# Neutral in wall switch boxes



## czars (Aug 20, 2008)

I've been hearing talk about a new requirement in the 2011 code to require a neutral in each wall switch box. Does anyone know anything about this?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Click here for a post from another thread.


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

*404.2(A) Ex.*

Are dead-ends dead? 

Where in the 2011 ROP or ROC has the [404.2(A)] Exception of the dead-end switch loop been eliminated?


----------



## Stub (Apr 19, 2010)

This is the reason why I avoid inspections at any cost.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

I fail to see how a requirement of a neutral in every switchbox enhances the safeguarding or property or life.


----------



## Stub (Apr 19, 2010)

MDShunk said:


> I fail to see how a requirement of a neutral in every switchbox enhances the safeguarding or property or life.


Cause when someone else comes along with a motion detector switch they won't tie the neutral of the switch to the grounds. I just installed one like that the other day :whistling2:


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Stub said:


> Cause when someone else comes along with a motion detector switch they won't tie the neutral of the switch to the grounds. I just installed one like that the other day :whistling2:


That would be the violation of rules that already exist.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

I like the change; in case the HO wants to add another switch, etc to the box, you got a neutral there.


----------



## Stub (Apr 19, 2010)

BuzzKill said:


> I like the change; in case the HO wants to add another switch, etc to the box, you got a neutral there.


In bedrooms and living rooms I have always fed the light and ran a loop down to the switch, this makes it so a fan can be installed and have a constant hot up in the box for the fan and a switch leg for the light. 

Now I will have to use more expensive 3 wire to get the same effect I always got from a 2 wire.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

Can't say I have ever liked dealing with those freaking switched N's/switch loops. I detest them as a service guy. Even when I do a remodel, I always run power to the switch first.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> I fail to see how a requirement of a neutral in every switchbox enhances the safeguarding or property or life.



It's driven by the low-voltage industry. Seems they've been crying for years about the lack of neutrals in switch boxes for their high-end fancy-pants dimmers and controllers and what not.

For years, the CMP has said it's a design issue. If the low-voltage tech wants a neutral in the box, he/she needs to get it there.... why require it the original installation to make your job easier? Instead, they would cheat and use the grounding conductor. 

Well, I guess the CMP finally got tired of their whining and crying and caved in. So we need to supply a totally separate industry a neutral wire so they don't have to climb around in attics and crawlspaces.... God forbid they should get their pants dirty.

Next thing you know, they'll whine and cry about having to pull a white wire through conduit..........











Oh, and while we're catering to them, let's make electricians supply them with a handy-dandy attachment point for their ground wires outside, too.


----------



## Stub (Apr 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Oh, and while we're catering to them, let's make electricians supply them with a handy-dandy attachment point for their ground wires outside, too.


LOL, I got dinged for that on my last service upgrade.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Oh, and while we're catering to them, let's make electricians supply them with a handy-dandy attachment point for their ground wires outside, too.


Totally agree; those guys are sissy's. About as bad as network guys in new construction: "I need a sleeve through that wall, waaaaaah!"


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

*3-way dead-end w/gnded conductor*

So does [404.2(C)] impact a 3-way dead-end loop for a requirement having a noodle in the soup.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

BuzzKill said:


> Totally agree; those guys are sissy's...........



"You want a 6" from the street to the telecom closet........... for a *25-pair*?!?!?!"


----------



## Stub (Apr 19, 2010)

BuzzKill said:


> Totally agree; those guys are sissy's. About as bad as network guys in new construction: "I need a sleeve through that wall, waaaaaah!"


I did some work at a house in which the Cablevision guy drove his own tiny ground rod and bonded his system to that. Even if he wanted to bond it to the service, he wouldn't have much of a choice since the underground feed was PVC into the meter pan. Where else would he get a ground source from? I guess in the end, having a lug is the best thing for the customer.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

480sparky said:


> "You want a 6" from the street to the telecom closet........... for a *25-pair*?!?!?!"


exactly...don't want to get those khaki's dirty now do we?


----------



## SparkYZ (Jan 20, 2010)

As said in the other thread there is no "what-if" clause in the NEC. This is stupid. 
I'm a proponent of a switch loop with 2-wire cable. It can make like so much easier and faster, if done properly.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

Stub said:


> I did some work at a house in which the Cablevision guy drove his own tiny ground rod and bonded his system to that. Even if he wanted to bond it to the service, he wouldn't have much of a choice since the underground feed was PVC into the meter pan. Where else would he get a ground source from? I guess in the end, having a lug is the best thing for the customer.


well if the house had a crawlspace, I'd consider the cold water pipe. If on a slab, then fish a wire into the interior...


----------



## Stub (Apr 19, 2010)

SparkYZ said:


> As said in the other thread there is no "what-if" clause in the NEC.


It seems like a LOT of the NEC is to cover issues that might happen in the future.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

SparkYZ said:


> As said in the other thread there is no "what-if" clause in the NEC. This is stupid.
> I'm a proponent of a switch loop with 2-wire cable. It can make like so much easier and faster, if done properly.


