Hot Topics: Wire Size for a 100 Amp Sub Panel

four part copper cable in plastic sheathing's forums feature 250,000+ expert chats in over 120 categories, so we highlight popular threads to help with related projects. This transcript has been lightly edited.

Original Post: Wire size for 100 amp sub panel?

L West - Visiting Guest

What size wire do I need for a 100 amp sub panel? The sub panel will be app. 15 ft. from the main panel in the basement.

JuiceHead - Member

#4 copper or #2 aluminum per NEC Table 310-15(b)(6). Note that sub-panels must have the neutrals and grounds completely separated, with the neutral bus isolated from (not bonded to) the steel enclosure. If you have any questions about this please let us know.

L West - Thread Starter

Thanks Juice. Is #4 copper available as cable (3 conductor & ground)?

I have a panel and also purchased a separate ground bar. All the grounds will connect to the ground bar which attaches directly to the cabinet. I WILL NOT install the screw that bonds the neutral bar to to the cabinet.... right?

JuiceHead - Member

Yes, this conductor is available. You want "type SE-R", which contains two insulated hots, one insulated neutral, and a bare ground, all inside an overall sheath, or jacket.

Having bought a separate ground bus bar, and having described the "bonding screw", you seem to be on top of this requirement already. You are correct, toss that screw! Before installing the ground bus bar, sand the paint completely off the area of the enclosure where you will install it. If it is made by the same mfr. as the panel there may be little studs and pre-drilled and tapped holes to accept the new bar. If not, install in a logical area of the enclosure and use self-tapping screws only, as sheet metal screws are prohibited by the NEC for grounding connections of any kind.

Good luck.

L West - Thread Starter

One last question... Do you know off hand if #4 copper will fit into a std. Square D "Homeline" 100 amp two pole breaker?

JuiceHead - Member

That's a good question. As luck would have it, I actually keep a copy of the Square D catalog at arm's length at my office. (I'm an electrical designer by trade.) Type "HOM" circuit breakers from 80 to 125 amps will accommodate #4 through #2/0 copper conductors. So you're all set!

Your model number is HOM2100. List price is $112, but you'll never pay nearly that much. Plan on $40 to $50 retail.

L West - Thread Starter

Thanks Juice for all the info :-) By wiring my own basement I will save about $2000 and learn some new skills along the way. I'm getting all the appropriate permits and inspections and when in doubt asking questions. This forum is a great source of information and I appreciate you guys who take time to help us DIY folks out!

JuiceHead - Member

You're more than welcome. I did a full service upgrade on my house last year, also including permits/inspections & the lot, so installing this type of stuff and passing inspection are areas where I can certainly both sympathize and help with. (My experience includes years of electrical installation/troubleshooting/repair, though never becoming a licensed electrician, before I became a "drawing board" guy more recently.) So if you have anymore questions, stop by anytime. There are a lot of very smart and very experienced folks who hang out here that will be glad to help.

L West - Thread Starter

Do you know how difficult it is to find 4/3 w/ ground CU cable! I live in metro Atlanta and after several calls I found a supplier with a 19' pc (romex). It seems that most folks use #2 AL for this type of application.

JuiceHead - Member

Copper is preferred by many purists, but in the final analysis aluminum is used far, far more. Even tough larger diameter is specified for the same amperage, electricians still save money with aluminum. And in most areas when you hire a pro to wire a panel or a service that's what you'll get automatically unless you specify copper, for which they will charge you extra. For #10, 12, and 14 you will rarely see aluminum, and should not use this in these smaller sizes no matter what, in my personal opinion. In larger gauges I have no problem with aluminum personally, although some folks will strongly disagree with me. But I have gone on numerous service calls where aluminum branch circuit wiring has had serious failures, and saw first hand that some of these deficiencies could have, but miraculously didn't, cause fires.

Since you asked specifically about copper I felt you had a pre-determined preference, so I didn't really discuss it. But due to your persistance you found what you wanted, and should take comfort in knowing you have a superior conductor. Nobody but perhaps an Alcan employee would disagree with me on that!

Good luck!

four part copper cable in rubber tubing

RickM - Visiting Guest

While I don't see much of a problem here, you can not use Section 310-15(b)(6) for this type of feeder. Within the body of the paragraph, it states that the feeder must be the "conductors that serve as the main power feeder to a dwelling unit..." which, in this case it is not. You would have to use the table 310-16 to get the wire size, if the main service is anything other than a 100amp service. A 100amp service can use #4 cu or #2al, and Section 310-15(b)(6) says the feeder conductors don't have to be larger than the service entrance conductors.

