When is code going to change on backstabbing

[kwired]

What if...... someone wants to start a grow operation in the bedroom closet? I propose a 20a 120v circuit for every closet.

It seems to keep getting closer to that kind of thing. All it will take is one fire/ maybe lost life in such situation and someone will submit the PI. If they don't get the individual branch circuit you can bet they will at least want GFCI protection in bedroom closets.

 

[mbrooke]

That is what it says, is not necessarily what it has done over the years. There have been many requirements that should be left as design decisions.

If you are going to "what if" every possibility the end result should be that electricity is dangerous and we shouldn't even use it.

I agree.

 

[jim dungar]

That is what it says...

My point is there is nothing in 90.1 that precludes the NEC from containing design requirements.

 

[480sparky]

Re-identifying a white conductor in a cable to feed power to a switch is another stupid requirement. Any 1st-year electrician should be able to figure out, "Let's see... I have a black and a white going to a switch. Must be a switch loop."

 

[rbalex]

My point is there is nothing in 90.1 that precludes the NEC from containing design requirements.

Well said and that is exactly what Section 90.5(A) [2020] is about (and has been so stated in one form or another since 1993)

 

[kwired]

Re-identifying a white conductor in a cable to feed power to a switch is another stupid requirement. Any 1st-year electrician should be able to figure out, "Let's see... I have a black and a white going to a switch. Must be a switch loop."

But you now need a neutral at that switch in most cases even if nothing utilizes it, another design decision that became a requirement.

 

[jim dungar]

... another design decision that became a requirement.

Just like; no more than the equivalent of (4) 90° bends in a conduit run, or the high leg needs to be the B phase, or provide a label showing the available fault current at the service entrance equipment.

 

[hillbilly1]

But you now need a neutral at that switch in most cases even if nothing utilizes it, another design decision that became a requirement.

Is that NEC? Or energy code? I haven’t had a chance to look that one up.

 

[480sparky]

Is that NEC? Or energy code? I haven’t had a chance to look that one up.

NEC. 404.2(C). So lighting controls that require a neutral won't be installed by hacks using the ground wire instead.

 

[ptonsparky]

NEC. 404.2(C). So lighting controls that require a neutral won't be installed by hacks using the ground wire instead.

...and trip the only part of the required AFCIs that worked, the included GF protection.

 

[hillbilly1]

NEC. 404.2(C). So lighting controls that require a neutral won't be installed by hacks using the ground wire instead.

Knew it was for lighting controls, just hadn’t looked it up. Older motion sensors did not use a neutral, they siphoned a small amount of current from hot to ground. The problem is, enough of them on an arc fault circuit would cause issues of nuisance tripping, but thanks for the code reference!

 

[hillbilly1]

...and trip the only part of the required AFCIs that worked, the included GF protection.

You beat me to it!

 

[retirede]

...and trip the only part of the required AFCIs that worked, the included GF protection.

Except for the ones that don’t include GF.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

NEC. 404.2(C). So lighting controls that require a neutral won't be installed by hacks using the ground wire instead.

Actually that change was part of a unofficial deal with UL. The previous UL standard for electronic switches permitted the EGC to be used for the electronic power for the switch. The standard was not going to be changed unless the NEC provided a rule that placed a neutral at each location where an electronic switch may be installed.

 

[flashlight]

NEC. 404.2(C). So lighting controls that require a neutral won't be installed by hacks using the ground wire instead.

Not only lighting controls, if they want to add a receptacle they use the ground wire, or, lacking that, the box in a metallic system.

I saw a bunch of Greenfield in a vertical chase in an old building sparking against each other.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not only lighting controls, if they want to add a receptacle they use the ground wire, or, lacking that, the box in a metallic system.

I saw a bunch of Greenfield in a vertical chase in an old building sparking against each other.

That was never part of any of the substantiations for the code change that required neutrals at light switch locations. Everything was related to the the issue with providing power to electronic lighting controls.
Sure that can be an issue, but did not enter into the code change.

 

[kwired]

That was never part of any of the substantiations for the code change that required neutrals at light switch locations. Everything was related to the the issue with providing power to electronic lighting controls.
Sure that can be an issue, but did not enter into the code change.

and most those lighting controls before the change were using the EGC as a circuit conductor anyway. The current they used was low enough it was sort of negligible, but get enough controls on same circuit and they probably could draw enough to trip GFCI's, especially if you already have some normal capacitive leakage on the circuit.

 

[480sparky]

Or lazy installers putting in controls that actually required a grounded conductor just used the grounding conductor to 'make it work' and get paid.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

and most those lighting controls before the change were using the EGC as a circuit conductor anyway. The current they used was low enough it was sort of negligible, but get enough controls on same circuit and they probably could draw enough to trip GFCI's, especially if you already have some normal capacitive leakage on the circuit.

Since we all know that green wires cannot shock you, the small around of current was enough to cause you to react in a manner that may cause injure. The substantiations for the change were all about the shock hazard to workers having no idea that the EGC was being used as a current carrying conductor. With the low amount of current on the EGC, there was no reasonable way to determine the EGC was being used as a current carrying conductor, especially where the electrician was working with that EGC remote from any of the electronic switches>
The old UL product standard specifically allowed for the EGC to be used for the power to the electronic controls. The UL Standards Technical Panel would not agree to change the standard to prohibit that practice unless the NEC was changed to require the neutral at those locations.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Or lazy installers putting in controls that actually required a grounded conductor just used the grounding conductor to 'make it work' and get paid.

The older electronic controls did not require a neutral as the product standard specifically permitted the device to use the EGC as the neutral.