Sure it's easy and fast but I think it's also lazy and shows poor foresight.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Stub said:


> It seems like a LOT of the NEC is to cover issues that might happen in the future.


Shoot..... in a few more cycles, we'll be running #6 dedicated circuits to every switch and receptacle. 

Why? Well, you never know where someone down the road will want to put their hot tub.



No, scratch that. We'll need #2, since electric cars are the wave of the future!


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

480sparky said:


> It's driven by the low-voltage industry. Seems they've been crying for years about the lack of neutrals in switch boxes for their high-end fancy-pants dimmers and controllers and what not.
> 
> For years, the CMP has said it's a design issue. If the low-voltage tech wants a neutral in the box, he/she needs to get it there.... why require it the original installation to make your job easier? Instead, they would cheat and use the grounding conductor.


With the push on high efficacy lighting in energy code for both residential and commercial, neutral is needed for motion detector to function. Motion sensor and fluorescent dimmers can't work with electronic loads without having a neutral, so I wouldn't say its driven by "low voltage industry"


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

Electric_Light said:


> With the push on high efficacy lighting in energy code for both residential and commercial, neutral is needed for motion detector to function. Motion sensor and fluorescent dimmers can't work with electronic loads without having a neutral, so I wouldn't say its driven by "low voltage industry"


Agreed, using low voltage is a misnomer for discrete solid state circuits, especially with the advent of LED's that use line voltage that is rectified at the driver/ luminaire. 

The conflict that seems to be in question is the residential neutral requirement in three-way dead-end loops that do not have switch legs directly run to a luminaire outlet. The supply side three-way is the light control source for Motion, IR, timer devices in a dead-end circuit.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Electric_Light said:


> With the push on high efficacy lighting in energy code for both residential and commercial, neutral is needed for motion detector to function. Motion sensor and fluorescent dimmers can't work with electronic loads without having a neutral, so I wouldn't say its driven by "low voltage industry"


That's all recent stuff. The 'low-voltage industry' has been submitting proposals for decades.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

480sparky said:


> That's all recent stuff. The 'low-voltage industry' has been submitting proposals for decades.


480 know what he is talking about. So they finally won it huh? Bastards. 
I also bet the final push is because handymen still might get shocks from re-identified white conductors so maybe the cmp figures if we force two other than white or green conductors into the box then the saps wont be thrown off by the white getting used as an ungrounded conductor. Screwed up thing about all this is the "low voltage" contractors have no business touching electrical switching in the first place. At least in my state. Now its personal and its war for me. From now on I will never hesitate to turn in any LV contractor I find who so much as removes a faceplate to the regulated industries guys.


----------



## kancerr (Apr 16, 2010)

i tell you would make my job so much easier if this comes into effect! nice bein able to put in a switch/gfi combo in a bathroom to replace a switch when somebody wants a receptacle in there! blows when there is no neutral present and you have to wire from fixture(usually what ends up happening)


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Oh, and while we're catering to them, let's make electricians supply them with a handy-dandy attachment point for their ground wires outside, too.





Stub said:


> LOL, I got dinged for that on my last service upgrade.


There are exceptions that would alleviate the requirement on most service upgrades.


----------



## danickstr (Mar 21, 2010)

In small residential homes, and custom homes, I always make sure any switch box I pull has a neutral in it. Even did it before the proposed code change. Real easy to do now, hard to do later. Custom finishes can't always be fixed properly.

People joke about it being more money for them later, but capitalizing on ignorance of GC's and HO's is a slippery slope.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I do it as SOP as well. The only time there's no noodle in a switch box is when I do a dead-end 3-way.


----------



## SparkYZ (Jan 20, 2010)

BuzzKill said:


> Sure it's easy and fast but I think it's also lazy and shows poor foresight.


You're telling me you've never cut in a switch on a finished home, and the difference between running one cable and two cables is cutting holes in a painted wall and a very pissed off HO? 
Poor foresight my ass. Its the difference between the service call being profitable or breaking even sometimes.

I do usually put a neutral in there, always on remodels, or an open wall. 
Hell, sometimes all you have left at the end of the day is 10 feet of 12/2 and you want to go home


----------



## Liteitup (Jun 15, 2011)

So is this a 2011 code requirement? or 2008? Where is it exactly? And is it required at the deadend 3way?


----------



## B W E (May 1, 2011)

Liteitup said:


> So is this a 2011 code requirement? or 2008? Where is it exactly? And is it required at the deadend 3way?


Yes, a dead end three-way will be required to have a neutral in the box. Any box with a switch has to have a neutral.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

A Neutral is only required if there is no access from either above or below the location of the switch box. If there is access like a conduit no additional neutral is required.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Liteitup said:


> So is this a 2011 code requirement? or 2008? Where is it exactly? And is it required at the deadend 3way?