If the service is larger than 100amp, you will have to go back to Table 310-16.

If you have already ran the wire, just change out the 100amp breaker to a 90amp, and call it good.

resqcapt19 - Visiting Guest

I have to disagree. Table 310-15(b)(6) does apply to this installation. The conductors in question meet the definition of main power feeders as given in 310-15(b)(6). The conductors in question are between the main service disconnect and a lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard. This is all that is required to use the smaller conductors permitted in Table 310-15(b)(6). Note that the definition of main power feeder was new in the 99 NEC.

JuiceHead - Member

I agree with resqcapt19, which is why I used 310-15(b)(6) in the first place. Actually, I used to quote 310-16 even recently, until Wg explained how it is that 310-15(b)(6) does in fact apply to this particular situation in a dwelling situation. Of course I disagree with your interpretation with all due respect, Rick.

RickM - Visiting Guest

Hey guys, I agree *** if it is the feeder from the main disconnect to the panel. However, and I quote from LWest's orginal post --- "The sub panel will be app. 15 ft. from the main panel in the basement."---- This leads me believe that he is coming off of a breaker panel, which may or may not have the main disconnect in it, but, if my assumption is correct, also contains other breakers, and therefore the feeder is not the main power feeder.

I guess it's time to ask him just how his setup is configured.

Smiling with my teeth closed....

resqcapt19 - Visiting Guest


It doesn't matter how many other breakers are in the service panel. If the panel where the feeder originates has the service disconnect in it, and the feeder supplies a lighting and appliance branch circuit panelbaord in a dwelling unit, you can use Table 310-15(b)(6). No matter how many other breakers are in the first panel, the feeder is still a feeder between the main disconnect and a lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard.

RickM - Visiting Guest

Ok, Don, I conceed. I really thought it said something about providing the whole power for the dwelling unit. I don't have the 1996 code book in front of me, so I can't say for sure if that is what was changed in the 1999, but something was. There is a verticle line next to the sentence talking about the main power feeder.

When I get back to work tomorrow, I will look it up, both in the 1996 NEC and the ROP & ROC.

Until then....

I'm back at work, so let's look at this.

From the IAEI analysis of 1996 NEC..."the feeder no longer has to "supply the total load to the dwelling unit." It may now be "the main power feeder to a dwelling unit." The term "main power feeder" is not defined in the NEC, but apparently refers to the conductors from the service to a panelboard where the majority of loads are supplied. Loads such as for air conditioning, outbuildings, swimming pools or water pumps can be taken at the service and Note 3 be apllied for sizing the "main power feeder." No guidance is given on how much of the total load the "main power feeder" must supply before the note can be applied."

The 1999 NEC was changed here also, but still no clear direction on how much the total load the "main power feeder" must supply.

I guess that you could have 8 subpanels coming from one service equipment, and use this table.

for now....

Wgoodrich - Visiting Guest

Rick, your definition as to "main power feeder" is located in the beginning statement above table 310-15-b-6. Just read that opening statement and you will find what it defines as the main power feeder. Resqcapt19 is right. Just don't tell wirenuts or he will go back to his room again. Just kidding.

For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard(s)

Hope this helps

L West - Thread Starter

After making several calls I finally found a supplier with some #4/3 w/ ground CU cable. After I got home I noticed they made a mistake and gave me #2 CU. So I now have no doubt the cable I have will handle 100 amps!

Talk about work! Getting the # 2 CU cable thru the wall studs and into the main and sub panel box was lots of fun... NOT! I now realize I have many upper body muscles I didn't know about because they are all sore! Hat's off to you guys wo work with this stuff everyday :-)

JuiceHead - Member

Way to go, L West. I just hope they also made the mistake of CHARGING you for #4 Cu!

L West - Thread Starter

Yep, they did that too. I paid $1.10 / lf :-)

JuiceHead - Member


L West - Thread Starter

In all fairness I did call the supplier and offered to pay the difference. Since it was only 19' of cable they said not to worry about it. At least I can sleep well knowing that I didn't take advantage of somebodys mistake.

JuiceHead - Member

Truly a scholar and a gentleman!

Bob M - Member

Hey guys !

