Reidentification of White Conductor in Multiconductor Cable

Status
Not open for further replies.
busman

busman

Senior Member
Location
Northern Virginia
Occupation
Master Electrician / Electrical Engineer
This just occured to me yesterday. At one time, we could use the white wire in a cable for switch loops, but it had to be the feed to the switch and not the return. Now we are required to reidentify the white conductor if we use it in a switch, but we are still cannot use the white (reidentified) as the return. Any reason for this.

This came up when I was wiring an occupancy sensor in a residence. The sensor had the usual green, black and red wires. I taped the white cable conductor to red. I then had to connect the red cable wire to the black switch wire (so it would be the feed) and connect the red switch wire to the black cable wire so it was the return. Very confusing. I guess I could have taped both of the cable wires.

Any insights. (I'm still on 2002 code)

Thanks,

Mark
 
I guess I couldn't see why it matters which one is the supply and which is the return if neither is white anymore.

Mark
 
Busman,

In my opinion, 2002 200.7(C)(2) is a worthy candidate for deletion in the next Code cycle. 200.7(C)(1) covers everything nicely, then 200.7(C)(2) makes a special case out of switch loops. Until 200.7(C)(2) is removed it is the only reason that the re-identified white cannot be used as the return to the lighting outlet.

I can hear Tevya in Fiddler On The Roof saying: "You ask me, 'Why?' I'll tell you, 'I don't know, it's Tradition! ' "
 
Warning: this particular discussion can become as contentious as 'ground up or ground down'....

My understanding is that prior to the 1999 code, the section corresponding to 200.7(C)(1) said that you could use the white wire in a cable assembly for an ungrounded conductor, as long as it was re-identified, and 200.7(C)(2) said that you could use the white wire in a cable assembly as an ungrounded conductor as the supply to a switch loop _without_ re-identification. The code was changed to require re-identification in all cases.

I would argue that as written, 200.7(C)(1) and 200.7(C)(2) are _redundant_, and that you can simply use 200.7(C)(1), re-identify the conductor, and not worry about its being on the line or load side of a switch loop.

-Jon
 
winnie said:
Warning: this particular discussion can become as contentious as 'ground up or ground down'....

My understanding is that prior to the 1999 code, the section corresponding to 200.7(C)(1) said that you could use the white wire in a cable assembly for an ungrounded conductor, as long as it was re-identified, and 200.7(C)(2) said that you could use the white wire in a cable assembly as an ungrounded conductor as the supply to a switch loop _without_ re-identification. The code was changed to require re-identification in all cases.

I would argue that as written, 200.7(C)(1) and 200.7(C)(2) are _redundant_, and that you can simply use 200.7(C)(1), re-identify the conductor, and not worry about its being on the line or load side of a switch loop.

-Jon
Click to expand...

Geez guys, with Chicago's code, I'll bet they don't even have discussions like these!;) ;)
 
I always re identify but thats because i think its safer for the next guy.There are others here that dont care or think it needs explaing as to its use and some that i think want to see a home owner kill himself.It only takes 5 seconds with a marker to make it what ever color you need.Few inspectors here push it.
 
I always re identify but thats because i think its safer for the next guy.

Me to, but that's only for about the last 25 years.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top