404.2(C) in the '11.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Manufacturers and private interest have learned to cash off by lobbying the NFPA and other private industries responsible for what the government accepts as standards.
Very much like how they have lobbied schools on that only certain brands of crayons, pencils and glue like are accepted for use in public schools.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

danickstr said:


> In small residential homes, and custom homes, I always make sure any switch box I pull has a neutral in it. Even did it before the proposed code change. Real easy to do now, hard to do later. Custom finishes can't always be fixed properly.
> 
> People joke about it being more money for them later, but capitalizing on ignorance of GC's and HO's is a slippery slope.


When I was trained to do electrical work, I was told to always consider future needs. Things like using wire one size up for some conduit runs, adding an extra circuit in a conduit for a spare and always make sure that there is a neutral in every box.
If one is running a new circuit, it does not add much at all to the cost at the time, but to have to add something later is very expensive. Another thing that I do is always use #12 for all lighting circuits, and put it on a 20 amp breaker. They might want to add some more lights in the future. I know, when you have a 3 or 4 gang box of switches and dimmers, #12 is harder to make it up, so I use deep masonry boxes. The cost is more, but with all these new devices that are much bigger than an old fashioned switch, it is much faster and more cost effective to use deep boxes.
After looking at older houses to do upgrades of lighting and controls, there is nothing worse than finding no neutral in a switch box. Well, actually telling the customer that it's going to cost them more than they thought to make their new system happen is worse, especially after you ask them, "who is your drywall contractor, lath and plaster contractor and painting contractor ?"
I have seen many strange things in my career, one time I found that in a relatively newer house, a contractor put in 2 3 way switches using the ground as one of the travelers, he put black tape on the bare ground wire of a 12/2 romex, so the box at one end had no neutral or ground in it.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Aldo Moretti said:


> When I was trained to do electrical work, I was told to always consider future needs. Things like using wire one size up for some conduit runs, adding an extra circuit in a conduit for a spare and always make sure that there is a neutral in every box.
> If one is running a new circuit, it does not add much at all to the cost at the time, but to have to add something later is very expensive. Another thing that I do is always use #12 for all lighting circuits, and put it on a 20 amp breaker. They might want to add some more lights in the future. I know, when you have a 3 or 4 gang box of switches and dimmers, #12 is harder to make it up, so I use deep masonry boxes. The cost is more, but with all these new devices that are much bigger than an old fashioned switch, it is much faster and more cost effective to use deep boxes.
> After looking at older houses to do upgrades of lighting and controls, there is nothing worse than finding no neutral in a switch box. Well, actually telling the customer that it's going to cost them more than they thought to make their new system happen is worse, especially after you ask them, "who is your drywall contractor, lath and plaster contractor and painting contractor ?"
> I have seen many strange things in my career, one time I found that in a relatively newer house, a contractor put in 2 3 way switches using the ground as one of the travelers, he put black tape on the bare ground wire of a 12/2 romex, so the box at one end had no neutral or ground in it.


I don't know of any self respecting EC that would do that, most as well as myself when in a predicament of not having enough three wire will run two runs of 2 wire.


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

*boxed switch*



B W E said:


> Yes, a dead end three-way will be required to have a neutral in the box. Any box with a switch has to have a neutral.


Not exactly for any box with a switch... (I.e. Furnace motor control dead end switching a furnace circuit power source.)


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Aldo Moretti said:


> When I was trained to do electrical work, I was told to always consider future needs. Things like using wire one size up for some conduit runs, adding an extra circuit in a conduit for a spare and always make sure that there is a neutral in every box.
> If one is running a new circuit, it does not add much at all to the cost at the time, but to have to add something later is very expensive. Another thing that I do is always use #12 for all lighting circuits, and put it on a 20 amp breaker. They might want to add some more lights in the future. I know, when you have a 3 or 4 gang box of switches and dimmers, #12 is harder to make it up, so I use deep masonry boxes. The cost is more, but with all these new devices that are much bigger than an old fashioned switch, it is much faster and more cost effective to use deep boxes.
> After looking at older houses to do upgrades of lighting and controls, there is nothing worse than finding no neutral in a switch box. Well, actually telling the customer that it's going to cost them more than they thought to make their new system happen is worse, especially after you ask them, "who is your drywall contractor, lath and plaster contractor and painting contractor ?"
> I have seen many strange things in my career, one time I found that in a relatively newer house, a contractor put in 2 3 way switches using the ground as one of the travelers, he put black tape on the bare ground wire of a 12/2 romex, so the box at one end had no neutral or ground in it.


I your box fill is always legal? Not! I just use #10 for lights and #8 for receptacles.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

backstay said:


> I your box fill is always legal? Not! I just use #10 for lights and #8 for receptacles.


