Interestingly enough, in 1953, there was no RHH wire listed, just RH (listed as a 60 or 75?C conductor).
In 1956, RHH is listed for the first time as a 90? conductor, the same year the 14/12/10 footnote appears.
So whatever the difference was between RH and RHH back then triggered the lowering of the ampacity, but I can't find anything in either Article 300 or any of the notes to the table to explain it.
In 1956, RHH is listed for the first time as a 90? conductor, the same year the 14/12/10 footnote appears.
So whatever the difference was between RH and RHH back then triggered the lowering of the ampacity, but I can't find anything in either Article 300 or any of the notes to the table to explain it.
