Neutral in switch box 404.2C

[Eddie702]

Basement lighting. Basement is utility space and will never be finished. There is only 1 entrance/exit with a SP switch for some of the lighting in the basement. This switch does not control the lighting for the stairs going to and from the basement which is switched separately.

Code says neutral not required if space is "not habitable" 404.2c.

Do you agree that a neutral in the sw. box is not required?

 

[kwired]

Code says neutral not required if space is "not habitable" 404.2c.

did not verify but if that is the wording used then I agree it is not required.

I likely would have run a neutral to the switch location anyway maybe not realizing exactly what locations it may or may not apply to, just kind of has become habit to run or have provisions to be able to have a neutral at all lighting switches (if there is a grounded conductor in the lighting circuit) since this became a rule.

 

[Master Nater]

404.2(C) - Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. - The grounded circuit conductor for the controlled lighting circuit shall be installed at the location where switches control lighting loads that are supplied by a grounded general-purpose branch circuit serving bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and habitable rooms or occupiable spaces as defined in the applicable building code.

this doesn't ask if the switches are in bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and habitable rooms. this says that if the switches are supplied by general-purpose branch circuits serving bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and habitable rooms, then they will require a neutral conductor. while i agree, it sounds silly to define it this way, that is the way that the code is written.

so, the question becomes, does the CIRCUIT that is running those lights in that non-habitable room extend into a bathroom, hallway, stairway, or other habitable room? if yes, then this section of the code says it should have a grounded conductor.

there are exceptions listed, however.

if you are simply wanting to beat the system, IMO - if you simply sleeve that wire into the box with a 12" nipple of conduit, it meets the 404.2(C)(1) exception... . but that's up to your inspector.

 

[wwhitney]

so, the question becomes, does the CIRCUIT that is running those lights in that non-habitable room extend into a bathroom, hallway, stairway, or other habitable room?

No, the text you quoted does not refer the location of the rest of the circuit. It refers to the location of the lighting loads that the switch controls.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Master Nater]

No, the text you quoted does not refer the location of the rest of the circuit. It refers to the location of the lighting loads that the switch controls.

Cheers, Wayne

i guess i don't read it that way. like i mentioned, i think it's silly the way it's worded, but it is what it is.

"where switches control lighting loads that are supplied by a grounded general-purpose branch circuit serving bathrooms,..." etc seems pretty cut and dried to me. i understand their intent and what i think they meant to write, but that's not how it is written.

why do you suppose they even included the text 'supplied by a grounded general-purpose branch circuit serving bathrooms,..." and chose not insert a commas or semicolons before or after the mention of the 'branch circuit' to indicate it was the switch serving the bathroom, and not referring to the branch circuit itself? to me, it's just one, long, run-on sentence that is describing the branch circuit's location. not the switch's.

cheers, nate

 

[kwired]

404.2(C) - Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. - The grounded circuit conductor for the controlled lighting circuit shall be installed at the location where switches control lighting loads that are supplied by a grounded general-purpose branch circuit serving bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and habitable rooms or occupiable spaces as defined in the applicable building code.

this doesn't ask if the switches are in bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and habitable rooms. this says that if the switches are supplied by general-purpose branch circuits serving bathrooms, hallways, stairways, and habitable rooms, then they will require a neutral conductor. while i agree, it sounds silly to define it this way, that is the way that the code is written.

so, the question becomes, does the CIRCUIT that is running those lights in that non-habitable room extend into a bathroom, hallway, stairway, or other habitable room? if yes, then this section of the code says it should have a grounded conductor.

there are exceptions listed, however.

if you are simply wanting to beat the system, IMO - if you simply sleeve that wire into the box with a 12" nipple of conduit, it meets the 404.2(C)(1) exception... . but that's up to your inspector.

I agree with wwhitney.

Also your 12" nipple only beats the system if it is a true raceway and ends in another enclosure that has the grounded conductor present or other raceways that have space for the grounded conductor to be extended to said location.

A basic 12 inch "sleeve" which I believe is what you were implying wouldn't be acceptable. The wording says "raceway" and a raceway by other code rules needs to be continuous from enclosure to enclosure so that it is possible to add/remove/replace conductors in the raceway even if the raceway is concealed.

 

[wwhitney]

i guess i don't read it that way. like i mentioned, i think it's silly the way it's worded, but it is what it is.

OK, reading it again, you are right, it is written the way you indicated. However, that is sufficiently silly that it clearly is meant to be interpreted the way I indicated. I have submitted a PI for the 2029 NEC to reorder the phrases appropriately.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

This section is on my top 10 list of dumbest code sections. Unless there is a raceway system where a neutral can be pulled in at a later date just require a neutral in every switch location. I'm surprised that Copper.org hasn't jumped on that one.

 

[Eddie702]

I am not trying to beat the system. This is rewiring and old house all old work.. Lets say I pull out and old 2 wire BX because the insulation is shot and I pull a new cable to a switch box. If the switch is switching basement lights (not habitable) then The way I read it a neutral in the switch box is not required.

But I could be wrong. No neutral now because it is a switch loop.

If the old wire was usable and I wasn't replacing it I would leave it as is

just wondering

 

[suemarkp]

If you can fish a new wire, just use one with a neutral. New 14-3 is just as small as old 14-2. You never know what needs to come off that switch, or if they want a smart switch, occupancy sensor, or something else that works best with a neutral. I hate it when there isn't a neutral in a box.

 

[Eddie702]

If you can fish a new wire, just use one with a neutral. New 14-3 is just as small as old 14-2. You never know what needs to come off that switch, or if they want a smart switch, occupancy sensor, or something else that works best with a neutral. I hate it when there isn't a neutral in a box.

Understood and in this case, it should be simple to fish a new cable so that is what I will do. But in some locations if the power is in a ceiling light on the first floor and no attic access and you're rewiring it isn't so simple.

I was just wondering if it was required in a basement that is not habitable..

 

[suemarkp]

Cant it remain if you dont touch the switch leg? I would think things you leave behind are grandfathered (e.g. too hard or costly to replace), but if you run something new then you need to meet the current rules and I would run a neutral even if I didn't.