Ahh ... the article is using 'voltage drop' as an excuse to introduce 'green thinking' and 'global warming' into the NEC. (And, yes, the article brings up 'global warming').
Humbug! Stop these fanatic missionaries ay the gates! Their message has NO place in a document dedicated to the concept of the ''minimum for the the practical safe use of electricity.' The NEC is all about 'safety,' saving the planet is outside the scope of the NEC.
Voltage drop is both a design issue, and a quality issue.
We have little control or influence over the 2% on the utility side of the equation.
As for 'our' 3%, the calculations may be nice .... but are largely irrelevant.
Irrelevant, first, because they cannot evaluate connections - which is likely to be a greater source of loss than simple wire length.
Second, because the voltage drop depends upon the actual current draw. While it can easily become an issue when you're drawing 15 amps on a 15 amp circuit (or even more if you're trying to start a motor under load), it's meaningless if all that branch circuit is powering is the TV set.
There's the rub: most of our work involves the very circuits that are NOT sized according to the loads to be used - the household 'convenience' circuits.
As to this 'green' nonsense: For convenience circuits, you have a choice: more receptacles on a circuit, or more circuits. Either way, you're going to 'lose," as you either use much more material, or risk greater voltage drop in the calculations.
The 'save the world' crowd will then adopt the same approach they do with regard to parking spaces: fewer receptacles will be their goal. This is in direct conflict with the NEC.
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