Excellent ! we can't have VD between CFL bulbs


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

Aldo Moretti said:


> When I was trained to do electrical work, I was told to always consider future needs. Things like using wire one size up for some conduit runs, adding an extra circuit in a conduit for a spare and always make sure that there is a neutral in every box.
> If one is running a new circuit, it does not add much at all to the cost at the time, but to have to add something later is very expensive. Another thing that I do is always use #12 for all lighting circuits, and put it on a 20 amp breaker. They might want to add some more lights in the future. I know, when you have a 3 or 4 gang box of switches and dimmers, #12 is harder to make it up, so I use deep masonry boxes. The cost is more, but with all these new devices that are much bigger than an old fashioned switch, it is much faster and more cost effective to use deep boxes.
> After looking at older houses to do upgrades of lighting and controls, there is nothing worse than finding no neutral in a switch box. Well, actually telling the customer that it's going to cost them more than they thought to make their new system happen is worse, especially after you ask them, "who is your drywall contractor, lath and plaster contractor and painting contractor ?"
> I have seen many strange things in my career, one time I found that in a relatively newer house, a contractor put in 2 3 way switches using the ground as one of the travelers, he put black tape on the bare ground wire of a 12/2 romex, so the box at one end had no neutral or ground in it.


Hi Aldo, 
Surely, wiring in posh Marin Co, the local AHJ must require Title 24 energy compliance for load controls such as lighting....or does code in that area make exemptions? One of the driving factors for a neutral in any light switch is the use of occupancy sensors that control lighting by circuitry that requires a grounded connection. (I.e. IR, motion sensors and timer types etc.)


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> Excellent ! we can't have VD between CFL bulbs


My BFF never had Voltage Drop...8j


----------



## rbj (Oct 23, 2007)

Electric_Light said:


> With the push on high efficacy lighting in energy code for both residential and commercial, neutral is needed for motion detector to function. Motion sensor and fluorescent dimmers can't work with electronic loads without having a neutral, so I wouldn't say its driven by "low voltage industry"


I agree.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

kancerr said:


> i tell you would make my job so much easier if this comes into effect! nice bein able to put in a switch/gfi combo in a bathroom to replace a switch when somebody wants a receptacle in there! blows when there is no neutral present and you have to wire from fixture(usually what ends up happening)


So someone asked for a bath circuit and you come off a 15 amp lighting circuit? What a hack...


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Aldo Moretti said:


> When I was trained to do electrical work, I was told to always consider future needs. Things like using wire one size up for some conduit runs, adding an extra circuit in a conduit for a spare and always make sure that there is a neutral in every box.
> If one is running a new circuit, it does not add much at all to the cost at the time, but to have to add something later is very expensive. Another thing that I do is always use #12 for all lighting circuits, and put it on a 20 amp breaker. They might want to add some more lights in the future. I know, when you have a 3 or 4 gang box of switches and dimmers, #12 is harder to make it up, so I use deep masonry boxes. The cost is more, but with all these new devices that are much bigger than an old fashioned switch, it is much faster and more cost effective to use deep boxes.
> After looking at older houses to do upgrades of lighting and controls, there is nothing worse than finding no neutral in a switch box. Well, actually telling the customer that it's going to cost them more than they thought to make their new system happen is worse, especially after you ask them, "who is your drywall contractor, lath and plaster contractor and painting contractor ?"
> I have seen many strange things in my career, one time I found that in a relatively newer house, a contractor put in 2 3 way switches using the ground as one of the travelers, he put black tape on the bare ground wire of a 12/2 romex, so the box at one end had no neutral or ground in it.


Man, you sure know how to waste money...


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

backstay said:


> I your box fill is always legal? Not! I just use #10 for lights and #8 for receptacles.


Are you serious ? I am talking about residential, are you talking about commercial or industrial ?
That must be a pain in the ass to use #10 for lighting on a residential job, especially in a 4 gang box with a lot going on in there.
I don't see anything wrong with what you do, but don't you think that is over doing it a bit ?, unless you have 200 foot long switch legs.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Aldo Moretti said:


> ...........I am talking about residential, are you talking about commercial or industrial ?
> ......



Box fill doesn't care.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Box fill doesn't care.


That's why I use deep boxes, more cubic inches means more and larger conductors can be fit in safely.
Have you ever had an order to install a GFI receptical in an existing tiled bathroom that only has a handi box for the old receptical ?
Not fun at all. Work is supposed to be easy and fun.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Aldo Moretti said:


> Work is supposed to be easy and fun.


 
And juice boxes afterwards......:no:


----------



## Antmc22 (Jun 30, 2011)

BuzzKill said:


> Can't say I have ever liked dealing with those freaking switched N's/switch loops. I detest them as a service guy. Even when I do a remodel, I always run power to the switch first.


Cause that's the right way to do things!!


----------



## MF Dagger (Dec 24, 2007)

I for one am really gonna miss switch loops and dead end 3-ways. It's screwing up my whole ordering process for romex now too.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MF Dagger said:


> I for one am really gonna miss switch loops and dead end 3-ways. It's screwing up my whole ordering process for romex now too.


Where is it stated you can't have switch loops and dead-end 3-ways?


----------



## MF Dagger (Dec 24, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Where is it stated you can't have switch loops and dead-end 3-ways?


