Thread: Need opinion on transformer in panel and double lugging

IMG_1357[1].jpg

I run into the double lugging a lot and understand what to say in such cases as on the bottom left side. But I get confused when double lugging a doorbell transformer, as some say its okay. Also, what would be a reasonable way to state the doorbell transformer should not be here.

Similar Threads:

• Transformer panel for electric baseboard heat
• Transformer & Low Volt Wiring in Main Panel
• Double tapping the doorbell transformer
• New Panel Double Tapped to Old
• Double panel box

Originally Posted by chris viscomi

... double lugging a doorbell transformer, as some say its okay.

Not sure who "some" is, but it is not okay to multiple tap a door bell transformer than any other conductor.

Also, what would be a reasonable way to state the doorbell transformer should not be here.

You mean that the door bell transformer should not be inside the panel? Just about like that.

The transformer is made to mount through a knock out hole with the low voltage side outside and the line voltage side inside so it can be connected to power.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Not sure who "some" is, but it is not okay to multiple tap a door bell transformer than any other conductor.



You mean that the door bell transformer should not be inside the panel? Just about like that.

The transformer is made to mount through a knock out hole with the low voltage side outside and the line voltage side inside so it can be connected to power.

Yeah thanks Jerry. I always default to the Electrician in my reports, but I wanted a canned line to explain why the transformer is not allowed inside. Like "The low voltage lines of the transformer cannot be located inside the panel" ought to do it. I vaguely remember something about Class 1, 2 and 3 but my memory fails me.
Guess I just like to know "why" sometimes, beyond saying it is not allowed. Curious that way. Once I understand why it is not allowed , I remember it better.
But thanks again as usual my friend.

Originally Posted by chris viscomi

I always default to the Electrician in my reports, ...

Never "default" to the electrician or other contractor, when you do that you give up all rights to what you said in your report and your opinion. What if the electrician says 'Yeah, it's okay to have the transformer in the panel."? Your client asks you about it and you can no longer say it is wrong ... because you defaulted to the electrician and they said it was okay ... your report is now toast and meaningless, leaving your client with no back up and of no useful value.

... but I wanted a canned line to explain why the transformer is not allowed inside.

That's only of any use if you do not default to the electrician.

Like "The low voltage lines of the transformer cannot be located inside the panel" ought to do it.

Change that to "The low voltage transformer is not permitted to be located inside the panel." - not just the low voltage wiring, the transformer itself too, and from "cannot" - you saw it in there, it "can" be done - to "is not permitted", "is not allowed", or something like that, but you have a photo of the transformer in the panel so it CAN be done. Words matter.

Guess I just like to know "why" sometimes, beyond saying it is not allowed. Curious that way. Once I understand why it is not allowed , I remember it better.

I am the same way ... the "why" is important in helping remember ... and in being able to explain "why" to others.

As to the "why", others may be more eloquent but I'll give it a shot.
You don't want low voltage mixed with line voltage just because the two do not mix well! You do not want line voltage applied to low voltage wires or equipment because it is dangerous and the NEC makes it plain they have to be kept separate except in some very limited circumstances.

Jerry wrote in part:

Never "default" to the electrician or other contractor, when you do that you give up all rights to what you said in your report and your opinion. What if the electrician says 'Yeah, it's okay to have the transformer in the panel."? Your client asks you about it and you can no longer say it is wrong ... because you defaulted to the electrician and they said it was okay ... your report is now toast and meaningless, leaving your client with no back up and of no useful value.

That's not how the courts (at least up here and I suspect state side) look at referral to licenced professionals. Further; simply because one refers to an expert does not make the rest of the report valueless. Again my own readings on deferrals indicates the courts expect an inspector to recommend further evaluation by outside experts when and where an inspector encounters something beyond his 'expertise/experience'.

However i do agree that simple things as illustrated in the photos/question do not warrant outside intervention as to best practice/code.

Should a licenced electrician be stupid enough to say its okay it will be his arse on the line not the inspectors should there be resultant catastrophic event. And if an electrician is stupid enough to state otherwise I would ask that it be put in writing on his letterhead. But then again thats why you are here to ensure that no electrician will pull wool over the eyes of the inspectors.

