New EGC selection table

Merry Christmas

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Anyone willing to make a proposal for a table like this? Similar yet separate table for motors, tap rules and welder circuits. I think it would clear up a lot of confusion.

1606990164037.png
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Electrician
I don't think it's necessary but if you do why don't you make a proposal?

Roger
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
You would need a lot of technical substantiation to get any change in the EGC sizing table. It is very difficult to accomplish.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
That table is for bonding conductor while you mentioned equipment grounding conductor. Maybe Canada calls the equipment grounding conductor a bond.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
the current code for sizing EGCs does not go by wire size but by rating of the OCPD.

where are these rule numbers from anyway?

Canadian Electrical Code


That table is for bonding conductor while you mentioned equipment grounding conductor. Maybe Canada calls the equipment grounding conductor a bond.

Yup, they EGCs bonding conductor. Makes much more sense.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
That table is for bonding conductor while you mentioned equipment grounding conductor. Maybe Canada calls the equipment grounding conductor a bond.
Yes, they did what the NEC should have done...changed equipment grounding conductor to equipment bonding conductor. The function of that conductor has nothing to do with a connection to earth.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Technical substantiation just to get the code better organized?
That is a technical change as you are basing the EGC size on the size of the ungrounded circuit conductor, but the current code is based on the size of the upstream OCPD.

For the record a table like that was approved in the first revision of the 2020, but deleted in the second revision as there are too many other changes in other parts of the code that have to be made for a table based on the size of the ungrounded conductor to work.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
That is a technical change as you are basing the EGC size on the size of the ungrounded circuit conductor, but the current code is based on the size of the upstream OCPD.

For the record a table like that was approved in the first revision of the 2020, but deleted in the second revision as there are too many other changes in other parts of the code that have to be made for a table based on the size of the ungrounded conductor to work.

Then have multiple tables for each condition. Motors, tap rules, welders, ect.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Technical substantiation just to get the code better organized?
Point kind of is you really need to impress them to change something that has been the way it is practically forever. Only changes that have happened here were pretty minor changes here and there, you want to dump the thing out and put it back in a different manner.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Then have multiple tables for each condition. Motors, tap rules, welders, ect.
Then you have plenty of time to work out all of those details...the PIs for the 2026 code will be due in September of 2026. Iti is highly unlikely that CMP 5 would accept a solution that requires multiple additional tables, and if they did, I would submit Public Comments in opposition. Additional tables would make the code more difficult to use and understand.

Given the issues when a table like this was tried for the 2020 code, I would be very surprised if CMP 5 would ever accept a PI to use an EGC sizing table based on the size of the ungrounded conductors.

NOTE: the due date for 2026 proposals is September of 2023, not 2026 as I said.
 
Last edited:

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Additional tables would make the code more difficult to use and understand.

Nope, that would be your pessimism talking.

The tables would be self explanatory as they would be labelled for the condition of use. It worked in Canada, its working in most other countries.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Then you have plenty of time to work out all of those details...the PIs for the 2026 code will be due in September of 2026. Iti is highly unlikely that CMP 5 would accept a solution that requires multiple additional tables, and if they did, I would submit Public Comments in opposition. Additional tables would make the code more difficult to use and understand.

Given the issues when a table like this was tried for the 2020 code, I would be very surprised if CMP 5 would ever accept a PI to use an EGC sizing table based on the size of the ungrounded conductors.
Sure you have the right date there? Likely will be able to purchase a copy in September or October of 2025
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Anyone willing to make a proposal for a table like this? Similar yet separate table for motors, tap rules and welder circuits. I think it would clear up a lot of confusion.

View attachment 2554476
What is the confusion now? The rule is basically size with one table and per overcurrent device. EGC never needs to be larger than the largest ungrounded conductor for motors, taps, etc.

Only other issue is when you need to upsize EGC proportionally to an upsized ungrounded conductor. If that is too hard to do maybe one needs to re-evaluate whether they are cut out for their job. I find many other somewhat routine calculations for this kind of job to be more confusing, start with art 220.
 
Top