In all jest you all almost sound like a bunch of lawyers!! Arguing sections and interpretation!!! LOL!!!

JuiceHead - Member

Hey Bob, what do you call a hundred DIY electrical advisors at the bottom of the ocean?


What's the difference between a dead skunk in the middle of the road and a dead DIY electrical advisor?



s1nuber - Visiting Guest

Discussing code with an electrician/diy poster/inspector is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you understand that they like it.

I wonder if within the definition of main power feeder when 'main service disconnect' is used that means the actual wire terminated in said disconnect, or if the intent is the panel in which the main service disconnect is contained. This is the root of the differences of opinion about this code article. If you infer 'panel' or main service disconnect 'enclosure' when the term main service disconnect is used, then any feeder in a residence would fall under 310-15(b)(6) guidelines. This is not the case. If the NEC intended this, they would have used the general term of 'service' or 'service equipment' instead of the specific term of 'main service disconnect'.

In the above example, the 100 amp breaker that will feed the sub panel is a feeder breaker, not a main service disconnect. You can determine this with a simple test. With a main service disconnect off, the only power available will be uninteruptible utility power (no shutoff means available - other than pulling the meter). This 100 amp breaker in question does not pass the test. The power available on the bus can be shut off without pulling the meter.

This means that installing a 100 amp breaker with #4 CU SE-R cable in this instance is a code violation. In fact, due to changes in the 1999 NEC, SE-R cable is now limited to the 60C column in table 310-16, and the cable in question is code limited to only 70 amps (please see 338-4(a), which refers you to 336 part A and B, which contains 336-26 Ampacity). How is that for some serious legal type jargon?

Before those of you that disagree with me start rolling me into my grave, carefully look at the terms used as defined by the NEC. There is no gray are here. All of these items are clearly and specifically defined in the code book, and are not my opinion or interpretation. As such, I am legally bound as an electrician to follow them. If I do not, and something goes wrong, I am liable. It will be my fault that something failed. My personal beliefs that the wire in question will not be harmed by the 100 amp breaker is not important. It is still a code violation, and I will not recommend that you do it.

Look at the 1996 NEC compared to the 1999 NEC. Do they change just for fun? Why did the 1996 NEC allow SE-R cable to use the 75C column (336-26 used to be in part C of article 336, excluding it from applicability to SE-R cable), and in the 1999 code SE-R is limited to 60C column (by the shifting of one article)? Did the construction of SE-R cable change in that time span? I wonder if this type of cable has been attributed to overheating causing fires, and the applicable code committee decided to limit it's use for safety reasons? I wonder if this same thing has been occuring with feeder conductors to sub-panels, which is why 310-16 ampacity must be used for these feeders instead of 310-15(b)(6)? I haven't seen it, but I do not see everything. I also do not sit on the code making panels, and do not have specific insight into why the code is the way it is. Certainly, everyone must make their own choice, but I choose to follow the code.

Enjoy your day!

Visiting Guest


are you telling me the last 20 yrs i've installed #2 SER @ 100 A is NFG???

I'm gonna stay in my room and hide under the bed!......

Visiting Guest

ok gang;

Look up 280-310

In particular look at log #3908, I believe the CMP is aware of the confusion here....

resqcapt19 - Visiting Guest


The section, by the use of the word "feeder(s)" clearly allows multiple feeders. Multiple feeders would require the use of feeder breakers. It does not say that the feeders are directly connected to the service disconnect, only that the feeders are between the service disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard(s).

s1nuber - Visiting Guest

Wirenuts - what does NFG mean? And how is it under your bed? The world is dying to know.

You are not the only one who has installed #2 al Ser cable under a 100 amp breaker. Just because it has been done in the past, does not mean that it is the best choice. If all old wiring methods were correct, safe, and beyond improvement, why is knob and tube illegal for new installations? I'm not looking for an answer to that question, I'm trying to point out that the code members are trying to limit 'undersized' residential feeders. If all residential feeders were intended to use 310-15(b)(6), why not just use the term feeder? Why bother creating and defining the term main power feeder? Were they bored on a Saturday night? Is this a government conspiracy to make me go mad? Did they see what is under your bed and go insane?

Anyway, I tried to use your link, but it wasn't working. Is it correct? I would like to see what the powers that be have to say on the subject. Thanks.

Enjoy your day!