Raymond,

Two points:

1) default to

2) referral to

BIG DIFFERENCE between the two.

Defaulting or deferring to the "expert" opinion or referring to the expert to give his opinion leaves your opinion worth less or worthless.
To refer the client to have the expert REPAIR the issue leaves the client in a stronger position.
The expert will obviously give his opinion as to the validity of the inspectors opinion but when the inspector takes a verbal stand to say "xyz is wrong, get it fixed." leaves little wiggle room for sleazy or incompetent people to wiggle out of needed repairs.
This happens regularly when the buyer asks the seller for repairs and leaves the inspector looking like an idiot in the eyes of the seller, agents, and likely your own client.

Grow a pair and state flat out what is wrong, what needs to be done, and why.
Don't give away your power and the clients negotiating position to the least expensive and likely the least competent "professional" the seller can find.

Obviously if I DON'T know about a particular item such as solar panel controls, I will refer them to get their own expert but to regularly defer to roofers, electricians, plumbers, etc. when it is something we SHOULD know about does a disservice to your client and deflates the value of your service. And rightly so, after all if we defer to others, why do they need us?

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Defaulting or deferring to the "expert" opinion or referring to the expert to give his opinion leaves your opinion worth less or worthless.
To refer the client to have the expert REPAIR the issue leaves the client in a stronger position.
The expert will obviously give his opinion as to the validity of the inspectors opinion but when the inspector takes a verbal stand to say "xyz is wrong, get it fixed." leaves little wiggle room for sleazy or incompetent people to wiggle out of needed repairs.
This happens regularly when the buyer asks the seller for repairs and leaves the inspector looking like an idiot in the eyes of the seller, agents, and likely your own client.

Grow a pair and state flat out what is wrong, what needs to be done, and why.
Don't give away your power and the clients negotiating position to the least expensive and likely the least competent "professional" the seller can find.

Obviously if I DON'T know about a particular item such as solar panel controls, I will refer them to get their own expert but to regularly defer to roofers, electricians, plumbers, etc. when it is something we SHOULD know about does a disservice to your client and deflates the value of your service. And rightly so, after all if we defer to others, why do they need us?

I agree. By "defer", I only meant that I state "Have a licensed Electrician determine the repair/remedy required".
While I have learned a lot through my experiences, I learn a lot from Jerry and you guys on here. I like to know "why", not to become an Electrician, but to understand the reasoning behind the code.

I really appreciate the "spirited" debate as well.

Default or Deferral -

1. Contract has not been broken between inspector and client for deferring.
2. No one gets sued for negligent inspection for recommending further investigation.
3. SOP are not breached
4. Just because someone does recommend further investigation due to lack of experience/knowledge does not arbitrarily mean the rest of the inspection and findings and recommendations are skewed or void.
5. Courts do not side with your statements given that courts recognize inspections are visual, inspectors have been roasted for not recommending further investigation where something is amiss prompting the need to investigate further. Duty of care is not breached nor standard of care, however that is ever evolving via the courts interpretation.

Yes I agree and I stated such that inspectors should only recommend further investigation when they are not knowledgeable on a system, cannot ascertain what a cause and effect is, or when access is required to ascertain the extent, damage, or further damage, et ceteras...

The law sees it differently and that's where the buck stops.

I don't have an issue with transformers being in a box just not one with so many wires and as long as you have some sort of divider in the box (in this case) for low voltage and the transformer is mounted - not loose (some applications might require a low voltage transformer with other components )

The other issue I have is the lack of color coding of wires - why do you have neutrals going to a breaker (white wires that should have black or other dark colored wire such as blue , red , purple (I like dark colors for hot leads and it avoids confusion technically most other colors can be used except for green , white , green with yellow stripe )

When I see wiring like this it often tells me that it was not done by an electrician -

Kevin is correct, the transformer needs to be in open air to dissipate heat. And it needs to be secured.

