Birken Vogt
Senior Member
- Location
- Grass Valley, Ca
The NJ interpretation is wrong. But it makes little sense to worry about it since 6CU SE cable would be allowed and I don't see the difference.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
EV Charger
- Thread starter nizak
- Start date
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
That's hilarious to see a code official acutally cite the section with the requirement while saying it doesn't exist.
See Pages 13 and 14.
I appreciate you providing this.
The explanation and reasoning for allowing this is dubious at best. At least they tried to explain why they did what they did.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
FWIW, the NJ result is the correct one on the physics; the error is in the language in 210.19(A)(1) and 215.2(A)(1).
Longer explanation hopefully to follow; still working out one of the details.
Cheers, Wayne
Longer explanation hopefully to follow; still working out one of the details.
Cheers, Wayne
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
OK, so the problem is bigger than just 210.19(A)(1) and 215.2(A)(1). The problem is that even though the definition of "ampacity" in Article 100 refers to the "conditions of use" and thus to a corrected and adjusted value, many sections like 210.19(A)(1)(a) and 215.2(A)(1)(a) use the term to refer to an unadjusted and uncorrected value straight from the table.FWIW, the NJ result is the correct one on the physics; the error is in the language in 210.19(A)(1) and 215.2(A)(1).
So if you interpret 334.80's limits on NM "ampacity" as referring only to rules that reference the adjusted and corrected values, it would apply only to 210.19(A)(1)(b) and 215.2(A)(1)(b), and not to the termination limits in 210.19(A)(1)(a) and 215.2(A)(1)(a). I.e. you'd get to use the 75C ampacity for termination checks, just like you get to use the 90C ampacity for ampacity adjustment and correction. 334.80 would still limit the actual current on #6 NM to 55A, which is not a problem for the application in the OP.
That's what the NJ interpretation should be saying (and maybe is trying to say, I only read it once). The proper way to fix this would be to be to stop overloading the word "ampacity" in the NEC and introduce a new term like "termination capacity" that is used in all the termination check language. Of course that requires looking at every use of the word "ampacity" in the NEC and determining which meaning is intended. And the writers of 334.80 could decide when they want to limit only the "ampacity" or also the "termination capacity". [Not a big fan of that term, would welcome other suggestions.]
Cheers, Wayne