Visiting Guest

sorry 'bout the link, search up the NFPA, find the ROP's and ROC's.

there are those who seek to clarify the issue in 2002

(as they probably did for the 99')

while we are on the subject, would 310-15(b)have a bearing on this? or is this once again an NEC definitional deficentcy ?

Sorry, I cannot expand on NFG, it is an expletive deletive, the moderator of this forum would lock me in my room for good !

JuiceHead - Member

Took me a second, but NFG did come to me. It means No Flippin' Good.

S1Nuber, FYI knob & Tube wiring is actually still permitted. (See 324-3 - "Uses Permitted")

Wirenuts has obviously demonstrated that he's a REAL MAN! Not afraid that there's monsters under the bed!

Which reminds me of a joke:

Q: How many REAL MEN does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: NONE! Real men aren't afraid of the dark!

Visiting Guest

I'm with Wirenuts on this one... My supplier only carries #4/0 and #2 SER Al...?!?!? Hmmmmm...

Should we bring this up in the Electrical Contractor's Network Forums?

Visiting Guest


sure, i can be just as confused anywhere in cyberspace...

s1nuber - Visiting Guest

Juicehead - You can only install new knob and tube by special permission or connected to existing knob and tube, not for new construction or new installations. The NEC is 'phasing out' knob and tube as better and safer installation practices are available. I think we agree, but I just wasn't clear enough in my post.

Sparky66 - This same topic has presented itself on Mike Holt's board. On that board I would say it is about 50% for any feeder using 310-15(b)(6), on this board it is about 80% for it. Try it on your site, but I think wirenuts is right, cyberspace is cyberspace, and we are not going to find the end-all answer on the net. If your suppliers are like mine, making a code judgement on what they have in stock would be a grand mistake. I have to special order pvc expansion joints to make transitions from u/g to meter housings for one example.

Wirenuts - I did do some surfin and found what you were linkin' to. When I read the updates, I am even more convinced that the code panel intends to restrict residential feeder 'undersizing' to only main power feeders. The concern appears to be load diversity as expressed in the update about the detached garage (which was rejected) as the feeder would not carry the entire residential load, and not be diverse enough to prevent overheating/overloading. I think WG had posted something along these lines last time we danced on this particular issue, so maybe he'll chime in.

Anyway, I gotta clean the garage, or kill a spider or somethin.

Enjoy your day!

Visiting Guest


I'm glad you could surf that up , sorry i'm not that good at posting links here!...

Whenever i see these types of code "grey areas' or 'interpational debates' i like to visit the ROP's & ROC's, see where it's going...

Even better is having a poster know where it's been.

(Like some major leagers posting here seem to)

For whatever side is advocated, clarity is not 100% to me, my NEC is dogeared from this thread.....

Wgoodrich - Visiting Guest

S1NUBER, The sub panel he is talking about is a panelboard. Therefore that panelboard is a general lighting and appliance panelboard if 10% of the breakers protect general lighting circuits. If that sub panel is indeed a general lighting panelboard then 310-15-B-6 applies because in the opening statement of applicability it states to include feeders supplying panelboards that are used as general lighting panelboards. I AGREE WITH resqcapt19 THAT 310-15-B-6 DOES APPLY to the feeder in this post. Please see below for confirmation;

384-14. Classification of Panelboards

(a) Lighting and Appliance Branch-Circuit Panelboard. A lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard is one having more than 10 percent of its overcurrent devices protecting lighting and appliance branch circuits. A lighting and appliance branch circuit is a branch circuit that has a connection to the neutral of the panelboard and that has overcurrent protection of 30 amperes or less in one or more conductors.


For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboard(s)

Please note that the sentence above pertaining to 310-15-B-6 does indeed include feeders to general lighting and appliance panelboards and in that statement it does not limit this rule to be used as the main power [service entrance] conductors as you interpret. It specifically states between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboards. It does not anywhere say main service rated panel.

My opinion that you asked for.


You guys did fine without me. Makes me feel not needed huh. I am sure you missed my opinions so freely provided in great numbers though whether right or wrong. Just like to talk a lot.

Good Luck

four kinds of metal wire

Visiting Guest


good post, you just keep talkin' and we'll keep learnin'!

FYI, there are some interesting ROP's. it seems that this has been an ongiong concern.

a few in particular;

(about pg 65)

Log # 4200, read the substantiation, it would seem the CMP is almost venting it's frustration here.....claiming the "99 wording schizophrenic"

Log# 3908 , moves to exempt 336-26 in 310-15(b)(6)

Visiting Guest


You remind me of a guy named Sparky, ...