In the past, you might say under previous code cycles, low voltage wiring for the doorbell was allowed in the breaker panel. Double-tapping of the transformer was allowed. White wires to breakers was allowed.
Are y'all telling the clients they have to bring the old panel up to the present code requirements?

Originally Posted by John Kogel

In the past, you might say under previous code cycles, low voltage wiring for the doorbell was allowed in the breaker panel. Double-tapping of the transformer was allowed.

Incorrect.

The code never did allow those things.

Some inspectors may have, but the inspector ignoring the code does not make the installation "compliant with the code".

Are y'all telling the clients they have to bring the old panel up to the present code requirements?

Thus, no, we are not saying to bring it up to the current code ... we are saying that it was wrong then, and it is still wrong today. So, if they are bringing it up to any code, they are bringing it up to the old code from back then.

Thus, yes ... ... sort of ... while we are not telling them to bring it to current code, we are telling them that current code (and in this particular case - the old code too) recognizes that it creates unsafe hazards and needs to be corrected to eliminate those unsafe hazards.

My experience with DB transformer is they have fixed 'stranded wire' and double tapping under terminal screw with solid wire always results in the stranded wire being lose under the terminal. Sometimes I have been able to pull DB wire out very easily. Stranded wire and solid wire don't work well together in this instance.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Kevin is correct, the transformer needs to be in open air to dissipate heat. And it needs to be secured.

In the past, you might say under previous code cycles, low voltage wiring for the doorbell was allowed in the breaker panel. Double-tapping of the transformer was allowed. White wires to breakers was allowed.
Are y'all telling the clients they have to bring the old panel up to the present code requirements?

John - it depends on the application and type of transformer - in this case - it was designed to be mounted outside of a box on a raceway but not in the breaker panel. There are many applications (like alarm systems , relay controls ) that have transformers mounted inside the cabinet - so I don't like to give it a wholesale - no transformers are not allowed - it is all about application and use. Now you might argue those are not part of the electrical system - but they are and discussed in the NEC (it has been a while so please don't ask me to quote this one)

Originally Posted by Dwight Doane

John - it depends on the application and type of transformer - in this case - it was designed to be mounted outside of a box on a raceway but not in the breaker panel. There are many applications (like alarm systems , relay controls ) that have transformers mounted inside the cabinet - so I don't like to give it a wholesale - no transformers are not allowed - it is all about application and use. Now you might argue those are not part of the electrical system - but they are and discussed in the NEC (it has been a while so please don't ask me to quote this one)

Dwight,

The transformers you are referring to which are allowed inside the cabinet are inside the alarm cabinet, not inside the electrical panel. Therein lies a big difference.

Additionally, the transformers installed inside alarm panels, inside air handler units/condenser units, inside pool light transformer cabinets, inside ... etc., are all part of the listed equipment and/or are listed for use in such equipment.

But the photo and discussion has been about installing door bell transformers in electrical panels - and, to my knowledge, a blanket statement of 'none are allowed' is correct.

Getting further off topic into door bell transformers (and other transformers) is the ambient temperature they are permitted to be installed in - and most (at least back when I checked on this) transformers used for door bells/chimes are not even rated for the ambient temperatures present in most attics - okay, maybe attics in Antarctica and the Arctic don't get too hot in the summer ...

Originally Posted by Dwight Doane

The other issue I have is the lack of color coding of wires - why do you have neutrals going to a breaker (white wires that should have black or other dark colored wire such as blue , red , purple (I like dark colors for hot leads and it avoids confusion technically most other colors can be used except for green , white , green with yellow stripe )

When I see wiring like this it often tells me that it was not done by an electrician -

Wrong, the NEC allowed this practice since anyone looking or working on the system understood that the white was a hot from a 240 volt circuit. Only in more recent editions has it been dumbed down to protect people without the training and knowledge and required the white to be reidentified as a hot.

On a side note, I hope that you can distinguish that neutrals do need to connect to gfi and afci breakers. These are actually the neutrals.

- - - Updated - - -

Not intended. Slow server for this site.

