# NEC 2011...possible changes



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

One link I found that has possible changes
http://www.ecmag.com/?fa=article&articleID=10115

Another
http://www.iaei.org/magazine/?p=4454



> *New: 404.2(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads*
> A new subdivision will require a grounded conductor to be provided to switch locations that control lighting, unless the wiring is installed in a raceway or the physical construction of the building allows for relative ease of future addition of other conductors


Seems a Neutral (grounded conductor) may need to be included on switched loops
Still looking for more info

DRAFT:

http://www.4shared.com/file/231185416/e968d03f/RICI_ELECTRIC_NEC_2011_Draft.html


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Maybe I'm just not thinking of other possibilities
But it seems as if this just eliminates using -2 wire for a switched loop
Instead you will need to install -3 wire
And cap it at both sides ?
Connect it on the "hot" side & cap it where not needed ?
I've already been running hot feed to the switch instead of the lights


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

Dave.,

There are few running will come on 2011 code cycle but keep in your mind not all states will adpot the new code right away so it will give them a running time to catch up

Myself and couple other electricians will be more than glad to fill you in with upcomming change.

Dave I may ask you to make a request at later date to make subparts sections so the readers can understand the highlighted changes what it will affect the way code is written.

As far for the grounded (Netural ) conductor at the switch box that I confirmed that they will enforced due many of the motion sensor and timers they useally required a netural to get the electronic device to function properly.

That will affect the fill capaity in the switch box so plan it ahead with it.

I will get few more info and type it up as soon I get few direct answer with the update codes.

Merci.
Marc


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

Here in MA they seem to update the new code on Jan 1st
They did that for the NEC 2008
So if I'm running wire I try to meet the next code whenever possible


----------



## jimmy21 (Jul 2, 2008)

i don't see the point as far as making that code. It has nothing to do with safety. Although it think its retarded not to do it that way. I hate when people take power to the lights. I would hate to see that become code though, because there is a time and place for doing it that way


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

it's kind of funny because as it is, when using a ferrous metal conduit , that was typically required (300.20(A)) but there was an exception specifically for switch legs.

The only justification I can see is what Marc stated as it being used in the box. It' a shame they cannot allow an electrician to install what is required as needed and not be told to install it because it might be needed in the future. Not saying it is a bad ides but this removes the NEC from being a safety manual and enforcing design requirements that are not safety based concerns.


----------



## Gigs (Oct 26, 2008)

If people are using grounds as a neutral for these switchbox devices installed later, then there could be a safety justification. 

How many homeowners are going to pull a new wire to install their new night-light switch that the guy at Lowes sold them?

I know you can't predict every dangerous thing someone might try, but I can see where it's coming from.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

One issue is the retrofit of dimmers, timers and sensor controlled switches that require a neutral.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

Those of us involved in home automation (insteon, UPB) would VERY MUCH appreciate the neutral (grounded conductor) at each switch box. This would avoid much rewiring and repurposing of existing wires. Even some of the nicer lutron switches require this. I wonder how many folks are using the bare-copper ground as a neutral when there is no actual white, neutral wire. 



> Not saying it is a bad ides but this removes the NEC from being a safety manual and enforcing design requirements that are not safety based concerns.


I make no claims to being a code expert, but I would argue that the code already addresses convenience and design issues. Does it not already dictate numbers of outlets (even if not required by homeowner)?


----------



## Scuba_Dave (Jan 16, 2009)

oberkc said:


> I make no claims to being a code expert, but I would argue that the code already addresses convenience and design issues. Does it not already dictate numbers of outlets (even if not required by homeowner)?


I'd hardly consider a required outlet every 12' a design issue or for convenience
I install my outlets every 6' or less


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

oberkc said:


> I make no claims to being a code expert, but I would argue that the code already addresses convenience and design issues. Does it not already dictate numbers of outlets (even if not required by homeowner)?


that is not a matter of convenience. It is safety issue. It is to cause a recep to be within reach of the typical lamp of appliance without the need for using an extension cord.

I understand your point but it just isn't the same in my mind.




> Those of us involved in home automation (insteon, UPB) would VERY MUCH appreciate the neutral (grounded conductor) at each switch box.


then you should be involved with the design of the home and this should be spec'd. I would like to see a lot of things done differently but unless I can justify the legal use of the system as it is causes a safety hazard, the code does not belong in the discussion.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> that is not a matter of convenience. It is safety issue. It is to cause a recep to be within reach of the typical lamp of appliance without the need for using an extension cord.