Hmm, or is it...

The url you were trying to post before is:

(You had an apostrophe in ROP's)

Visiting Guest

It seems to me that 310-15(b)(6) states "...120/240-volt, 3-wire, single phase..." does that eliminate SER or does the equipment grounding conductor count as a "wire"? Am I splitting hairs here?

Hi Bill;

yes it's me, illiteracy has given me away!

Thank you for fixing that, i'll try your advice next post..


more like pulling hair! the 3-wire deal means the X-former 240/120 ok for if you had a 3 ph residence you can't use 310-15(b)(6)

boy, this issue is burnin' up a whole lotta cyberspace!

s1nuber - Visiting Guest

I hope the fish were biting for ya, WG.

I do not doubt the lighting & appliance panelboard requirement. That is not my question at all. My point hinges on the contention that 'main service disconnect' is a specific term. The NEC does not include the enclosure or all of the service equipment when 'main service disconnect' is used. A main service disconnect will disconnect utility power when turned off. The 100amp feeder breaker in the above example does not do this, it disconnects power to the feeder. This breaker is still inside of the service equipment, as well as the main service disconnect enclosure, but it is not a main service disconnect. If the source of power to the feeder in question is not a main service disconnect (even though it feeds a lighting & appliance panelboard), it does not meet the definition of 'main power feeder' in 310-15(b)(6). This means the feeder must be sized by 310-16, as it is not a main power feeder by NEC definition.

If the term 'main service disconnect' is interpreted to mean 'main service disconnect enclosure', then any feeder that originates at the service equipment, and supplies a lighting & appliance panelboard, would be a 'main power feeder'. I just think that if that is what the NEC meant, that is what they would have printed in 310-15(b)(6).

Enjoy your day!

resqcapt19 - Visiting Guest

The word do not say "connected to the main disconenct", they say "between the main disconnect".

Wgoodrich - Visiting Guest

Read carefully just this sentence;

For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the FEEDER[S] BETWEEN THE MAIN DISCONNECT AND THE LIGHTING AND APPLIANCE BRANCH-CIRCUIT PANELBOARD[S],

Now read carefully just this sentence;

and the feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be required to be larger than their service-entrance conductors.

Think in detail what those two sentences said explicitly making sure you see the words BETWEEN THE MAIN DISCONNECT AND THE LIGHTING, ETC.

Now go back to your Code book and confirm those words are in that opening statement of 310-15-B-6.

Can you see what we are trying to point out, now?

Hope this helps

Visiting Guest

Warren, Don...

we are getting into some heavy linguistics here, which is probably the true root of the problem as seen in the ROP's.

I do not know of past changes, but i do see pending ones focusing on the grammar, even the punctuation!, has this been the case in past cycles???

resqcapt19 - Visiting Guest

The premise of the reduced wire size for "main power

feeder(s)" in dwelling units is load diversity. In my opinion all lighting and appliance branch circuit panels in a dwelling unit will have similar load diversity and the wire sizes in Table 310-15(b)(6) can be applied to the feeders for these panels.

s1nuber - Visiting Guest

I definitely see the other side of the arguement. I'm just not sure that I agree with it. If we follow the logic of just being between the main disconnect and the panelboard, what feeder is excluded from meeting 310-15(b)(6) requirements? All feeders are inherently between the main service disconnect and a panelboard in a residence, regardless of how it is wired.

So again I ask, why go to the trouble of creating and defining the term 'main power feeder', if it can be applied to any lighting and appliance panelboard feeder? Why not just say 'panelboard feeder'? It makes no sense to go to all of that trouble for no gain.

I think that I am starting to repeat myself, so maybe this thread is dead. I do enjoy these hypertechnical discussions, as they force me to re-evaluate my opinions. I don't think the regular Joe enjoys them, as they just want an answer: What size wire?

Enjoy your day!

s1nuber - Visiting Guest

Don - I definitely see what you are saying. I just think (from the NEC's increasing restriction of 310-15) that the NEC is trying to reduce/eliminate the practice. The funny thing is, I agree entirely with what you are saying as far as theory. I just think the code no longer allows it to be done, so I won't install feeders the old way.

Enjoy your day!

resqcapt19 - Visiting Guest

I think the only "correct" answer to this question is the response from your local AHJ, or a formal interpretation from the NFPA.

thinman - Member

Wire size for 100 amp sub panel.