[QUOTE=Jim Port;257057]Wrong, the NEC allowed this practice since anyone looking or working on the system understood that the white was a hot from a 240 volt circuit. Only in more recent editions has it been dumbed down to protect people without the training and knowledge and required the white to be reidentified as a hot.

On a side note, I hope that you can distinguish that neutrals do need to connect to gfi and afci breakers. These are actually the neutrals.

- - - Updated - - -

Jim - color coding has been practiced for quite some time (early '70's when I worked for my grandfather) I don't recall when it actually went into the code pre 2000 I know for sure. The point I am making here is that there is sufficient reason to suggest that an electrician be brought in to examine the system as it has multiple faults - or at least very suspicious professional practices and for someone who does not posses other than a basic understanding - like - class room education to be a home inspector and no real field experience then it is wise to suggest that an additional exam by a specific professional be brought in.

In this case I might suspect some general good wiring practices that have been violated and might take a more careful look at the system - checking more locations - even look for a floating ground in a few places just to make sure check to see if the GFI units (if any) are working and properly wired. Remember it sometimes is the telltale signs that ask you to look deeper(like the transformer sitting in the bottom of the cabinet) . Good practices , something raises a flag look deeper or get some one in who knows more. (good advise for the younger guys)

btw arc fault and ground fault breakers don't have two handles on them.

Dwight as a courtesy to us all...

Are you an electrician or home inspector or both?

Where in the USA are you located.

Thanks,

Another reason not to have a transformer loose in a panel like shown in the OP's photo, the X-former is not properly grounded....

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Dwight as a courtesy to us all...

Are you an electrician or home inspector or both?

Where in the USA are you located.

Thanks,

Raymond , my background is in electrical engineering, and have in depth hands on knowledge of HVAC , plumbing and carpentry having grown up in the trades and having a variety positions that given me a wide variety of experience, These days I have and run a company that consults with religious organizations regarding their facilities along with managing them. Often I use other trade professionals to help inspect buildings - either in conducting energy audits or for the purposes of making that tough decision to renovate or bull doze the place.

Originally Posted by Dwight Doane

Raymond , my background is in electrical engineering, and have in depth hands on knowledge of HVAC , plumbing and carpentry having grown up in the trades and having a variety positions that given me a wide variety of experience, These days I have and run a company that consults with religious organizations regarding their facilities along with managing them. Often I use other trade professionals to help inspect buildings - either in conducting energy audits or for the purposes of making that tough decision to renovate or bull doze the place.

And your location is?

If you travel around the country, your primary location or home base of operation - it helps let us know more about the information provided.

Click on "Settings" at the top, then click on "Edit Profile" under "My Settings" in the center column - there is a place where you can change your location.

It helps everyone to have a location stated. That's why Brian has this there: " **IMPORTANT** The building codes and practices are different from state to state & country. "

Thanks in advance for updating your location.

Thanks Dwight much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thanks Dwight much appreciated.

Ditto.

Do we call that area "snow country" now?

(I am originally from "snow country" about 40 miles south of Buffalo ... back when I was young ... average annual snowfall used to be 250 inches, but with the weather patterns changing, I think the average is now down to only 150 inches ... )

First post - looking forward to clearing that banner!

I just thought I'd clarify the legal language here, at least as far as Canada is concerned. This is not legal advice. The numbers correspond with your points, but are answered out of order for clarity:

2. Just because you aren't ultimately liable doesn't mean you won't get sued.

1. Contracts aren't 'broken'. Most contracts have two different kinds of terms:

(A) promises (contractual undertakings) and warranties that set out the obligations of the contracting parties; and

(B) conditions that stipulate state of affairs under which one or more contractual undertakings are enforceable (which may, for example, stipulate the order in which the contractual undertakings are to be performed by the parties).

In other words, John may promise to undertake certain work for Jane (being "A"), but only after being paid by Jane (being "B").

• If "B" has not occurred, the contract is valid but unenforceable by Jane against John in respect of "A".
  
