination in say a panel change but you really couldn't even cut as little as an inch or so off the conductors either.
 
kwired said:
:slaphead:

Should have looked first, "modifications" is in the title of the article. Extensions seems to be talked about the most though.

I guess before this rule was changed not only couldn't you add 6 inches to a conductor if it won't reach it's destination in say a panel change but you really couldn't even cut as little as an inch or so off the conductors either.
Click to expand...

IMO the intention is that it's modified by adding to the length not subtracting from it.
 
infinity said:
IMO the intention is that it's modified by adding to the length not subtracting from it.
Click to expand...
I can agree that may have been the intention when Dennis submitted his PI, but at same time it says "extensions or modifications". "Modifications" is redundant language if "extensions" was all they intended to cover with this.
 
kwired said:
I can agree that may have been the intention when Dennis submitted his PI, but at same time it says "extensions or modifications". "Modifications" is redundant language if "extensions" was all they intended to cover with this.
Click to expand...

in the case of a new panel how would someone know if you actually shortened the conductors? Also who would really care. :)
 
infinity said:
in the case of a new panel how would someone know if you actually shortened the conductors? Also who would really care. :)
Click to expand...
Which is what prompted my initial response without reading first - most only think of extending conductors being what this rule is about - but as I said "extensions" is already in the title of that section making "modifications" that is also in the title redundant if they only intended it to cover "extensions".

Many code changes over the years were not intended to change requirements, just to clarify the intended requirement, wording is important. 2017 still uses "modifications" in that title, if was a mistake in 2014 it likely would have been changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top