Should size change if cable #1 is romex what if cable #1 is SE?

tortuga said:
I see that took me for a loop the current wording in 334.80 references -> 310.14 then 310.14 references -> 310.15 which references 310.12

The 2026 wording just says you cant use the table, you can still use the 83%
2026 310.12(B):
Click to expand...
The reference in 334.80 to 310.14 is not an open ended allowance that points all the way back to 310.12. There is a limiting factor of a reference to the "Tables in 310.15"
310.14 Ampacities for Conductors Rated 0 Volts – 2000 Volts.
310.14(A)(1) Tables or Engineering Supervision.
Ampacities for conductors shall be permitted to be determined by tables as provided in 310.15 or under engineering supervision as provided in 310.14(B).
Table 310.15(B)(1)(1)Note: Table 310.15(B)(1)(1) shall be used with Table 310.16 and Table 310.17 as required.
Table 310.15(B)(1)(2)Note: Table 310.15(B)(1)(2) shall be used with Table 310.18, Table 310.19, Table 310.20, and Table 310.21 as required.
Table 310.15(C)(1)Number of conductors is the total number of conductors in the raceway or cable, including spare conductors. The count shall be adjusted in accordance with 310.15(E) and (F). The count shall not include conductors that are connected to electrical components that cannot be simultaneously energized.
310.15(E) Neutral Conductor.
310.15(F) Grounding or Bonding Conductor.

Nothing creating an open ended reference back to 310.12
Nothing in 310.14(A)(B) or (C) points to 310.12
It says what it says.
 
Seven-Delta-FortyOne said:
At the end of the day, this setup appears to be on the exterior of the building, which I asked about but the OP has neither confirmed nor denied.

If it is, that negates the use of NM, period.
Click to expand...

The main service disconnect is on the exterior on the exterior of the building.

The panelboards are inside the building.

All that is on Post #1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top