• If "B" has occurred, the contract is valid and enforceable by Jane. If John fails to perform "A" according to its terms, the contract is not broken, rather John has breached term "A" of the contract. Other contractual obligations may nevertheless continue under the contract.

5. You can't breach a duty of care. It exists, as a matter of law, based on the relationship of the would-be plaintiff and defendant. Without a duty of care there is no standard of care and therefore no action in negligence, but it is the standard of care that is thought of as being "breached".

A negligent act simply falls short of the appropriate standard of care you owe. The duty of care is more about 'scope', with standard of care addressing reasonable conduct within that zone.

3. The SOPs would be an important, but not determinative, factor in establishing the appropriate standard of care.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Default or Deferral -

1. Contract has not been broken between inspector and client for deferring.
2. No one gets sued for negligent inspection for recommending further investigation.
3. SOP are not breached
4. Just because someone does recommend further investigation due to lack of experience/knowledge does not arbitrarily mean the rest of the inspection and findings and recommendations are skewed or void.
5. Courts do not side with your statements given that courts recognize inspections are visual, inspectors have been roasted for not recommending further investigation where something is amiss prompting the need to investigate further. Duty of care is not breached nor standard of care, however that is ever evolving via the courts interpretation.

Yes I agree and I stated such that inspectors should only recommend further investigation when they are not knowledgeable on a system, cannot ascertain what a cause and effect is, or when access is required to ascertain the extent, damage, or further damage, et ceteras...

The law sees it differently and that's where the buck stops.

- - - Updated - - -

First post - looking forward to clearing that banner!

I just thought I'd clarify the legal language here, at least as far as Canada is concerned. This is not legal advice. The numbers correspond with your points, but are answered out of order for clarity:

2. Just because you aren't ultimately liable doesn't mean you won't get sued.

1. Contracts aren't 'broken'. Most contracts have two different kinds of terms:

(A) promises (contractual undertakings) and warranties that set out the obligations of the contracting parties; and

(B) conditions that stipulate state of affairs under which one or more contractual undertakings are enforceable (which may, for example, stipulate the order in which the contractual undertakings are to be performed by the parties).

In other words, John may promise to undertake certain work for Jane (being "A"), but only after being paid by Jane (being "B").

• If "B" has not occurred, the contract is valid but unenforceable by Jane against John in respect of "A".
  
• If "B" has occurred, the contract is valid and enforceable by Jane. If John fails to perform "A" according to its terms, the contract is not broken, rather John has breached term "A" of the contract. Other contractual obligations may nevertheless continue under the contract.

5. You can't breach a duty of care. It exists, as a matter of law, based on the relationship of the would-be plaintiff and defendant. Without a duty of care there is no standard of care and therefore no action in negligence, but it is the standard of care that is thought of as being "breached".

A negligent act simply falls short of the appropriate standard of care you owe. The duty of care is more about 'scope', with standard of care addressing reasonable conduct within that zone.

3. The SOPs would be an important, but not determinative, factor in establishing the appropriate standard of care.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Default or Deferral -

1. Contract has not been broken between inspector and client for deferring.
2. No one gets sued for negligent inspection for recommending further investigation.
3. SOP are not breached
4. Just because someone does recommend further investigation due to lack of experience/knowledge does not arbitrarily mean the rest of the inspection and findings and recommendations are skewed or void.
5. Courts do not side with your statements given that courts recognize inspections are visual, inspectors have been roasted for not recommending further investigation where something is amiss prompting the need to investigate further. Duty of care is not breached nor standard of care, however that is ever evolving via the courts interpretation.

Yes I agree and I stated such that inspectors should only recommend further investigation when they are not knowledgeable on a system, cannot ascertain what a cause and effect is, or when access is required to ascertain the extent, damage, or further damage, et ceteras...

The law sees it differently and that's where the buck stops.

First post - looking forward to clearing that banner!