Fair point. I suspect we will continue to have a different opinion about such things. How about:

If you need receptacles to be within reach of a lamp outlet, "then you should be involved with the design of the home and this should be spec'd"? This argument is based on assumptions about what is the predominant use for outlets by the normal individual.

I see it as foregone conclusion that programmable lighting control becomes commonplace in not-too-distant future houses for normal individuals. (I see no reason why we should assume that the common mechanical relay continues to be the standard for the indefinite future.) In order for this to be installed safely, they require a neutral. I just see it as technological progression of safe electrical design for housing.


----------



## deepseathomas (Oct 15, 2010)

*Scuba Dave*

Dave any ideas on the pigtail connection for aluminun to copper for wall out let? thomas




Scuba_Dave said:


> One link I found that has possible changes
> http://www.ecmag.com/?fa=article&articleID=10115
> 
> Another
> ...


----------



## ChrisDIY (Feb 1, 2010)

...not being an electrician I always thought neutral was required? If not used had to be tied in back of box or is this something different?


----------



## Pistol Pete (Sep 23, 2010)

jimmy21 said:


> I hate when people take power to the lights. I would hate to see that become code though, because there is a time and place for doing it that way


As a homeowner and DIYer I think it's very convenient to have a hot wire to the outlet and a switch leg, rather than the other way. I wonder why Jimmy21 doesn't like it this way?

Here are three times having a hot at the outlet was a good thing:
1. I installed a ceiling fan over the dining room table. I hooked the hot to the fan so it runs using the pull-chain, and I hooked up the lights using the switch leg, into which I installed a dimmer. Everything works just like I like it, and I didn't have to do any wiring.

2. The bedroom had a switched outlet for a lamp, but I wanted a ceiling light fixture. I removed the switch leg from the wall plug and hooked the hot line so it was always live, Then I went up to the attic and ran a hot line from another ceiling light to a new box in the bedroom ceiling, and used the wiring from the wall switch as a switch leg for my new ceiling light. 

3. The living room had a switched outlet where I needed both a switched and an always-on outlet. I broke off the tabs and hooked the hot line to the top receptacle, and used the switch leg to the bottom half of the duplex plug. Again, just what I needed with no wiring changes at all.

So what's the down-side?


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> So what's the down-side?


One down side is that those devices (certain switches) that require a neutral to operate can't be made to work.

This is not a big deal, I don't think. If you want a switch leg, simply run three conductors to the switch box. In my mind, three conductors between a switch and outlet, regardless where the supply is run, is a good things. They give you lot's of flexibility, including all the options you describe.


----------



## mgarfield (Jan 27, 2008)

Ran into this in my bathroom, wanted to change the exhaust fan switch to a timer, pulled the switch off and discovered its only a 2 wire switch leg, Power is at the fan, now I have to wait till spring when we rip the carpet out upstairs to cut some holes in the floor and replace it with 3 wire. Id be doing a happy dance if it was ran with 3 originally.


----------



## WaldenL (Jan 9, 2009)

mgarfield said:


> ... Id be doing a happy dance if it was ran with 3 originally.


But there's the problem. Should the NEC dictate what would be nice in the future, or what's safe today? 

There have been times I'd have done the happy dance if a circuit was 20A vs. 15, but does that mean all circuits should be 20A now? Nope. 15 is still fine in most cases. Other times I wish every room was on it's own circuit, but again, not a safety issue. Or that switched outlets were run such that every outlet had a switched and unswitched part. Or that... But the NEC should be about safety, not ideal design.


----------



## clashley (Nov 24, 2009)

I see the requirement for a grounded conductor in switch loops as a safety issue... I wonder how many folks run out to Lowes/HD, buy a dimmer/timer that requires a neutral connection and end up using the ground wire in a switch loop instead?

Granted, you cannot use code to "idiot-proof" a property from every possible dumb thing that a homeowner/tenant may do in the future, but you can identify potentially common safety issues and attempt to mitigate them.


----------



## mgarfield (Jan 27, 2008)

Good point WaldenL, if NEC starts getting into policies that are based on what ifs or future considerations where does it stop? Safety should be their primary objective, let the contractor/home owner worry about the what ifs.


----------



## WaldenL (Jan 9, 2009)

Not to contradict myself, but having reviewed some of the logic behind the change to require neutral @ the switch I can see it as a safety issue. Apparently people are using ground as the neutral if there's no neutral, and that's not what it's there for. So yes, running neutral to the switch is a safety issue.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> There have been times I'd have done the happy dance if a circuit was 20A vs. 15, but does that mean all circuits should be 20A now? Nope. 15 is still fine in most cases.


