Upsizing EGC with conductor size?

[jaggedben]

They changed it because installers "cheated" the system by saying such things as, "It wasn't for voltage drop, it was just the only wire I had in the truck."

And why do AHJs have to fall for that? I mean if you're the inspector and it's 5ft there's no reason to question that explanation. And if it's 1000ft you say 'I don’t believe you.' And if the installer says something else like 'see I was going by the minimum wire size on this terminal spec', or 'the OCPD was downsized and I have the pics to prove it' that's a legitimate alternative reason you can accept.

 

[LarryFine]

So often the electrician and the inspector seem to have an adversarial relationship, when we really have, or should have a common goal: a safe, efficient, functioning installation. Even when I have challenged a fail, the conversation remained civil and polite.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

So often the electrician and the inspector seem to have an adversarial relationship, when we really have, or should have a common goal: a safe, efficient, functioning installation. Even when I have challenged a fail, the conversation remained civil and polite.

I agree completely. Even when it's electrician to electrician. At days end it is about safety. Plus this is how we learn.
I enjoyed this post very much. Thanks to all.

 

[Strathead]

I did read your examples. For the first example, I also consider myself qualified enough to recognize that the situation was ridiculous. I strongly believe that not upsizing the EGC when the breaker was dialed down to 150 amps would not create a safety hazard. It would, however, create an undesirable opportunity for confusion (e.g., Who made this decision? Did he make an error? Why did he do that? Is this really code-compliant? Do we need to fix this?).

Could I make that call? Yes. Would I make that call? No, at least not without leaving something on the record as justification that future reviewers could evaluate for themselves. And that "something" would have to be stronger than, "Trust me, I know what I am doing."

OK, I can accept that even though I think it is a little too cautious. I guess it is Engineer perspective vs. Electrician perspective. I believe I am a more conscientious electrician than the 50th percentile, but I know I have to violate code on occasion to get something done and I do it. It seems that you would be more prone to shutting down until someone else either reinvents the wheel or takes the responsibility for that. As a boss that would be frustrating at times, but also a trait that I would respect and make use of at other times. I mean this not as an insult, perhaps not as a true compliment, but at least as acceptance and respect.

 

[ggunn]

So often the electrician and the inspector seem to have an adversarial relationship, when we really have, or should have a common goal: a safe, efficient, functioning installation. Even when I have challenged a fail, the conversation remained civil and polite.

In an ideal world, yes, of course. What I have seen, however, are some inspectors who are petty bureaucrats whose only power is to say "no", and who sometimes make up their own rules that do not mesh with the NEC. You might say that they can't do that, but in some cases, unfortunately and maddeningly, they can and do.

 

[mooreaaryan]

The steel tube institute has a free software program “Gemi” that is very usefull for section 260.122 applications

Cool