Let me rephrase that for you. 2 wire switch loops with no neutral and 3 wire dead ends with no neutral. But I'm sure you already knew what I meant.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MF Dagger said:


> Let me rephrase that for you. 2 wire switch loops with no neutral and 3 wire dead ends with no neutral. But I'm sure you already knew what I meant.


So you simply use 3-wire for switch loops and 4-wire for dead-end 3-ways. Now you still have switch loops and dead-end 3-ways.


----------



## MF Dagger (Dec 24, 2007)

480sparky said:


> So you simply use 3-wire for switch loops and 4-wire for dead-end 3-ways. Now you still have switch loops and dead-end 3-ways.


And both are unnecessary the majority of the time. Waste of copper, waste of box fill and giving away our labor to the Geek Squad to put in remote control toilets powered from every bedroom.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Man, you sure know how to waste money...


A little bit more for materials spent at initial installation time, saves a whole lot more in time (money) immediately, and materials and time later if additions are ordered.
I never use #14 for any new work that I do, there is nothing in the code that says one must use #14 for lighting in residential work, and #14 is not allowed in any commercial work, lighting or otherwise.
As for the deep masonry boxes, they are more expensive per box, but save time when making them up, especially with all the new types of controls in the last 10 years, and are much more versatile with all the 1/2" and 3/4" concentric knock outs when adding new circuits.
Everything that I do, every box that I make up, I label all the wires because anything that I do will last 20 years or more, and I may not be the one who comes back to that job to do upgrades in the distant future. I want to make it so anybody can come in and quickly figure out what's happening in each box.
I do this because I have been called to work on some pretty shoddy and cheapskate installations done by others in the past. Live and learn.


----------



## kennydmeek (Sep 12, 2009)

"That must be a pain in the ass to use #10 for lighting on a residential job, especially in a 4 gang box with a lot going on in there."

Not to mention he couldn't be bidding against anybody else and making money..


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MF Dagger said:


> And both are unnecessary the majority of the time. Waste of copper, waste of box fill and giving away our labor to the Geek Squad to put in remote control toilets powered from every bedroom.



A lot of stuff in the NEC is unnecessary and a waste. But we do it anyway. If you don't like it, submit a proposal to remove it.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Aldo Moretti said:


> and #14 is not allowed in any commercial work, lighting or otherwise.


False.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Aldo Moretti said:


> ......., and #14 is not allowed in any commercial work, lighting or otherwise.........


Code reference, please.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Aldo Moretti said:


> A little bit more for materials spent at initial installation time, saves a whole lot more in time (money) immediately, and materials and time later if additions are ordered.
> I never use #14 for any new work that I do, there is nothing in the code that says one must use #14 for lighting in residential work, and #14 is not allowed in any commercial work, lighting or otherwise.
> As for the deep masonry boxes, they are more expensive per box, but save time when making them up, especially with all the new types of controls in the last 10 years, and are much more versatile with all the 1/2" and 3/4" concentric knock outs when adding new circuits.
> Everything that I do, every box that I make up, I label all the wires because anything that I do will last 20 years or more, and I may not be the one who comes back to that job to do upgrades in the distant future. I want to make it so anybody can come in and quickly figure out what's happening in each box.
> I do this because I have been called to work on some pretty shoddy and cheapskate installations done by others in the past. Live and learn.


 
Wow.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> A Neutral is only required if there is no access from either above or below the location of the switch box. If there is access like a conduit no additional neutral is required.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


Awesome!!!! Now we can charge like plumbers and have the wall removed!!!!

No more drilling or snaking!!! :thumbup:


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

480sparky said:


> So you simply use 3-wire for switch loops and 4-wire for dead-end 3-ways. Now you still have switch loops and dead-end 3-ways.


Switch loops are old school, switch legs are modern.
It's much easier to run power to the switch box and take it from there to multiple zones, with multiple switches if desired or required.
Title 24 states that if there are 2 lights or more in a room, the occupant must have a choice of at least 2 switches and 2 zones.
It actually saves copper to do it that way, instead of running 3 wire switch loops. Using 4 wire circuits for 3 way systems is smart, especially if there are 4 way switches along the hall or wherever. Again, it saves time and wire on high end residential work.
Many architects and designers around here like to use powerline carriers like DHC, Z-Wave and HomePlug, and radio controls like RadioRA and ZigBee etc.
All those devices require a neutral in the switch box, but don't necessarily need switch legs to each light or device being controlled. So , do us all a favor, if you are designing or installing new wiring, please put a neutral in all switch boxes. Thank you.


----------



## MF Dagger (Dec 24, 2007)

I shouldn't have to plan for occupancy sensors in a foreclosed crack stack in the ghetto. I just don't get this rule. It would have made more sense to have a code that says that even if you use those fancy BS RF switches and touchpads that it's still possible to use the system with a standard switch. As it stands I can wire 10 Insteon switches as a 3-way/4-way system down a hall or something and have nothing more than a 14-2 between them-hot and neutral. But if I were to use a normal plain jane switch that has worked just damn fine for 100 years then I need to accommodate some nitwit best buy installer with a 14-4 WTF?