I just thought I'd clarify the legal language here, at least as far as Canada is concerned. This is not legal advice. The numbers correspond with your points, but are answered out of order for clarity:

2. Just because you aren't ultimately liable doesn't mean you won't get sued.

1. Contracts aren't 'broken'. Most contracts have two different kinds of terms:

(A) promises (contractual undertakings) and warranties that set out the obligations of the contracting parties; and

(B) conditions that stipulate state of affairs under which one or more contractual undertakings are enforceable (which may, for example, stipulate the order in which the contractual undertakings are to be performed by the parties).

In other words, John may promise to undertake certain work for Jane (being "A"), but only after being paid by Jane (being "B").

• If "B" has not occurred, the contract is valid but unenforceable by Jane against John in respect of "A".
  
• If "B" has occurred, the contract is valid and enforceable by Jane. If John fails to perform "A" according to its terms, the contract is not broken, rather John has breached term "A" of the contract. Other contractual obligations may nevertheless continue under the contract.

5. You can't breach a duty of care. It exists, as a matter of law, based on the relationship of the would-be plaintiff and defendant. Without a duty of care there is no standard of care and therefore no action in negligence, but it is the standard of care that is thought of as being "breached".

A negligent act simply falls short of the appropriate standard of care you owe. The duty of care is more about 'scope', with standard of care addressing reasonable conduct within that zone.

3. The SOPs would be an important, but not determinative, factor in establishing the appropriate standard of care.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Default or Deferral -

1. Contract has not been broken between inspector and client for deferring.
2. No one gets sued for negligent inspection for recommending further investigation.
3. SOP are not breached
4. Just because someone does recommend further investigation due to lack of experience/knowledge does not arbitrarily mean the rest of the inspection and findings and recommendations are skewed or void.
5. Courts do not side with your statements given that courts recognize inspections are visual, inspectors have been roasted for not recommending further investigation where something is amiss prompting the need to investigate further. Duty of care is not breached nor standard of care, however that is ever evolving via the courts interpretation.

Yes I agree and I stated such that inspectors should only recommend further investigation when they are not knowledgeable on a system, cannot ascertain what a cause and effect is, or when access is required to ascertain the extent, damage, or further damage, et ceteras...

The law sees it differently and that's where the buck stops.

A negligent act simply falls short of the appropriate standard of care you owe. The duty of care is more about 'scope', with standard of care addressing reasonable conduct within that zone.


So this has begged the question how many and what states or Providences actually have defined minimum knowledge of a home inspector - or is it as simple as - yep it's a home because it has four walls a roof and a floor with a door ? - I am really curious how different states define what (boy are we off track on this one)

Originally Posted by chris viscomi

IMG_1357[1].jpg

I run into the double lugging a lot and understand what to say in such cases as on the bottom left side. But I get confused when double lugging a doorbell transformer, as some say its okay. Also, what would be a reasonable way to state the doorbell transformer should not be here.

725.136 Separation from Electric Light, Power, Class 1,
Non–Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit Conductors, and
Medium-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications
Cables.


(A) General. Cables and conductors of Class 2 and Class 3
circuits shall not be placed in any cable, cable tray, compartment,
enclosure, manhole, outlet box, device box, raceway,
or similar fitting with conductors of electric light,
power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm circuits, and
medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits unless permitted by 725.136(B) through (I).


(B) Separated by Barriers. Class 2 and Class 3 circuits
shall be permitted to be installed together with the conductors
of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm
and medium power network-powered broadband communications
circuits where they are separated by a barrier.


(C) Raceways Within Enclosures. In enclosures, Class 2
and Class 3 circuits shall be permitted to be installed in a
raceway to separate them from Class 1, non–power-limited
fire alarm and medium-power network-powered broadband
communications circuits.


(D) Associated Systems Within Enclosures. Class 2 and
Class 3 circuit conductors in compartments, enclosures, device
boxes, outlet boxes, or similar fittings shall be permitted to be
installed with electric light, power, Class 1, non–powerlimited
fire alarm, and medium-power network-powered
broadband communications circuits where they are introduced
solely to connect the equipment connected to Class 2 and
Class 3 circuits, and where (1) or (2) applies:


(1) The electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire
alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband
communications circuit conductors are routed to maintain
a minimum of 6 mm (0.25 in.) separation from the conductors
and cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits.

