Was it ever acceptable to run 2 ungrounded (hot) conductors and 1 grounding conductor, without a grounded (neutral) conductor to a remote distribution panel that is in the same building?
This sub has grounds/neutrals bonded.
The service disconnect is at the attached garage and sub-panel at basement.
House built in 2005. An electrician is saying it’s OK
That’s not a problem if you have no neutral, is it?
That thing is wrong x6.
Chris it shouldn’t be two ungrounded conductors and an EGC.
It would need to be two ungrounded conductors and an insulated grounded conductor with the panel bonded by conduit.
I don’t think that’s allowed anymore.
Neutrals and grounds need to be separated.
It’s all messed up.
I’m going to say no. That’s a bad deal.
…but, Billy Bob, that’s the only wire there was in the shed. :shock:
What if it fed a bank of 240v heaters? Just brainstorming. That’s obviously not the case here just saying what if.
Still has grounding and grounded conductors bonded together and to the can…no?
The “electrician” needs to go back to the code book. Better yet, hang up their tools as they clearly had no idea.
Thanks everyone. I already told the guy he was incorrect. It’s nice to have six others agreeing with me. I will advise my client to hire their own Qualified electrician, and ignore the sellers “whatever he is”.
Valid point, but I see no handle ties on most of those breakers, and there are neutrals terminated to the neutral bar, so at least some of those circuits are 120v.
I see neutrals double-tapped with grounds
I see the ground and the neutral bar connected with a jumper that belongs in a service panel only.
Obviously, no isolated neutral conductor back to the service panel, per OP.
Probably a couple more violations if we look closer.
**All in all, my answer to those “electricians” who say that a disaster that you’ve pointed out is nothing to worry about: Fine; If you’re saying that it’s OK, put it in writing onto your own company’s letterhead, along with your insurance policy and the license number. Can’t do that? I thought so…
**
Yeah, I was just throwing out a possible scenario where this may have been done purposefully, like a past usage. I can’t imagine why an electrician would okay this as it stands. But since it’s from 2005, I doubt the panel ever had a different past usage.
Haha, yes. Maybe Article 250 was missing from his book. Most errors I find are either total goofball stuff, or bonding and grounding errors.
Now that I typed this, I think saying that section of his book missing is giving too much credit.
What I had thought, maybe it was originally a 60 amp 240 volt stand alone circuit for something (60 amp breaker at main panel). Then someone used the feed to install the sub-panel when basement was finished.
But besides serving several 20 amp circuits it also (labeled) protected the water heater and sump pump.
Good call Mike.
I agree. 
Even if this was an exception where the NEC allowed a 3 wire feed (such as out buildings with only electric and no phone/cable or metal water pipes ect prior to 2005) it would still not be compliant. The bare equipment ground is not allowed to be used as a current carrying conductor. NEC forbids it. In all cases the neutral even when doubling as ground must be insulated. In the very least it should be hot-hot-neutral.
My guess the electrician tried to save a few bucks by running cheaper 6-2 instead of the required 6-3 with ground.
If, however all the loads in the panel were straight 240 volts such as electric baseboard heaters the 6-2 would be complaint since you only need to hots and a ground. However, as soon as you add any 120 volt loads or loads rated 120/240 (such as an oven with 240 volt heaters and a 120 volt clock) the panel needs to have an insulated neutral, and in most cases a ground wire as well.