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

Well what good is a neutral going to do if you have a dead end 3 way with 2 travellers and the leg? Stupidest thing ever


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Hey cool another commercial nut that overbuilds the crap out of everything. 






MF Dagger said:


> I shouldn't have to plan for occupancy sensors in a foreclosed crack stack in the ghetto.


:laughing::laughing:

Exactly


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Hippie said:


> Well what good is a neutral going to do if you have a dead end 3 way with 2 travellers and the leg? Stupidest thing ever



You must not do any high-end resi wiring. There's more to it than 37¢ SP and $1.23 3-way switches. Many high-end devices need the noodle.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I have an opinion on California and Title 24. Naturally. All of you already know what I would say about such rubbish, so I won't even bother with it......











Problem started when we let women get educated and go into the workplace............. Before that, common sense prevailed.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

MF Dagger said:


> I shouldn't have to plan for occupancy sensors in a foreclosed crack stack in the ghetto.


Probably just squatters living at that crack schaque anyway.
My insurance does not allow me to work on any shared wall buildings (townholmz, or condo/apartments), or any new construction of tract developments. 
Since I don't have that experience that you do in this area, I can't comment if you are right or wrong. But from what I have observed, occupancy sensors are mostly used in bathrooms of residential dwellings, not in any other room.
But in commercial buildings, occupancy sensors are used all over the building to help conserve energy.
So, I suppose it depends on the type and area that your business is in. 
I would think that any landlord of a crack schaque would not care how you do things, just that you are brave enough to show up and do anything, as long as you have firearms and bodyguards.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I think its a great change... Especially that many new timers and smart switches need neuts..


----------



## MF Dagger (Dec 24, 2007)

captkirk said:


> I think its a great change... Especially that many new timers and smart switches need neuts..


You crazy!


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

MF Dagger said:


> You crazy!


 what eva..


----------



## ralph (Apr 6, 2008)

Fine , but what if ther is no feed there, just a load. nuetral isnt gonna help that much.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

ralph said:


> Fine , but what if ther is no feed there, just a load. nuetral isnt gonna help that much.


Don't you need the neutral for the load??:blink:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Aldo Moretti said:


> Switch loops are old school, switch legs are modern.


That is some really funny stuff, you should go into stand up. :jester:



> So , do us all a favor, if you are designing or installing new wiring, please put a neutral in all switch boxes. Thank you.


So every customer should have to pay for more wiring because you think it is a good idea?

Can they send you the bill?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

captkirk said:


> I think its a great change... Especially that many new timers and smart switches need neuts..


I think it sucks, it forces higher costs on all to help a few.

I don't think Spock would find it logical. :laughing:


Besides, I thought you earned a living installing electrical work. Do you make more money swapping a device or running a new circuit?


----------



## ralph (Apr 6, 2008)

I understand that. My thought is if we have to have a nuetral in all switch boxes for possible expansion of more switches in the future, thats great if your going to be loading a 3 way, but how are you going to feed any switches if there isnt a feed there first ? ( unliss its a 4 way, or 3 way and you dont need a feed because its fed at the other end)

I guess I dont understand the thought of the code making panel


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Aldo Moretti said:


> Are you serious ? I am talking about residential, are you talking about commercial or industrial ?
> That must be a pain in the ass to use #10 for lighting on a residential job, especially in a 4 gang box with a lot going on in there.
> I don't see anything wrong with what you do, but don't you think that is over doing it a bit ?, unless you have 200 foot long switch legs.


I was mocking you and your "I only use #12" statement. :whistling2:I use the wire that is appropriate for the load or what the code tells me to use.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

ralph said:


> ...........I guess I dont understand the thought of the code making panel


There are lots of devices that require a neutral in order to function. Before, if the current flow was below a certain amperage, they were allowed to use the grounding conductor.

However, many devices exceeded that minimum, and with the proliferation of these types of devices being installed, excessive (read: dangerous) current on the grounding conductor was getting out of hand.

For years, the industry kept calling for the change to require the noodle in the box. The CMP finally saw the light.


----------



## ralph (Apr 6, 2008)

Good answer. I never gave it alot of thought.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

480sparky said:


> There are lots of devices that require a neutral in order to function. * Before, if the current flow was below a certain amperage, they were allowed to use the grounding conductor.
> *
> I don't recall the code ever allowing this practice, can you provide a code reference for this please?
> 
> ...


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

backstay said:


> I was mocking you and your "I only use #12" statement. :whistling2:I use the wire that is appropriate for the load or what the code tells me to use.