Originally Posted by chris viscomi

725.136 Separation from Electric Light, Power, Class 1, Non–Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit Conductors, and Medium-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications Cables.


(A) General. Cables and conductors of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall not be placed in any cable, cable tray, compartment, enclosure, manhole, outlet box, device box, raceway,
or similar fitting with conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm circuits, and medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits unless permitted by 725.136(B) through (I).
(B) Separated by Barriers. Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall be permitted to be installed together with the conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm and medium power network-powered broadband communications circuits where they are separated by a barrier.
(C) Raceways Within Enclosures. In enclosures, Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall be permitted to be installed in a raceway to separate them from Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm and medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits.


(D) Associated Systems Within Enclosures. Class 2 and Class 3 circuit conductors in compartments, enclosures, device boxes, outlet boxes, or similar fittings shall be permitted to be installed with electric light, power, Class 1, non–powerlimited fire alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuits where they are introduced
solely to connect the equipment connected to Class 2 and Class 3 circuits, and where (1) or (2) applies:
(1) The electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband communications circuit conductors are routed to maintain
a minimum of 6 mm (0.25 in.) separation from the conductors and cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits.

IMG_1357[1].jpg

I run into the double lugging a lot and understand what to say in such cases as on the bottom left side. But I get confused when double lugging a doorbell transformer, as some say its okay. Also, what would be a reasonable way to state the doorbell transformer should not be here.

725.136 Separation from Electric Light, Power, Class 1,
Non–Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit Conductors, and
Medium-Power Network-Powered Broadband Communications
Cables.


(A) General. Cables and conductors of Class 2 and Class 3
circuits shall not be placed in any cable, cable tray, compartment,
enclosure, manhole, outlet box, device box, raceway,
or similar fitting with conductors of electric light,
power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm circuits, and
medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits unless permitted by 725.136(B) through (I).


(B) Separated by Barriers. Class 2 and Class 3 circuits
shall be permitted to be installed together with the conductors
of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm
and medium power network-powered broadband communications
circuits where they are separated by a barrier.


(C) Raceways Within Enclosures. In enclosures, Class 2
and Class 3 circuits shall be permitted to be installed in a
raceway to separate them from Class 1, non–power-limited
fire alarm and medium-power network-powered broadband
communications circuits.


(D) Associated Systems Within Enclosures. Class 2 and
Class 3 circuit conductors in compartments, enclosures, device
boxes, outlet boxes, or similar fittings shall be permitted to be
installed with electric light, power, Class 1, non–powerlimited
fire alarm, and medium-power network-powered
broadband communications circuits where they are introduced
solely to connect the equipment connected to Class 2 and
Class 3 circuits, and where (1) or (2) applies:


(1) The electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire
alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband
communications circuit conductors are routed to maintain
a minimum of 6 mm (0.25 in.) separation from the conductors
and cables of Class 2 and Class 3 circuits.

725.139 ARTICLE 725— CLASS 1, CLASS 2, AND CLASS 3 REMOTE-CONTROL, SIGNALING, AND POWER-LIMITED CIRCUITS
(I)Other Applications. For other applications, conductors
ofClass 2 and Class 3 circuits shall be separated by at least
50mm (2 in.) from conductors of any electric light, power,
Class1 non–power-limited fire alarm or medium power
network-poweredbroadband communications circuits unless
oneof the following conditions is met:
(1)Either (a) all of the electric light, power, Class 1, non–
power-limitedfire alarm and medium-power networkpowered
broadbandcommunications circuit conductors
or(b) all of the Class 2 and Class 3 circuit conductors
arein a raceway or in metal-sheathed, metal-clad, non–
metallic-sheathed,or Type UF cables.
(2)All of the electric light, power, Class 1 non–powerlimited
firealarm, and medium-power networkpowered
broadbandcommunications circuit conductors
arepermanently separated from all of the Class 2 and
Class3 circuit conductors by a continuous and firmly
fixednonconductor, such as porcelain tubes or flexible
tubing,in addition to the insulation on the conductors.