National Electrical Installation Standards

Standards as High as Your Own

NOTE: If searching by date you must select a full date.
  • November 4, 2019

    How many m/c cables can be supported by grid's own grid wire Travis Lawrence
    View Question & Answer

  • November 1, 2019

    Charlie, I’ve looked at and tried to understand 110.26 and I’m somewhat confused. I believe somewhere it is written door swings on all electrical rooms, small and large, should swing out for safety reasons (Shock, heart, fire). If the electrician is on the floor in front of the door outside help cannot enter. It just seems like common sense to have all doors swing out.Bill Petrovic
    View Question & Answer

  • October 31, 2019

    About hospital grade receptacles. I do not find the requirement in 517.18(B) that it must be identified with a ‘green dot’. May be in other Section? Carlos Gonzalez
    View Question & Answer

  • October 30, 2019

    Re: CQD answer published Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - Conductor Size Charlie, Regarding: "The NEC does not require that all conductors in a circuit length be the same size. Sometimes larger conductors are used to deal with voltage drop concerns. Conductors must be protected as stated in 240.4. In your example the 12 AWG conductors are protected below their ampacity and the 14 AWG conductors are protected based on 240.4(D). That is allowed." The problem I have with this wiring is what happens if the service is upgraded (new service panel)? The new electrician will probably use circuit breakers that match the wire size in the panel, not knowing there was a switch to #14 on the second floor (I've done it too many times to remember). A tag would be messy so I think the best 'solution' is to continue with #12 even though it's a pain to work with. Dave
    View Question & Answer

  • October 29, 2019

    Hi Code Question of the Day and Team Charlie, You all do a fantastic job and provide a great service to the industry! Thank you for linking into the appropriate UL product category guide information in UL Product Spec when explaining the suitability or intended use of UL Certified products in accordance with the NEC. I am writing to let you know that the UL Product Spec database is being retired on November 15, 2019. After that date, that website will be redirected to the UL Product iQ™ database at Going forward, please use the UL Product iQ database. UL Product iQ database is a much more powerful database that includes all of UL’s Certification information, is easy to search by almost any criteria and includes all the search functionality that was included in UL Product Spec. UL Product iQ is free to all users and requires a one time registration. Go to to register today! Thanks and keep up the good work! Best Regards, Tom Lichtenstein Senior Regulatory Engineer UL LLC.
    View Question & Answer

  • October 28, 2019

    Re: CQD answer published Monday, October 14, 2019 - Working Space In regards to the question below, I would like to offer my observation on this issue of "work space" requirements. In the NEC article covering it, it has a foot note under the table where it states this applies to equipment having "EXPOSED" live parts. The term "EXPOSED" is defined in Art. 100, thus that must be used to determine applicability. It states: Exposed (as applied to live parts). Capable of being inadvertently touched or approached nearer than a safe distance by a person. It is applied to parts that are not suitably guarded, isolated, or insulated. All of the panels now on the market do NOT have EXPOSED live parts when the definition is applied. Even though live parts of terminals can be viewed, they are generally recessed or otherwise arranged (suitably guarded) so that "inadvertent" contact is highly unlikely. Buss bars are covered, screws are recessed, etc. The only way to contact live conductive parts is to "deliberately" do it. This is also true of "safety" type disconnect switches. The hinged cover is interlocked with the handle and the cover can only be opened with the switch in the "OFF" position. When the cover is then opened, the only thing energized is the incoming termination, which is guarded and recessed to avoid "inadvertent" contact. Yes, if the interlock is defeated, then a hazard exists, but this is "deliberate". Here's the Working Space requirement: 110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Each condition applies to the "Exposed" live parts as defined in Art. 100. If this working space requirement was applied without this caveat, almost every installation would be in violation. Some equipment complies to IEC regulations and quantifies levels of exposure using the Ingress Protection (IP) rating. IP 3, or greater, is generally regarded as "finger safe". IP1 indicates "back of hand" safe, which is also protection against inadvertent contact. Nick Abbatiello
    View Question & Answer

  • October 25, 2019

    I have done considerable research on this code requirement and it seems clear that you have to size conductors feeding the VFD panel at 1.25 x published max vfd amps. This is a real problem in two scenarios. First, vfd’s often require oversizing as the set carrier frequency is increased above 3kHZ. This has nothing to do with current and everything to do with having a larger bridge to handle additional heat losses at higher carrier frequency. The second scenario is when special configured wide constant hp motors ie rpmac have high output amp requirements but at low vfd output voltage. In this situation the actual output watts reflected back through the rectifier result in much lower drive input amps. In one case, the output amps at 310 vac is 600 amps, but at 460 vac is 400 amps. Following nec 430.122 results in massive cable oversize in the vfd enclosure as well as the cable from the main down stream supply. Very expensive for both the VFD panel builder and end user! In the past, I have seen people just protect against this by limiting current by sizing the incoming vfd enclosure breaker to 1.25 x motor fla (at 460 vac in the case of a 460 vac supply). This seems to make more sense to me! Please let me know if you have any input on this.Thanks! Motorman
    View Question & Answer

