Why not call it EBC instead of EGC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon456

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
I've found that one of the greatest sources of confusion in the trade is between grounding conductors (GEC) and bonding conductors (EGC). So why does the NEC contribute to this confusion by referring to an "Equipment Grounding Conductor" when it would be more accurate to call it an "Equipment Bonding Conductor" (EBC)?

I realize there's historical inertia to not change the terminology. But if the NEC can change actual practices, surely it can also change terminology. It would really help encourage electricians to understand the important difference between bonding and grounding.
 
Submit a proposal to the 2020. Of course, you'll need to provide documentation as to why the proposed change would be better than what's already in place.

Remember, the GEC and EGC are different animals and perform totally different functions.
 
Jon456 said:
I've found that one of the greatest sources of confusion in the trade is between grounding conductors (GEC) and bonding conductors (EGC). So why does the NEC contribute to this confusion by referring to an "Equipment Grounding Conductor" when it would be more accurate to call it an "Equipment Bonding Conductor" (EBC)?

I realize there's historical inertia to not change the terminology. But if the NEC can change actual practices, surely it can also change terminology. It would really help encourage electricians to understand the important difference between bonding and grounding.
Click to expand...

It's more about understanding what the different conductors and what their jobs are, rather than the terminology itself.

Take the confusing statement above for instance.

(GEC) stands for "Grounding Electrode Conductor" not "Grounding Conductor".


JAP>
 
jap said:
It's more about understanding what the different conductors and what their jobs are, rather than the terminology itself.

Take the confusing statement above for instance.

(GEC) stands for "Grounding Electrode Conductor" not "Grounding Conductor".
Click to expand...
I know that GEC stands for "Grounding Electrode Conductor": it is the conductor from the service panel to the grounding electrode. The point I was making in my post is that a GEC is a conductor for grounding (electrically connecting to the grounding electrode). Whereas an EGC is for BONDING electrical equipment to the breaker panel: it provides a safety fault path for tripping the OCPD; it is not used for grounding to earth.
 
Don G. has submitted proposals along this line and did not get accepted, one problem is that there is already an EBC, see 250.102(D).

EBC instead of EGC would be a good idea, but then what do we call the existing EBC.
 
480sparky said:
Remember, the GEC and EGC are different animals and perform totally different functions.
Click to expand...
That's the point I'm making. The current terminology blurs the distinction between the two. In the case of the EGC, it is a misnomer as its purpose is for bonding, not for grounding.

I had a protracted argument with a licensed electrical contractor over this: he was trying to apply GEC sizing (Table 250.66) to an EGC between our facility's service entrance and our main distribution panel.
 
jumper said:
Don G. has submitted proposals along this line and did not get accepted, one problem is that there is already an EBC, see 250.102(D).

EBC instead of EGC would be a good idea, but then what do we call the existing EBC.
Click to expand...
I couldn't find EBC in a search of my 2008 NEC PDF version. Section 250.102 refers to Equipment Bonding Jumpers. I'd call that an EBJ.

Edit: I just found two references to "Equipment Bonding Conductors": one in Section 300.3(A) and one in Section 408.3(C). Section 300.3(A) references Section 250.102, so the reference to "Equipment Bonding Conductors" should probably be changed to "Equipment Bonding Jumpers" in 300.3(A). Section 408.3(C) references Table 250.122, so the reference to "Equipment Bonding Conductors" should probably be changed to "Equipment Grounding Conductors" in Section 408.3(C) to be consistent with current terminology. Correcting these two references would allow for the change-over of "Equipment Grounding Conductors" to "Equipment Bonding Conductors."
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't waste any time with trying to get a code change. There have been numerous proposals over the past several code cycles and the CMP simply doesn't want to change it. This is one of many panel statements on the subject:

Panel Meeting Action: RejectPanel Statement: The panel does not agree with the substantiation provided by
the submitter. Section 250.4(A) and (B) addresses the performance aspects for
grounding of systems, 250.4(A)(1), and also for grounding of the normally
non-current carrying parts of electrical equipment, 250.4(A)(2) and 250.4(B)
(1). The performance requirements then go on to additionally establish that the
various parts of equipment must be bonded together in such a way so as to
create a purposeful low impedance path of sufficient capacity to effectively
carry any ground fault current back to the source so overcurrent protective
devices can operate. The conductor presently identified as the “equipment
grounding conductor”, be it a wire type or any other type identified in 250.118,
provides for both these functions. No matter what name is applied this
conductor or conductive path serves both functions. This dual purpose is made
clear in the present definition and accompanying Informational Note No. 1.
Click to expand...
 
Jon456 said:
That's the point I'm making. The current terminology blurs the distinction between the two. In the case of the EGC, it is a misnomer as its purpose is for bonding, not for grounding.

I had a protracted argument with a licensed electrical contractor over this: he was trying to apply GEC sizing (Table 250.66) to an EGC between our facility's service entrance and our main distribution panel.
Click to expand...

Then why not toss Grounded Conductor into the proposed change as well?
 
GoldDigger said:
And make it Bonded Conductor instead? Makes sense, but maybe not as urgent.

And the counter argument is that you would not bond to any POCO conductor except the grounded one.
Click to expand...
I think calling the "grounded conductor" a "bonded conductor" is both confusing and inaccurate.
 
Jon456 said:
I know that GEC stands for "Grounding Electrode Conductor": it is the conductor from the service panel to the grounding electrode. The point I was making in my post is that a GEC is a conductor for grounding (electrically connecting to the grounding electrode). Whereas an EGC is for BONDING electrical equipment to the breaker panel: it provides a safety fault path for tripping the OCPD; it is not used for grounding to earth.
Click to expand...

That's my point.

"Grounding Conductor" just before "GEC" in parenthesis in the first post could confuse someone to think they were one in the same.

It's not very often (hardly ever) that we simply stick a piece of wire in the dirt and call it good without attaching it to something like a rod, pipe, or something else.

The "Grounding Conductor" in the case above would be the Grounding "Electrode" itself, and the "GEC" or "Grounding Electrode Conductor" would be the conductor attaching the service panel to the Electrode.

Just sayin.

JAP>
 
Mike Holt said it best "What color is it and what does it do"
You've got one month to make a proposal for the 2020 NEC.
 
tom baker said:
Mike Holt said it best "What color is it and what does it do"
You've got one month to make a proposal for the 2020 NEC.
Click to expand...

I agree with the second half-"what does it do", but I will say relying on color is a good way to get yourself hurt or killed.

Been zapped by a green wire and have traced it out to find it connected to a breaker. A lot of white wires used as a hot never get marked.
 
Jon456 said:
That's the point I'm making. The current terminology blurs the distinction between the two. In the case of the EGC, it is a misnomer as its purpose is for bonding, not for grounding.

I had a protracted argument with a licensed electrical contractor over this: he was trying to apply GEC sizing (Table 250.66) to an EGC between our facility's service entrance and our main distribution panel.
Click to expand...
I personally believe this garbage about trying to get the terms bonded and bonding adopted by the code is leading to way more confusion.

The protracted argument you had was with somebody who didn't know what either table and their respective conductors are for. Once you clear on it it doesn't matter what they are called. In Europe their EGC is called protective earth and they call a connection to ground earthing. I have no problem with that.

My personal preference is there is one bond, at the service or sds and there is one connection to earth there. Everything else is a grounded conductor and equipment grounding. Simple is better. If I say to you equipment grounding you know exactly what I'm talking about. We just need more electricians to understand basic electricity and use the current language, with a slight tweak emphasizing equipment grounding and what it's for, and things will get a lot better. Trying to adopt a whole new vocabulary will only make things worse.
 
ActionDave said:
I personally believe this garbage about trying to get the terms bonded and bonding adopted by the code is leading to way more confusion.