I think the key expression here is "most cases". The proposed amendment makes me suspect that the use of ground as a neutral has become commonplace enough to warrant action, all in the name of safety.



> Good point WaldenL, if NEC starts getting into policies that are based on what ifs or future considerations where does it stop?


While I agree with the concept of this, I still refer back to the code requirement governing the number of receptacles in a room. The only reason that this is there is to mitigate a "what if"....what if too-few numbers of outlets increases a homeowner's use of extension cords, which may cause a fire. Code has been in the "what if" business for years. This latest amendment is nothing new.

Where it stops, apparently, is a judgement call based on common usage. Apparently, using ground as neutral has become too common.


----------



## mgarfield (Jan 27, 2008)

oberkc said:


> Apparently, using ground as neutral has become too common.



It probably has, when I wanted to install that timer a friend actually said to me, "just use the ground, it will work". Yes it would, but that doesn't make it right or more importantly, safe. So the timer is still sitting in my tool box, waiting for a me to put in 3 wire.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Jan 27, 2008)

There _are_ some electronic timers (ex: the Leviton 6161T) that are listed without for use without connection to a neutral (ungrounded) conductor, requiring only a a line, load and ground connection.

However 1) they require an effective ground and 2) those I have see are listed only for use with incandescent loads - I have seen them used "successfully" with LED bulbs and to control bathroom fan motors, but they are not listed for either use.


----------



## ChrisDIY (Feb 1, 2010)

Speaking of neutral I guess we can expect to see AFCI breakers being required/replacement.


----------



## WaldenL (Jan 9, 2009)

ChrisDIY said:


> Speaking of neutral I guess we can expect to see AFCI breakers being required/replacement.


Don't "expect" it. It's pretty much there in the 2011 cycle. Many "extension" to a branch circuit now require you bring the circuit up to AFCI protected status.


----------



## workfuture (Feb 22, 2011)

DO NOT use the grounding/bonding system for a neutral return!
Where are these devices that use the grounding/bonding system instead of a neutral return made?
Possibly the timer uses the load side for a return thus putting the timer draw in series with the load.
Is this ground wire for all boxes or just the metal ones?
Is it for bonding or grounding purposes?
Ground wire possibly to be used for a GFI and/or arc protection system.


----------



## cornskier (Aug 4, 2011)

*2011 NEC neutral to switches*

I was just through a code update for the 2011 NEC. This was addressed and it is critical that a neutral be included to switch locations for the new style energy saving switches that use either a motion or PIR sensor. to operate. The older switches would use the ground as conductor for the milliamps needed to work. The problem starts to become a major issue when a high rise has several thousand of these devices and the ground current becomes a major issue. Enough to cause GFI circuits to operate in some cases.


----------



## electures (Dec 22, 2009)

cornskier said:


> I was just through a code update for the 2011 NEC. This was addressed and it is critical that a neutral be included to switch locations for the new style energy saving switches that use either a motion or PIR sensor. to operate. The older switches would use the ground as conductor for the milliamps needed to work. The problem starts to become a major issue when a high rise has several thousand of these devices and the ground current becomes a major issue. Enough to cause GFI circuits to operate in some cases.


I heard the same thing from a UL engineer who was our guest speaker at our local IAEI chapter in South Jersey. The problem arrises from the increasing use of occupancy sensors in buildings. Most (can't say all) state in the instructions that they have to be grounded in order to function. I found this to be true when I installed a few dozen in the building where I work. The units without a ground would not function. Each sensor imposes a few milliamps on the EGC. When hundreds or even thousands are installed, the current on the EGC really adds up.


----------



## JimLee_Sr (Oct 21, 2011)

Switching neutral is looking for trouble. There are a couple of good NEC guides (like Gray's) out there that draw pictures for you folks that have trouble reading between the lines. There are still places using non-metal wireway or cable (NMCC/TCER) to and from the switch, so a ground at the box is essential to safely install and operate the switch. Properly sizing the wire and application should not challange the box fill and there is always the old mud ring trick we all know and love.


----------



## ChrisDIY (Feb 1, 2010)

So let's say "hypothetically" that you replace a breaker with a AFCI breaker in an existing structure. When power is restored the breaker is immediately tripped. Are you allowed to continue use of the standard breaker or do you have to find and isolate the arc fault?

One other question, in a circuit panel should grounds and neutral both be inserted into the neutral bar? The previous owner did it this way does this need to be corrected?


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

WaldenL said:


> Not to contradict myself, but having reviewed some of the logic behind the change to require neutral @ the switch I can see it as a safety issue. Apparently people are using ground as the neutral if there's no neutral, and that's not what it's there for. So yes, running neutral to the switch is a safety issue.