  • October 24, 2019

    I hope this inquiry finds you well. My question is about tap conductors feeding a 35kva 3 phase transformer. 240.21(B)(3) allows a tap conductor for this purpose so long as all condition therein are met. 240.2 generally defines a tap conductor as one that has overcurrent protection above that which is otherwise allowed. Since 450.3 allows overcurrent protection up to 250% of the load where primary and secondary protection are provided, can a #8 Cu THHN, protected by a 100A OCPD, be used for this installation? Can the #8 land directly on the breaker? Would that not meet the definition of a tap? If not, what is the difference in having a #3 land on the breaker only to be spliced to a #8 for the tap?Aeron Braukman
    View Question & Answer

  • October 23, 2019

    Re: CQD answer published Thursday, October 17, 2019 -Intentional NEC Violation When confronted with a situation such as described in this question in which someone insists that something be done that violates a code or safety consideration, I find it useful to imagine myself in the witness box of a courtroom being confronted by the plaintiff's attorney asking the question "Isn't it correct to say that as a professional electrician, you knew that what you did was a violation of the National Electric Code, yet you did it anyway?" This mental image has given me the fortitude to just say no on more than one occasion. John Kahler
    View Question & Answer

  • October 22, 2019

    A recent outside audit to a financial institution has requested that locks be installed to lock in the open position all exterior A/C disconnect switches. Is this allowed by code? Robert Cote
    View Question & Answer

  • October 21, 2019

    I recently built a house for a client. My electrician ran 12/2 romex cable from the breaker box to the switch of a bedroom. From the switch, he ran 14/2 romex cable to the outlets and switches. He used a 15 amp breaker for this circuit. I have read many places online where it states this is allowed. The client of the home hired an electrician himself and stated that the house has to be rewired because all circuits must use the same gauge wire. Can you point me to the section in the code where it states one way or another which is correct? Thank you. Ernesto Jimenez
    View Question & Answer

  • October 18, 2019

    What is the requirement for securing ceiling fans in an industrial environment?Bill Roller
    View Question & Answer

  • October 17, 2019

    Is it necessary to have a remote test switch at a disconnect for a roof fan? In an industrial setting.Mark Van De Hey
    View Question & Answer

  • October 16, 2019

    How do you keep your integrity as a qualified electrician who tries to follow the NEC to the best of your ability? For example, you are on a job where the 2nd breaker panel in a structure (120/240) has only 3 conductors supplying it from the main breaker panel. You know per the NEC that the main breaker panel is the only place where the neutral bar and grounding equipment bar can be connected. But you see in the 2nd panel there is no grounding equipment conductor, there is no separate grounding equipment bar, and the neutral bar in the panel is connected to the case. What do you do when you are asked to add a new 120-volt circuit and you know the owner is not going to spend the money to have you correct the wiring between main panel and 2nd panel? It’s even worse when on a farmstead when all outbuildings have 3 conductors supplying them from the service equipment at the meter pole. When you tell the owner that it is not wired correctly, the owner looks at you like you’re half-crazy and you know he is thinking “it has worked OK the way it is wired for the past 30, 40, or 50 years. I’ll just get another electrician to add the circuit.” Does one go ahead and add the circuit? Is there anything in the current NEC that allows one to wire the “old way” that once was acceptable by the NEC?Rick Polley
    View Question & Answer

  • October 15, 2019

    Does a residential dishwasher require a dedicated circuit?Cory Beard
    View Question & Answer

ABOUT CQD: The Code Question of the Day (CQD) is NECA and ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR Magazine’s flagship National Electrical Code (NEC®) public forum for the industry, sponsored by EATON. The daily distribution of Q&A generates a lively dialogue and shares relative Code-based practical responses.

SUBMIT YOUR CODE QUESTION: Click here to submit a question to for inclusion in an upcoming edition of the Code Question of the Day, or email

CHARLIE TROUT: Charles M. Trout, better known as Charlie, was a nationally known NEC® expert and author. He served on several NEC® technical committees and is past chairman of CMP-12. In 2006 Charlie was awarded the prestigious Coggeshall Award for outstanding contributions to the electrical contracting industry, codes and standards development, and technical training. Even though Charlie passed away in October of 2015, his work continues in spirit. NECA continues to maintain this question forum for its many subscribers in memory and recognition of all his significant contributions to making the NEC what it is today.

NECA STANDARDS: NECA publishes the National Electrical Installation Standards™ (NEIS™), a series of ANSI-approved performance and quality standards for electrical construction. NEIS can be purchased in the NECA Store in three formats: a printed or  PDF download of a standard or, as an  annual subscription service.

NECA SAFETY PRODUCTS & PUBLICATIONS: NECA produces electrical safety publications and products for the industry including jobsite safety guides, handbooks and resource kits. View a full listing of available resources and products »

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Unless the question requests a response based on a specific edition, all answers are based on the latest edition of NFPA 70® National Electrical Code®.

This correspondence is not a formal interpretation of the NEC® and any responses expressed to the questions are opinions and do not necessarily represent the official position of NECA, NFPA, the NEC Correlating Committee any Code-making panel or other electrical technical committee. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should it be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services. 

UPDATE YOUR SUBSCRIPTION PREFERENCES: Subscribe or Unsubscribe from this list.