Texas Electrician ExamTexas journeyman & master

Checked against primary sources 2026-08-24

A feeder ends at the final branch-circuit overcurrent protective device

Article 215 is short because most of what governs a feeder is written somewhere else. The part that is genuinely here is the minimum size, the overcurrent device, and two identification rules, and every one of those moved or changed wording for 2026.

On this page
  1. The definition sets both ends
  2. The section numbers inside Article 215 moved
  3. Where the 125 percent lands, and where it does not
  4. The rules that genuinely live in this article
  5. What a feeder question usually turns out to be
  6. What this page cites

The definition sets both ends

Article 100 defines a feeder as all circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or another power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent protective device.

Read the two ends separately, because each one eliminates a different wrong answer. The upstream end is a source, so conductors ahead of the service disconnect are service conductors and Article 230 governs them. The downstream end is not any overcurrent device, it is the final one in the branch-circuit sense, so a supplementary device inside a piece of equipment does not end a feeder and neither does an overload relay.

Work it as a question about the device rather than about the conductors. Find the last overcurrent protective device that protects a branch circuit. Everything downstream of it is branch circuit. Everything upstream of it, back to the service equipment or to the source, is feeder.

Three cases settle most items. Panel to subpanel is a feeder. Transformer secondary to the first panelboard is a feeder, because the separately derived system is named in the definition as a source. Service point to the service disconnect is neither, and an option calling it a feeder is there to be eliminated.

The 2026 edition changed one word in that definition. It now says overcurrent protective device rather than overcurrent device, to match the newly defined term. Nothing about the boundary moved, but if an item quotes the definition back at you, the current wording is the one that will be quoted.

The section numbers inside Article 215 moved

This is the change most likely to cost time under a clock, because the article is small and the two sections that carry the work both slid.

Two of those numbers hold something different from what they used to hold. In a 2023 book, 215.4 is the common neutral section and 215.5 is diagrams. In a 2026 book those same two numbers are the minimum size rule and the overcurrent rule. Every one of the four addresses is occupied in both editions, which is slower to catch than an empty page would be, because you land on real code text answering a different question.

Everything from 215.6 upward kept the number it had. Feeder Equipment Grounding Conductor is still 215.6, ground-fault protection is still 215.10, and identification is still 215.12.

Where the 125 percent lands, and where it does not

Article 215 states the increase twice, in two sections, for two different objects.

The conductor takes it at NEC 215.4. Where a feeder supplies continuous loads, or any mix of continuous and noncontinuous, the minimum feeder conductor size has an ampacity not less than the noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.

The overcurrent device takes it at NEC 215.5. Where a feeder supplies continuous loads or a mix, the rating of the device is not less than the noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.

What it does not touch is the load calculation. NEC 120.5(E) says a load calculation is not required to run continuous loads at 125 percent, and Article 120 is the article that was Article 220. So a stem asking for a calculated feeder load and a stem asking for a minimum feeder conductor are asking two questions with two different answers, and the difference between them is exactly a quarter of the continuous portion.

The elimination that follows is worth carrying. An option that moves the conductor and leaves the device sitting at the plain load has done half the work, and so has the reverse. Both belong to the same wrong-answer family and both are on the paper.

The rules that genuinely live in this article

Four things, and the rest of a feeder question is somewhere else.

Read the identification trigger carefully. It is written about the premises wiring system rather than about the individual feeder, so a single 480Y/277-volt feeder in a building that also has 208Y/120 volts is caught by it even though that one feeder is not ambiguous on its own.

What a feeder question usually turns out to be

The classification ones are the cheapest points in the group and the easiest to lose, because they look like they need arithmetic and they need one sentence out of Article 100 instead.

What this page cites

NEC and National Electrical Code are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association.

Trojan Digital Marketing is an independent company. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by NFPA, TDLR, PSI Services, or any licensing authority.

Bring your own current copy of the National Electrical Code. The Texas exam is open book.

All practice questions are original. They are not actual exam questions.

Built and maintained by Jeff Clerisier, Trojan Digital Marketing.

Every rule here is cited to the section it comes from, and corrections are logged in public with the date. This is study material rather than electrical advice, and it does not replace your own code book or your inspector.