OK well ive seen many people use a ground wire as traveler between 3 way switches when theres only 2 conductors and a ground wire present,which we all know isnt right.
So should somebody create a 14/4 series of wire just in case its ever needed down the road?
That way you have your 2 travelers/1 common/1 neutral and 1 ground?:whistling2:
How about thermostat wiring,should we just start running 20 conductors to a thermostat in case something new comes along?
I mean really if those guys installing boilers in peoples houses 100 years ago would have just thought ahead and run atleast 10 conductors in the walls for future low voltage needs things would be so much simpler! :laughing:
I say we just do away with electricity and wrap ourselves in bubble wrap before somebody hurts themselves! :laughing:


----------



## rjniles (Feb 5, 2007)

plummen said:


> So should somebody create a 14/4 series of wire just in case its ever needed down the road?
> That way you have your 2 travelers/1 common/1 neutral and 1 ground?:whistling2:


12/4, 14/4, 12/2/2 and 14/2/2 wire already exist.

http://www.southwire.com/ProductCatalog/proddetail.jsp?htmlpreview=true&token=6&desc=CU-NM-B


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

rjniles said:


> 12/4, 14/4, 12/2/2 and 14/2/2 wire already exist.
> 
> http://www.southwire.com/ProductCatalog/proddetail.jsp?htmlpreview=true&token=6&desc=CU-NM-B


After all these years ive never seen it


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

plummen said:


> After all these years ive never seen it


Not super common yet but sooner or later it will become more common when the codes do take in effects in quite few states.

Merci,
Marc


----------



## EvilNCarnate (Jan 27, 2011)

WaldenL said:


> But there's the problem. Should the NEC dictate what would be nice in the future, or what's safe today?
> 
> There have been times I'd have done the happy dance if a circuit was 20A vs. 15, but does that mean all circuits should be 20A now? Nope. 15 is still fine in most cases. Other times I wish every room was on it's own circuit, but again, not a safety issue. Or that switched outlets were run such that every outlet had a switched and unswitched part. Or that... But the NEC should be about safety, not ideal design.


You should come to my place, 6' outlet to outlet. 20a circuits and every room is a minimum of 2 circuits (1 lighting 1 outlets) except the Kitchen which has 5, dishwasher/disposal, lighting, and outlets are balanced based on devices so Fridge, Microwave and small appliance counter are all on a different circuit. I wanted it done my way, the overkill way.


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

WaldenL said:


> But there's the problem. Should the NEC dictate what would be nice in the future, or what's safe today?


National Electrical Code is about safety NOT convenience.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> National Electrical Code is about safety NOT convenience.


Or, at least, it should be. And not just safety, but ELECTRICAL safety. Unfortunately, this does not always appear to me to be the case. I would argue that any code requiring a light be installed in a room has nothing to do with ELECTRICAL safey, but convenience and, possibly, personal safety. The inherent safety of the electrical system, itelf, is not compromised by lack of a light, nor is it increased by inclusion of such a light (if anything, it introduces additional failure modes).

There is also a distinction to be made between the inherent electical safety of the as-installed system, and the electrical safety as a result of how the installed system is used or likely upgraded. Use or minimization of extension cords are related to electrical safety, but are purely a consequence of how people USE the electrical system.

Ensuring that an electrical system is capable of later recieving certain types of electrical devices (smart switches, for example) is does NOT affect the safety of the system AS INSTALLED, but could affected the electrical safety in the future, depending on how people are likely to modify the system.


----------



## dougshackles (Feb 4, 2012)

*Power at switch*

I always run power to the ceiling lamp, three conductor to the switch, then to the receptacle. This allow you to do whatever you want later. I always install deep box's so box fill will not be an issue.


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

oberkc said:


> Or, at least, it should be. And not just safety, but ELECTRICAL safety. Unfortunately, this does not always appear to me to be the case. I would argue that any code requiring a light be installed in a room has nothing to do with ELECTRICAL safey, but convenience and, possibly, personal safety. The inherent safety of the electrical system, itelf, is not compromised by lack of a light, nor is it increased by inclusion of such a light (if anything, it introduces additional failure modes).
> 
> There is also a distinction to be made between the inherent electical safety of the as-installed system, and the electrical safety as a result of how the installed system is used or likely upgraded. Use or minimization of extension cords are related to electrical safety, but are purely a consequence of how people USE the electrical system.
> 
> Ensuring that an electrical system is capable of later recieving certain types of electrical devices (smart switches, for example) is does NOT affect the safety of the system AS INSTALLED, but could affected the electrical safety in the future, depending on how people are likely to modify the system.