I wrote that wrong, I should have said, I never use #14 on any of my jobs, only occasionally with the exception of whips to troffer lights connected to a j box or in residential job to connect to existing work done by others . There is no danger of overloading the #14 MC whip if there is no other device on the line. I don't really know if that is 100 percent legal on a commercial job, but I have been asked to do it.
Of course I use the wire appropriate for the load, 800 MCM if need be.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> i don't recall the code ever allowing this practice, can you provide a code reference for this please?


ul 773a


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

480sparky said:


> ul 773a


UL is an independent testing agency. A private firm. NEC 250.6 (A) addresses the issue.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> UL is an independent testing agency. A private firm.......


And what would you call the NFPA?



macmikeman said:


> NEC 250.6 (A) addresses the issue.


Does 'objectionable current' mean '_any_ amount of current, no matter how small'?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> UL is an independent testing agency. A private firm. NEC 250.6 (A) addresses the issue.


The NEC does not cover how listed equipment is built.

Here is what I heard, I think Don mentioned it.

UL would not change the standard allowing use of the EGC for these devices unless the NEC stated requiring a neutral at the boxes.

Great huh?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

480sparky said:


> And what would you call the NFPA?


Well put.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

480sparky said:


> And what would you call the NFPA?


Me? your actually asking me for a real answer? :laughing: OK,,,, 

NFPA Never F***king Paid Attention (to them)..........:thumbsup:





Especially now that they are just catering to manufacturing concerns these days......... 


There was a time when I had nothing but admiration, but that was long ago.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> Especially now that they are just catering to manufacturing concerns these days.........


I am going to ask you to seriously consider this question.

Given the NEC cannot tell UL what to do, they can only ask and you have UL listing devices that use the EGC as a current carrying conductor, if you were King of the NEC how would you resolve this issue? 


Please give it a real try, not just a bonehead comment. :jester::jester:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> Me? your actually asking me for a real answer? :laughing: OK,,,,
> 
> NFPA Never F***king Paid Attention (to them)..........:thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Well, if it's not a private firm, then what is it?

Non-profit? OK, everyone can clean the spit off their monitors.
Branch of the government?  Gawd, I hope not.
Acadamia? Pffft... they don't issue diplomas.
Military? Well, I'll go along with that as long as I get a 50-cal issued to me.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

BBQ said:


> I am going to ask you to seriously consider this question.
> 
> Given the NEC cannot tell UL what to do, they can only ask and you have UL listing devices that use the EGC as a current carrying conductor, if you were King of the NEC how would you resolve this issue?
> 
> ...



90.4 Suitability. The inspection is not passed in this case due to the AHJ having determined that the particular device is rejected based on the determination that current will be introduced onto the system grounding means during normal use of the device. 

Thats how I would do it.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

> NFPA Never F***king Paid Attention (to them)..........:thumbsup:





that's awesome! :laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> 90.4 Suitability. The inspection is not passed in this case due to the AHJ having determined that the particular device is rejected based on the determination that current will be introduced onto the system grounding means during normal use of the device.
> 
> Thats how I would do it.


But how would the *NFPA* do it? Does the NFPA have_ jurisdiction_ over UL? If the NFPA adopts the NEC, does the UL need a permit?

Then what about 110.3(B)?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

macmikeman said:


> 90.4 Suitability. The inspection is not passed in this case due to the AHJ having determined that the particular device is rejected based on the determination that current will be introduced onto the system grounding means during normal use of the device.
> 
> Thats how I would do it.


That would be how an AHJ could deal with it but what about the NFPA?

Mike, I think it sucks too, I just don't see an easy soulution for the NFPA.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Aldo Moretti said:


> I wrote that wrong, I should have said, I never use #14 on any of my jobs, only occasionally with the exception of whips to troffer lights connected to a j box or in residential job to connect to existing work done by others . There is no danger of overloading the #14 MC whip if there is no other device on the line. I don't really know if that is 100 percent legal on a commercial job, but I have been asked to do it.
> Of course I use the wire appropriate for the load, 800 MCM if need be.


You are tying #14 whips to #12 in a jbox with a 20 amp feed? What are you using to allow this 240.5(B)(2)?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

backstay said:


> You are tying #14 whips to #12 in a jbox with a 20 amp feed? What are you using to allow this 240.5(B)(2)?


That would be my guess.


----------



## SEREMan2000 (Aug 29, 2011)

i dont have my code book in front of me but i recall the code not requiring us to plan for future expansion...isnt this new revision now making us do that? i think smart switches are garbage...im doing a reno and the customer wants radio ra 2...really whatever happened to walking over to a switch and turning it on and off...god people are getting lazy. items like radio ra, home controls were ment for additions to old work were your not able to run new cables and lets leave it at that.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

backstay said:


> You are tying #14 whips to #12 in a jbox with a 20 amp feed? What are you using to allow this 240.5(B)(2)?