Read article 215-2(d).

JuiceHead - Member

Interesting chat. Wg, I just want to say that I did miss you, thought you'd been dating heavily or something. Also want you to bite your tongue for saying you are un-needed in any way. You bring a very valuable dimension to this forum and are definitely a factor in its overall character. Glad you enjoyed your fishin'.

Wirenuts, do you mean the "sprky" that disappeared from here a couple months back? The guy who misspelled durn near every word he wrote? You're THAT Sparky?

Visiting Guest


second that vote , i have learned much from you wg, and usually look for threads your involved in, keep up the good work!

juice, i go by sparky in the EC BB @

good people, good advice, good chat etc....

Wgoodrich - Visiting Guest

Juice, fish weren't biting that strong but had a great time anyway. Not been on heavy dating though am considering exercise and crash diet to go womanizing again. Got dumped a couple of weeks ago, said my nose was on the internet too much, go figure. Think I am getting too old to chase anymore, should stick with electrical, make less mistakes that way. Maybe that was why I went fishing, never know for sure though.

By the way I believe Thinman entered the 310-15-b-6 question on the IAEI forum. Maybe we can get some stronger knowledge on the subject there.

Good Luck

JuiceHead - Member


I appreciate your comment that the regular Joe possibly doesn't appreciate the "hypertechnical" discussions we have in here sometimes. But I do believe s/he reads them, comprehends what s/he can, and takes the opinion that s/he most believes is the case. Or asks the question differently, or bags it and calls their favorite electrician believing electricity must obviously be over their heads if they don't understand these discussions. Which may be true, may be to their benefit, or occasionally may cause us to lose somebody who may have had the capability to otherwise hang on and do the work safely and correctly if we hadn't messed with their brain.

At any rate, if their work is inspected, as I believe all of us would encourage, they'll find out soon enough what their local AHJ interprets the Code to mean, and either approves the work or has them "correct" it to comply ith their own personal belief as to what the Code intended, which in the end is safety for life and property, a most virtuous quest in any case!) And being able to hear a variety of opinions has always been the best way to make up one's mind in a free society.

Plus, I think it is gratifying to us juice-junkies to engage in such conversations. Goodness knows we collectively contribute a good deal to this forum, and provide valuable assistance vis-a-vie free and responsible-to-the-best-of-our-abilities advice to all the Joes/Josephines out there, and if we wander off the path and indulge ourselves in the technical aspects of code/methods/materials for the expansion of our own knowledge, and in the quest for what is truly correct, I feel it is not at the expense or chagrin of our more lay compadres.

But I want to express that raising the point alone exposes you as a thinking person S1, who imagines outside his own needs/desires, and therefore I believe you to be a scholar and a gentleman. For what it's worth.

Wg, sticking with electrical has only one advantage over dating - electricity is far more predictable. And logical. But what is love, anyway? Mysterious, enjoyable, sometimes stressful, sometimes painful, sometimes difficult, often expensive, often hard work, and very satisfying when done correctly...

Gee, that sounds a lot like electricity!

Oh, by the way, addressing the original electrical question, you can NEVER go wrong to increase your conductor size to conform to 60 degree C column of 310-16. Wire is cheap the first time it is installed, and incredibly expensive to tear out and replace because of a misunderstanding of the requirement. And FAR less frustrating. (Imagine hearing your inspector tell you that you have far exceeded the minimum requirement? I had that experience and I can tell you it feels pretty darn good.)

And it has been my own experience with my home wiring that one call to your AHJ at the beginning of a project, just to touch base and let them know you'll be working with them, is a big plus. And when I was in doubt and wondered what his opinion would be as it related directly to my passing inspection, one phone call cleared it up and told me that if I did it in the particular way he sees the requirement that he would obviously pass it when he arrived to inspect. Just can't go wrong this way, I think.

Have a nice weekend y'all.

Visiting Guest

#6 cu max ampacity?

I tried to follow this thread but you guys are pretty technical.

I installed 150ft of #6 copper wire (black, red, and white) in an underground conduit from my main panel to supply a panel at a detached structure for a hot tub (50a 220v) and a few outlets and lights.

My question is, how much current can this wire handle (what size breaker should I put in my main panel?)?

I relied on advice from a guy at Home Depot and I hope this wire will work. I appreciate the help, I have no training but I'm trying to learn. Thanks!