Its all about preventing fire. Every code in the NEC is designed to do just that. That's why the NFPA is behind it and publishes it. That does not mean, however, DIYers like ourselves will always do things in adherence with the code.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

jasin said:


> Its all about preventing fire. Every code in the NEC is designed to do just that. That's why the NFPA is behind it and publishes it. That does not mean, however, DIYers like ourselves will always do things in adherence with the code.


Tamper proof plugs,gfi's,in use plug covers.............,what do these things have to do with fire prevention? :laughing:


----------



## jasin (Jan 22, 2012)

plummen said:


> Tamper proof plugs,gfi's,in use plug covers.............,what do these things have to do with fire prevention? :laughing:


Actually they do.


----------



## itsnotrequired (Apr 30, 2010)

jasin said:


> Its all about preventing fire. Every code in the NEC is designed to do just that. That's why the NFPA is behind it and publishes it. That does not mean, however, DIYers like ourselves will always do things in adherence with the code.


it isn't just fire. from 90.1(A):

"The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity"

fire is certainly a hazard but so are shocks, tripping over cords, etc. that is why the code addresses items such as tamper-resistant receptacles, illumination around electrical equipment cannot be controlled by automatic means only, etc.


----------



## gfk (May 17, 2012)

in the main service panel the grounds and neutrals can be on the same bus bar.
In subseguent sub panels the ground and neutral should be seperated onto seperate bus bars.
Correct me if I am wrong but that seems to be the code. NEC


----------



## Code05 (May 24, 2009)

gfk said:


> in the main service panel the grounds and neutrals can be on the same bus bar.
> In subseguent sub panels the ground and neutral should be seperated onto seperate bus bars.
> Correct me if I am wrong but that seems to be the code. NEC


Sorta, as long as the main panel is also the main disconnecting means also.

Say you had a outside disconnect at your house between the meter and main panel, then you would attach your big ground wire to your rods, water pipe, etc there and run 4 wires to the main panel and separate the grounds and neutrals onto their own buss bars.

Got it?


----------



## Semi-Retired El (Jun 10, 2012)

IMO, the only safety part of this new rule is if the number of devices exceeds the 4 ma on the bare wire a GFCI will trip, and someone may replace the GFCI with a standard breaker. 

Also, with current on the ground wire and unsuspecting individual many receive a small shock and jump into a sharp edge or hot wire.

Wiring 3W & 4W switches with this new rule will either require 4 conductor wire or feeding the power from one end of the circuit and the light from the other, so a (unused neutral) is in every switch location.

I suspect the cheap "no neutral electronic devices" will disappear from the shelves soon.


----------



## FLICKER (Oct 28, 2012)

I usually have a neutral in the switch box as I like to make the connections there instead of on a ladder with my arms over my head (After a rotator cuff injury and repair reminds me to do this). fewer wires in attic lights the better, less work to relocate a light fixture and fewer wires in attic space where trusses cannot be drilled.
Dave


----------



## Jess82 (Nov 18, 2012)

*code*



Scuba_Dave said:


> One link I found that has possible changes
> http://www.ecmag.com/?fa=article&articleID=10115
> 
> Another
> ...



I'm currently in school for electrical and from what they are telling us 11 code is not going into affect, everyone is going off of 08 code. They said who knows if 11 code will ever go into affect because people are questioning different articles in the code book. we may end up going straight from 08 to 14 code. I'm not sure if this is just PA statewide or all electricians but that would end up costing so much more using 3 wire on all switch loops.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

Incorrect Jess82. 2011 NEC is in force, and there are a lot of areas that are currently using the 2011 NEC code, or some form of it in their area. Suggest if it is your instructor telling you this, to find another instructor.


----------



## joed (Mar 13, 2005)

Unless you are in a region that is not using the 2011 code.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

Our City is just now adopting the 2011.


----------



## Jess82 (Nov 18, 2012)

gregzoll said:


> Incorrect Jess82. 2011 NEC is in force, and there are a lot of areas that are currently using the 2011 NEC code, or some form of it in their area. Suggest if it is your instructor telling you this, to find another instructor.


Pittsburgh isn't using 2011 code, we have the 2011 code handbook but were told from the start that most are still using 05 code and we were just informed last week that the area just adopted 08 code and that there's a possibility of skipping 11 code and going straight to 14 code since the 14 codebook will be out in August. Rosedale tech has been around since 49 so I'm hoping they know what they're talking about.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

It may be just Pittsburgh, due to the 2014 is being cconsidered a bigger money grab, than 2011 was supposed to be.