Like I said, I didn't think it was right at all, and I questioned that based on my training that everything must be consistent. If a circuit is fed by a 20 amp breaker, then #12 or larger must be used throughout the system.
I have seen #10 used for lighting in large commercial buildings with long runs of 277. Commercial, specification or hospital grade devices can accept #10, and many devices will accept much larger conductors.
OK, I'll admit it, I only did that #14 whip job once many years ago when I was paying my dues working for another contractor, I would never do it again on my license.
In this line of work, the main concerns are safety, and efficiency. For those cheapskates only concerned about their immediate financial gratification and nothing else, good luck to you, but there is such a thing as karma, and it may come back and bite you.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Aldo Moretti said:


> I have seen #10 used for lighting in large commercial buildings with long runs of 277. Commercial, specification or hospital grade devices can accept #10, and many devices will accept much larger conductors.
> OK, I'll admit it, I only did that #14 whip job once many years ago when I was paying my dues working for another contractor, I would never do it again on my license.
> In this line of work, the main concerns are safety, and efficiency. For those cheapskates only concerned about their immediate financial gratification and nothing else, good luck to you, but there is such a thing as karma, and it may come back and bite you.


The troll is strong with this one.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

SEREMan2000 said:


> i dont have my code book in front of me but i recall the code not requiring us to plan for future expansion...isnt this new revision now making us do that? i think smart switches are garbage...im doing a reno and the customer wants radio ra 2...really whatever happened to walking over to a switch and turning it on and off...god people are getting lazy. items like radio ra, home controls were ment for additions to old work were your not able to run new cables and lets leave it at that.


I have some customers that don't want much to do at all with powerline carriers or radio controlled devices most of the time, but when I tell them how much money I want to make even 1 light or receptacle switched using traditional cable, cutting up their walls, having their drywall contractor patching it and their painting contractor paint it, especially if the room has just been painted, the customer might make an exception just one time. That is the reason to put a neutral in all boxes !


----------



## Jeff Henry (Sep 8, 2011)

480sparky said:


> No, scratch that. We'll need #2, since electric cars are the wave of the future!


You only need a 40 amp circuit for a vehicle charger.


----------



## Jeff Henry (Sep 8, 2011)

BuzzKill said:


> Sure it's easy and fast but I think it's also lazy and shows poor foresight.


no it's just doing the job to code and efficient. I do the same and I don't cry when I go to wire a ceiling fan and the switch has no neutral because I simply rewire the switched outlet to be hot like the others and send the white over as a neutral from it. Then run my 3 wire or sometimes 2 wire (if a remote control is used) to my ceiling box.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

BBQ said:


> That would be how an AHJ could deal with it but what about the NFPA?
> 
> Mike, I think it sucks too, I just don't see an easy soulution for the NFPA.



Well, truthfully I don't even know what we are trying to argue about here, NFPA and all, My beef is the code change. This one I no likey.......:thumbsup:



And yes, I know who authors the NEC, its that never paid attention gang.....:laughing:


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

Jeff Henry said:


> You only need a 40 amp circuit for a vehicle charger.


That depends on the car and type of charger.
A level 1 charger that takes 16 to 20 hours to fully charge a small electric vehicle requires a dedicated new 20 amp circuit @120 volts, a level 2 charger that takes 8 to 10 hours to charge a small electric vehicle requires a new 30 amp 240 volt circuit (#10 will suffice) to the charger.
And the customer, (if they choose to) that wants to take advantage of the new federal stimulus low electricity rates available with a new separate E-9 electric meter for vehicle charging only between the hours of 12:00 am and 7:00 am must pay the utility company $4000 to $6000 to install this new E-9 meter. This is not one of the new so called "smart" meters, this is a separate deal. In addition, the customer must pay for an engineering report to determine if the local transformer can handle the additional load(s) depending on how many vehicles must be charged at a given location. Transformer upgrades are "extra".
Also this proud owner of their little Nissan Leaf must pay an electrician to run these new circuits to the new chargers and upgrade the main panel if need be. Not cheap at all.
And keep in mind that the taxpayer subsidized level 3 chargers (what they call fast chargers that can charge a little car in 2 hours) require 50 amps at 480v 3 phase, and cost $60,000 each plus installation ! Not cheap at all.


----------



## Jeff Henry (Sep 8, 2011)

What did you say?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Careful. The Off-Topic Police is watching.:laughing:


----------



## Jeff Henry (Sep 8, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Careful. The Off-Topic Police is watching.:laughing:


I was replying to your post which was off topic so not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## Mike D (Sep 16, 2008)

The thought in adding it was based off the needed neutral for the motion sensors (going green).

Funny thing is now they are making sensors that do not require a neutral.


----------



## Aldo Moretti (Aug 29, 2011)

Mike D said:


> The thought in adding it was based off the needed neutral for the motion sensors (going green).
> 
> Funny thing is now they are making sensors that do not require a neutral.


Those sensors probably get the neutral from and through the light(s) that it is controlling.
Many lighting control devices actually control the neutral and not the hot.
If one has to replace a transformer in a low volt can, you should turn the circuit off or disconnect the switch or dimmer first. 
Just because a light is off, does not necessarily, mean the the hot is off. And if you don't know this, you could easily ruin a $60 dimming module in a second.


----------

