Eaton giving up on the non-notched bus stabs

[brycenesbitt]

I wanted to comment on an old thread:
Eaton Giving up on Notching CTL Bus Bars?

This is Eaton's current (September 2025) page on the notched stabs. Placed here for archival purposes:

Eaton appears to have given up on notching bus stabs, and somewhat reduced the price of tandem breakers that are compatible
with full (un-notched) bus stabs.


=============================================================================
https://knowledgehub.eaton.com/s/article/What-is-the-difference-between-the-BD-BQ-and-BQC-breakers
Q: What is the difference between the BD, BQ and BQC breakers?
A:
BD – Duplex
BQ – Quadplex (independent trip)
BQC – Quadplex (common trip)

The BD, BQ, and BQC circuit breakers are also known as CTL breakers and have a rejection tab on the bus connection side of the breaker to prevent them from used in certain areas of loadcenter. CTL stands for Circuit Total Limitation.

These breakers are used in BR type CTL loadcenters. A circuit limiting loadcenter has notched bus stab so that only certain number of duplex/quadplex beakers can be installed into them. The BQ quadplex breakers feature the independent trip function where each circuit/pole trips independently of the other. The BQC breakers have a common trip feature where the center and/or outer poles will trip synchronously.

CTL breakers are not compatible with non-CTL (current offering) loadcenters.

The image below shows an example of the notched bus and how a CTL breaker with rejection tab can still be installed on that loadcenter.

For more information and Eaton's current offering of CTL breaker please visit this catalog page.
=============================================================================

In short the more flexible Eaton breakers that go into ANY panel are:

BR	Non-CTL	Various types
BRD	Non-CTL	Various types, all BR compatible
BRDC	Non-CTL	Double width, two common trip circuits

See also Wikipedia:

Circuit total limitation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course you still need to respect panel fill and ampacity limits, regardless.

 

[brycenesbitt]

BRDC230250 $31.10 at Lowes (universal)(when available)
BQC230250 $30.98 at Lowes (notched stabs only)

But it seems that Eaton's strategy here is to try to discontinue BRDC slowly, I suspect.

 

[infinity]

This entire CTL concept is a relic of the past and needs to be removed completely from the NEC because it is obsolete. Eaton chose years ago to get rid of the notched stab so CTL breakers don't even work in their panels.

 

[Joe Villani]

Even ABB (Formally GE) has stopped making the "wafer" style breakers and is going the same way with their circuit breakers using tandems and quads

 

[ramsy]

Eaton chose years ago to get rid of the notched stab so CTL breakers don't even work in their panels.

So did GE, and successor ABB, but Siemens still uses the notches with CTL breakers. Not sure about SQ-D

 

[kwired]

So did GE, and successor ABB, but Siemens still uses the notches with CTL breakers. Not sure about SQ-D

Homeline still has notched bus, but for most part is in every slot since about the time the 40 circuit max went away.

QO rejection feature has always been at the rail and not the bus.

 

[Birken Vogt]

QO rejection feature has always been at the rail and not the bus.

The only time I use QO is in transfer switches that have distribution and they changed from the plastic rail to a metal rail that is also a neutral bus bar for pigtail-less breakers. And when they did so, they lost the slots for the QO tandem hooks. So now we have to buy the $$$ QO rail clip tandems if we need them there.

 

[brycenesbitt]

This entire CTL concept is a relic of the past and needs to be removed completely from the NEC because it is obsolete. Eaton chose years ago to get rid of the notched stab so CTL breakers don't even work in their panels.

Yeah, but if they'd done it completely then they'd also get rid of the CTL breaker "feature", and discontinue all the rejection tab breakers.
Eaton sell a lot more tandems and quads then....

Or Eaton could sell only rejection tab breakers, but make the tab slide out cleanly. The worst is when
someone has broken off all the tabs and left the plastic bits everywhere.

 

[kwired]

The only time I use QO is in transfer switches that have distribution and they changed from the plastic rail to a metal rail that is also a neutral bus bar for pigtail-less breakers. And when they did so, they lost the slots for the QO tandem hooks. So now we have to buy the $$$ QO rail clip tandems if we need them there.

I guess I haven't checked out what they did when they went to the plug on neutral design. I don't think I ever even tried to use a tandem in one of those panels yet. I take it you had to use a non-CTL type tandem for it to plug on or do they have some new design made for these plug on neutral panels?

 

[Birken Vogt]

I guess I haven't checked out what they did when they went to the plug on neutral design. I don't think I ever even tried to use a tandem in one of those panels yet. I take it you had to use a non-CTL type tandem for it to plug on or do they have some new design made for these plug on neutral panels?

It's definitely a side effect of the PON that nobody considered or cared about.

Yes we have to use non-CTL tandems now with their ridiculous price.