----------



## electures (Dec 22, 2009)

Jess82 said:


> I'm currently in school for electrical and from what they are telling us 11 code is not going into affect, everyone is going off of 08 code. They said who knows if 11 code will ever go into affect because people are questioning different articles in the code book. we may end up going straight from 08 to 14 code. I'm not sure if this is just PA statewide or all electricians but that would end up costing so much more using 3 wire on all switch loops.


Here is a state by state map of NEC adoption.


----------



## dudleydoright (Feb 19, 2013)

*Just a couple of facts from an IBEW journeyman.*

First of all. The NEC is written by the National Fire Protection Association. In this modern day existence, there is still life and property destroyed due to electrocution or fire. A good percentage of property loss is due to fire, and a good percentage if not most of that is a result of an electrical problem. That said, Yes it is in fact necessary to include a neutral(grounded) conductor to all switch boxes. As mentioned this is for mainly the use of occupancy sensors, which are required in any new work or upgrades here in California to meet the ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS that are part of the building code here.
To use the ground wire as a neutral turns that conductor into a current carrying conductor which in turn takes the safety away from the equipment grounding conductor. The reason is the equipment grounding conductor is like a vacant path for the current to travel in the event of a fault. The use as a current carrying conductor, negates the potential free nature of the equipment ground. AND if the house has a sub panel, which is required to be fed with 4 conductors,(L1, L2, N, G) with the neutral isolated from the equipment ground, you disable that separation also. The neutral and the ground only connect at the service entrance to the dwelling. This is where your grounding electrode conductor(s), neutral, equipment and main bonding jumpers, equipment grounding conductors, and grounded service conductor all tie together. The grounded service conductor is grounded at the pole side and at the dwellings as part of the utilities safety as it helps to limit the voltage in the event of a major fault or failure due to some event beyond their control that would possibly be sent into your home if hooked up otherwise. I WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY THIS, but the only time a Neutral and Ground was allowed to be on the same conductor in recent history was if the circuit originated at the service entrance. And that may have been disallowed at this point. I never use a 2-G cable opting for a 3-G as the cost is negligable, and eliminates the issue. And appliances are now hooked up with 4 wire pigtails(ranges, dryers, 220 volt utilization equipment). 
As far as outlets being spaced maximum of 12 feet along any unbroken plane, it is entirely a safety issue and nothing else. You see in order for a device to be approved as safe for public use by the process we use in the USA, which is Underwriters Labratory, as far as consumer devices(TV,Stereo,Lamps, consumer electronics of all types actually)pretty much anything that will be cord connected,EXCEPT kitchen appliances, will have a 6 foot cord to connect that device to power. They can be longer, but manufacturing being what it is all you get is the required minimum and coincidentally, that just so happens to work out so that there is no extension cord required. Extension cords are a problem because people either overload them, run them under carpet, put them in an area of traffic, pinch them under say a sofa leg, etc, which leads to failure, then leads to electrocution or fire which results in loss of life or property. 
It is stated in the NEC that the electrical system shall be installed with a margain of extra capacity to allow for upgrades as technology changes in the future. Yes this is a grey area between design and safety, but it is in the publics best interest and any one that moans over these things, well, do it your way, it will work, but when the unfortunate time comes that a properly installed system would protect you, is it really worth the few dollars to maybe it might protect you and if it doesn't, well, charred human remains, be it yours, your spouse or your children or other friends or loved ones, are a horrible things to see. I can only imagine what it would be like to get that way. And a fire in a house, is indiscriminate, doesn't care who, what, or why, it consumes everything it possibly can. 
In closing, I suppose when people stop dying, houses and businesses quit burning down, technology ceases to advance, then we may see the NEC stop being revised every 3 years. Who knows, one day all the possible factors may be accounted for and there will be no changes. Ha ha ha Really.
PS Arc Fault Circuit Interuptors are required on outlets in bedrooms, this means plugs and lights,as well as Living Rooms, Dining Rooms, Bathrooms, Hallways, dens, pantries, pretty much all electrical circuits, and I believe the laundry and kitchen were holdouts in the last issue. I recieved an update from the NFPA recently where they are considering changing this, so just about all the electrical outlets in a dwelling will be required to be AFCI protected. But I will verify and post as info is available. 
I know, I can hear the moaning already, but the same thing occured when GFI's were introduced, and now they are common. Realistically, I couldn't begin to estimate the number of lives they have saved. Look at AFCI's as the same benefit for your property.
Final point, tamper proof is for all the little ones running around that go from crawling to vroom. And specifically the tendency the tykes have to putting objects just about anywhere you can imagine. Personally, back in 1964 when cord caps did not include a handle area I personally used one of my moms good spoons to try to pry a plug from a tight receptalcle when 5 year old tugging did not pull the plug from whatever it was I was not supposed to be messing with from the wall. I was very lucky as when I shoved that spoon between the plug and receptacle it contacted both prongs and pow I had myself a little arcflash, arcweld, knocked on my proverbial in trouble now kiester. An AFCI would have tripped offline far quicker than the fuse that had to pop. And not just time but also the type of arc is read by the device. They are a good thing for us even though you don't know it yet. And they will get cheaper as use increases. Just like anything but energy.
I will update info as I either verify or recieve it. 
Consider this. Autos in the USA were not equipped with seatbelts until I believe the middle 60's. I remember my dad installing them on our old Rambler wagon. How many of you put your children in the car and do not buckle them into either a car seat, a booster seat, or if big enough a seatbelt alone. We do it to protect those which we cherish. I bet you wouldn't blink twice about a few bucks for that extra fancy paint or carpet. Think about it. Other than the natural gas, the only thing in your house capable of destroying your and all you know is the electrical potential available for our convenience. Think about it. 
I will verify my facts and issue a note if I skipped or misquoted an item. This info is pre coffee couldn't sleep recalled so I will verify and post if different...