The protracted argument you had was with somebody who didn't know what either table and their respective conductors are for. Once you clear on it it doesn't matter what they are called. In Europe their EGC is called protective earth and they call a connection to ground earthing. I have no problem with that.

My personal preference is there is one bond, at the service or sds and there is one connection to earth there. Everything else is a grounded conductor and equipment grounding. Simple is better. If I say to you equipment grounding you know exactly what I'm talking about. We just need more electricians to understand basic electricity and use the current language, with a slight tweak emphasizing equipment grounding and what it's for, and things will get a lot better. Trying to adopt a whole new vocabulary will only make things worse.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with EGC and with protective earth...both of those terms imply that the connection to the earth has something do with the protection that those conductors provide. The term EGC is why we have people that think you can make something safe by driving a ground rod and making a connection to it.

The Canadian Electrical Code changed from Equipment Grounding Conductor to Equipment Bonding Conductor a number of years ago. Their instructors tell me that it has made this subject much easier for the students to understand after the code made that change.

The primary function of what the NEC calls the EGC is the bonding of the non-current carrying parts of the electrical system to the main bonding jumper to provide a fault clearing path. While the EGC does provide a connection to the earth, that really has nothing to do with its function.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
....
The primary function of what the NEC calls the EGC is the bonding of the non-current carrying parts of the electrical system to the main bonding jumper to provide a fault clearing path. While the EGC does provide a connection to the earth, that really has nothing to do with its function.
Click to expand...
It is a bit more complicated than that.

The fault clearing path is to the center tap of the POCO secondary if that is the grounded conductor, or to the corner of a corner grounded delta if that is the service type. It is possible to bond the exposed metal parts of the world to that conductor to provide a fault clearing path because that POCO conductor is grounded.
In the case of an ungrounded delta, the EGC does not provide a fault clearing path (except maybe for a second fault) but is still required for safety.

If the POCO conductor that gets bonded were not grounded, there could be no EGC.
Ground is not part of the fault clearing path, but if a bonded conductor can safely be used as the fault clearing path, it is only because the return conductor is expected to be at ground potential.
 
Last edited:
GoldDigger said:
It is a bit more complicated than that.

The fault clearing path is to the center tap of the POCO secondary if that is the grounded conductor, or to the corner of a corner grounded delta if that is the service type. It is possible to bond the exposed metal parts of the world to that conductor to provide a fault clearing path because that POCO conductor is grounded.
Click to expand...
The fault clearing path on the line side of the main boding jumper, is for the most part outside of the scope of the NEC.
In the case of an ungrounded delta, the EGC does not provide a fault clearing path (except maybe for a second fault) but is still required for safety.
Click to expand...
The ungrounded system is a special case, but even there the connection to the earth has nothing to do with the function of the EGC. It's function is still to bond everything together, and it is the fault clearing path for a second fault which is really a line to line fault.

If the POCO conductor that gets bonded were not grounded, there could be no EGC.
Ground is not part of the fault clearing path, but if a bonded conductor can safely be used as the fault clearing path, it is only because the return conductor is expected to be at ground potential.
Click to expand...
The fault clearing function has nothing to do with a conductor being at ground potential. Sure it normally is, but that has nothing to do with its function. If XO were to be "floated" and the "EGC" connected to XO it would work exactly the same as a fault clearing path.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The fault clearing path on the line side of the main boding jumper, is for the most part outside of the scope of the NEC.

The ungrounded system is a special case, but even there the connection to the earth has nothing to do with the function of the EGC. It's function is still to bond everything together, and it is the fault clearing path for a second fault which is really a line to line fault.

The fault clearing function has nothing to do with a conductor being at ground potential. Sure it normally is, but that has nothing to do with its function. If XO were to be "floated" and the "EGC" connected to XO it would work exactly the same as a fault clearing path.
Click to expand...
But it would not be safe to connect X0 to exposed metal, so that would not be an EGC or EBC in the usual sense.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top