I suppose it is because 3/4 inch QO is probably too narrow to have tandem AFCIs, not normally used much in resi, and has always been generally deficient in tandems, quads, etc.

The assumption is probably because most single pole will be AFCI, GFCI, etc. that tandems will not be used as much any more, but we are usually doing retrofits with the ATS installation, in which case if it is a conventional breaker it stays that way.

 

[curt swartz]

So did GE, and successor ABB, but Siemens still uses the notches with CTL breakers. Not sure about SQ-D

GE never had a notched stab. Prior to the CTL requirement they had twin and quad breakers. When CTL was required they switched to the THQP design.

 

[curt swartz]

It's definitely a side effect of the PON that nobody considered or cared about.

Yes we have to use non-CTL tandems now with their ridiculous price.

I suppose it is because 3/4 inch QO is probably too narrow to have tandem AFCIs, not normally used much in resi, and has always been generally deficient in tandems, quads, etc.

The assumption is probably because most single pole will be AFCI, GFCI, etc. that tandems will not be used as much any more, but we are usually doing retrofits with the ATS installation, in which case if it is a conventional breaker it stays that way.

Originally QO PON loadcenters were not listed to use any tandem breakers. They recently started listing them for tandems in some of the bottom (opposite end of lugs/breaker) slots.

 

[brycenesbitt]

Now that the original justification for pricing the older CTL design higher,
what's the current justification? Is there one other than it's always been done that way? Would any harm from price parity on those breakers?

 

[infinity]

Now that the original justification for pricing the older CTL design higher,
what's the current justification? Is there one other than it's always been done that way? Would any harm from price parity on those breakers?

The prices should be the same but I won't hold my breath. Eaton has created a product where you must use the higher priced circuit breakers so more profit for them.

 

[Birken Vogt]

Eaton BR2020 non CTL 24.43
Eaton BD2020 CTL 25.99

Looks like a rounding error IMO

 

[kwired]

Now that the original justification for pricing the older CTL design higher,
what's the current justification? Is there one other than it's always been done that way? Would any harm from price parity on those breakers?

The non CTL are listed for replacement use only for the older tandems they used before CTL came along.

I suppose part of the reason price is higher is to discourage general use of them? At least before the plug on neutral became a problem with CTL tandems. Construction wise there really no reason they shouldn't be approximately same price. Having them higher probably reduces desire to purchase them if not necessary and further creates less demand so they have more of a special run whenever they make that version - higher volume of production can lead to less sale price when all other things are similar between two different products.

My favorite example from long ago was fluorescent light tubes. 4 and 8 foot tubes were much less expensive than other lengths simply because of volume of them that was produced even though some the others had less materials in their makeup.

 

[brycenesbitt]

And their quads have been relabeled to obsolete the confusing "replacement use only" sticker:

"Finally, the BR type duplex/quad has a label on the side (i.e. non-CTL, replacement only) that is no longer
applicable to NEC codes dated 2008 through today’s current code and product standard. As a result of this and
as states have adopted recent code editions, the label is in the process of being removed."

 

[Jraef]

This entire CTL concept is a relic of the past and needs to be removed completely from the NEC because it is obsolete. Eaton chose years ago to get rid of the notched stab so CTL breakers don't even work in their panels.

It did go away, about 10 years ago maybe? (I'll check). But that is only for NEW panels, so the issue still remains that if you HAVE a CTL panel, your restrictions still exist, because that was the listing of it, and 110.3.B says we have to abide by the listing.

Edit: CTL was repealed in 2008, so longer than 10 years. But lots of the panel mfrs still make the same CTL panels, so it still applies if it is still on their listing. I think the only real change with Eaton is that they are not going to keep making the CTL versions since they don't have to.

 

[brycenesbitt]

It did go away, about 10 years ago maybe? (I'll check). But that is only for NEW panels, so the issue still remains that if you HAVE a CTL panel, your restrictions still exist, because that was the listing of it, and 110.3.B says we have to abide by the listing.

The Eaton memo appears to give direct vendor instructions that newly manufactured non-clip tandems can be placed in any slot of an Eaton CTL panel.

I'm interpreting that Eaton's actions and memo essentially update the original listing, and any argument would be with UL or the NRTL, not 110.3.B. The memo appears to update the listing. By removing the clip all Eaton breakers become universal, just like the Eaton CL line. And you can bet that in the real world they'll be used in any position (subject to other requirements like fill, or available neutral lugs).

 

[brycenesbitt]

Or perhaps Eaton is arguing that their original listing allowed tandem breakers,
but that capability was outlawed not based on the listing, but by the CTL rule. And thus sun-setting the CTL rule simply reverted to the any breaker any slot rule that preceded it.

Physically of course the breakers fit tight and normal -- this is a paperwork issue not a safety issue. Load calculations and wire fill still apply.