----------



## homerenovator (Aug 2, 2012)

> i don't see the point as far as making that code. It has nothing to do with safety. Although it think its retarded not to do it that way. I hate when people take power to the lights. I would hate to see that become code though, because there is a time and place for doing it that way


this could however be a safety precaution, as more dimmer switches and lighting controllers require a neutral, and numerous homeowners enjoy doing their own work, then if the required wires are not already there, the homeowner may make modifications that are not correct and/or meet code.


----------



## oberkc (Dec 3, 2009)

> this could however be a safety precaution, as more dimmer switches and lighting controllers require a neutral, and numerous homeowners enjoy doing their own work, then if the required wires are not already there, the homeowner may make modifications that are not correct and/or meet code.


I believe you have hit the nail on the head here. What I believe many fail to recognize is that there are at least two aspects of safety: 1) the inherent safety of the system, and 2) how people use the system that could introduce further safety considerations.

There is nothing INHERENTLY more safe about having appliance circuits 18" over a kitchen counter...the electrical system, itself is equally safe whether these circuits are there or not there. But, someone has decided (possibly correctly) that enough people will want to use appliances on countertops and will do so in an unsafe manner if these circuits are not present. 

The neutral-in-every-box is another example. No, the system itself is no more safe with, or without the neutral. But someone has apparently decided that enough people will want to use these new types of devices requiring neutrals and will do so in an unsafe manner if the neutrals are not present.

While one could argue that the code should not be predicated on how one MAY use the system, or what one MIGHT do in the future, this horse has already left the barn many code generations ago.


----------



## mc5w (Oct 23, 2013)

*Neutral is Really Needed for Many Switches and Dimmers*

Motion Sensing Switches and dimmers that do not need to neutral need to send a trickle of current through the load when in the "Off" state in order to power the electronics inside. This means that they are only compatible with incandescent lamps and autotransformer ballasts. Even though Phillips makes a 60 watt Halogena lamp that produces as much light as an old style 100 watt incandescent lamp, having to install one on the same circuit as LED or electronic fluorescent lamps is a pain in the arse.

I have tried installing "dimmer compatible" compact fluorescent refit lamps downstream of a motion sensing switch that does not need a neutral and the lamps flicker and flash like crazy. The "dimmer compatible" CFrLs have a 1 watt ballast resistor that allows a dimmer to draw a trickle of current when in the "off" state but it is not enough to run a motion sensing switch that does require the neutral even if there are 2 "dimmer compatible" CFrLs on it.


----------



## plummen (Jan 10, 2010)

Am I the only one who thinks we should just forget the NEC and start wrapping ourselves in this stuff?
Then we can just sit in the middle of the room and watch reruns of the brady bunch,making sure of course the tv is plugged into a tamper resistant outlet with an in use cover and fed by an afci circuit breaker?:whistling2:
Just saying!:laughing:


----------



## dudleydoright (Feb 19, 2013)

*neutral at the switch requirement*

I believe the new code states that light circuits using multiple switches, ie 3-4-3 way setups are exempt from the neutral at the switch location. Also there is available 12-2-2-g and 14-2-2-g which is still quite a bit more compared to what you get but as with anything it will eventually drop in price. Remember when led bulbs were 30 and 40 dollars and more. :thumbup:. So imho the code does do what it is supposed to do. I know we electricians are just about the most God gifted rubes on the rock when it comes to smarts but, and in all seriousness, it isn't us that the code has to protect. It is like a blueprint for a submarine. Without it all it might do is sink. Wouldn't be much of a technological achievement if it couldn't resurface. Did a house recently where my neighbor passed, and he had had a new service installed and the hm, electrician he hired to change it tied in the old original(2 of) circuits with a splice and extension. Four number 12 splices in a 1/2 inch lb. And this is on the old original version of non metallic cable, circa right after k&t somewhere during ww2. It has one normally insulated conductor, and one that is basically bare inside an overall jacket. A lot of that around here in my area and only place I have ever seen it. As far as code being a bit intrusive, well, as I have and will continue to point out, the day we have zero lives lost, and $0in lost property, and technology has gone as far advanced as it possibly can, then I imagine the code will no longer be necessary. But until then, if you don't think it is necessary or can't bear to follow the necessary rules, well, I hear wallfart is always looking for a few good folks. Just as the IBEW was formed at the advent of our countries emergence into the electrical age because the chances of going to work that day as an electrician and being killed were extremely high, due to no common knowledge and no safety coordination. I have seen 480 control box covers blown at high velocity and knocking out power 2 substations back from dust that settled on the top edge of a contactor in an area that has heavy marine moisture in the morning hours, enough to create a fault path creating a hard short phase to phase. And I have been suited up inside live 4160 equipment when my numb nut partner that was there specifically to hand me parts as I needed them casually miss my multigloved hand with a 3/8 inch nut when I reached back for it and it went tink tink down into the live section below the one I was residing in at the time. I thank the good man upstairs I did not become part of the high velocity molten metal and schrapnel that would have resulted had that nut tinked in the wrong place. When violet folks(maroons, oops, morons,) cease to inhabit the rock, well, then also maybe we won't need the code. My son has asked me to pass on some of my skilllllllls as he is upgrading(he as in dad)his pre ww2 era dwelling and the first thing I did was break out the code book and begin to show him how and why it is what it is, by taking it and walking out to the pole and following it down to the house. Initial points, grounding, bonding, ampacity, fill, approval, listed and labeled. He has bought a couple books and the always refer you to the code without rhyme or reason for why. I would bet that by the 1st of the year he will be more knowledgeable than many so called experts as far as the wiring of a house according to the current requirements is concerned. :thumbsup: But then again, as a youngster, he went with me on quite a few weekend or holiday from school quickees where a business, house, or some other unimaginable mishap had occurred. And he is a trained fire fighter and has seen the results of just a little spark that could.


----------



## lethisam (Aug 20, 2014)

Gigs said:


> If people are using grounds as a neutral for these switchbox devices installed later, then there could be a safety justification.
> 
> How many homeowners are going to pull a new wire to install their new night-light switch that the guy at Lowes sold them?
> 
> I know you can't predict every dangerous thing someone might try, but I can see where it's coming from.


you good!


----------



## bobelectric (Mar 3, 2007)

ok this is [email protected]!


----------



## hergs90 (Jan 5, 2016)

I have two sump pumps in my pit both are 120v pumps and the way I would like it set up is one is the primary pump and the other is the secondary. the secondary has the capability to take over if the primary should fail. but my only problem is I have no battery back up pump that would run off 12v dc. what I would like to do is use the secondary pump as the battery back up (by the use of an inverter) in the event of a power outage. my biggest challenge is finding a relay that can switch between the main 120v and the inverter 120v? any recommendations? I know this isn't the right forum figured I had the best chance getting looked at


----------



## diystephen (Nov 23, 2012)

hergs90 said:


> I have two sump pumps in my pit both are 120v pumps and the way I would like it set up is one is the primary pump and the other is the secondary. the secondary has the capability to take over if the primary should fail. but my only problem is I have no battery back up pump that would run off 12v dc. what I would like to do is use the secondary pump as the battery back up (by the use of an inverter) in the event of a power outage. my biggest challenge is finding a relay that can switch between the main 120v and the inverter 120v? any recommendations? I know this isn't the right forum figured I had the best chance getting looked at


If you really want to go that route then search for inverter charger. It will switch from mains to battery when the mains is down and will use mains power as a pass through (and to charge battery) when it's up. They're typically expensive, and not the route most would go for a sump backup setup. There's an inherent loss in the conversion from DC to AC through the inverter. That's why the backup sumps are typically DC. No conversion loss. 

I'd also recommend starting your own thread next time as your question has nothing to do with this thread


----------



## luckiestman139 (Apr 28, 2016)

first POST!


----------

