I added a subpanel directly next to the main panel. I had to move 2 circuits into the new panel to make way for the "main" feeding the new panel. Since the neutrals were already terminated in the existing panel, can I just move the hots to the new panel through the 1 1/2 pvc conduit I run the feeder through or is there something in the code that won't allow this??? Thanks for the help...

It could be argued that this is basically a switch loop. (certainly from a current flow standpoint).
I can't think of a violation.

IMO, since it's now on the load side of the service disconnecting means, you would need to isolate the neutrals from the equipment grounding conductors for any circuits supplied by that subpanel, so as is, I believe the current install would likely be a violation of 250.24,[5].

I would normally install a 4-wire feeder to a subpanel with a separate neutral bus and equipment grounding terminal bar.

I believe sections 300.3 (B) for all the conductors in a circuit to be in the same raceway, auxillery gutter , etc. would apply.
Also section 250.4 (A)(5) for a low impedence path could be a problem with the hot coming from one panel and the grounded in another.
I don't believe it is worth the possiblity of having problems. Just extend the groundeds to the sub panel and be done with it.

The way I see this he is only talking about a circuit that has it's overcurrent device in the second panel. Electrically that is a switch loop. There will not be any inductive heating problems with that arrangement.
I assume the neutral and grounds are separated in that second panel but he is still not imposing any objectionable current on the EGC so that concern is allayed.
250.4 refers to the EGC and you have a lower impedance to ground in the main than you do in a sub.
By wire nutting an extension on the neutral you are simply adding 2 more possible places for this to fail.
The bottom line is, if the AHJ wants it you probably have to do it but I am not sure what the justification would be beyond that.
The only case I could think of would be if this is a multiwire circuit (240.4(D)) but even then the code would make something less safe by adding one more connection than was necessary.

If this is a pure 240v load there wouldn't be a neutral anyway. Maybe the trick would have been to swing over the water heater.

IMHO, accepted trade practices would put all of the circuit conductors within the 'source' panel, in this case the 'new' subpanel.

Common practice is to relocate the cable(s) that have to be moved to the new subpanel.

The OP didn't say how he moved the hots, we can assume either a splice, or they may have been of sufficient length to move.

Alan has a point & an Article that I would used if pressed.

I'm glad this question came up because I do this all the time, especially when adding circuits for hot tubs. I often make it a point to move the water heater circuit to make room for the breaker feeding the sub panel as a general practice.

I recently installed a manual generator transfer panel (interlocked main breakers), connected to the main panel with a single 2" PVC nipple between them. Into the sub panel, I moved the cooktop, water pump and about eight lighting/SA circuits and left the neutrals in-place in the main panel. After the fact, I've been bouncing this concept around in my head ever since.

It passed inspection, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with this, but I can see where it would raise a few eyebrows.

Which one? 250.4 refers to the EGC so that is not relevant.

The idea of all conductors in the same raceway is to address inductive heating and that is not an issue here. Electrically this is a switch loop.
If the AHJ told me to do it, I would wire nut some white wire in there to make him happy but I would still be wondering why.

Greg:
I was leaning to 300.3 (b), not 250.4.

My comments stem from 'the way I was taught', like I mentioned accepted trade practices.

I'll do a little research reading later on, time permitting.

So,Now you got me thinking.
I was in a customers house a few years back,with a 'Gen-tran' switch. side by side panels,and a few ckts from each panel on the gen switch.

Didn't give it much thought then. As I saw it as a sw loop.

Zackly! Those factory-wired generator panels include a whip with no neutrals and they are UL listed, so me thinks that this scenario is OK.

IMO, a GenTran panel isn’t the same as a standard subpanel. It is just extending the circuits that at are supplied from the existing panel and as a generator transfer switch/panel, is listed for the application.

The subpanel in the OP’s post is actually supplying the two circuits that originate from within it with the neutrals and grounding conductors being connected to a bus in a different panel.
Does it make any difference if the this subpanel is adjacent to the main panel, or across the room?
Why would the installation requirements and circuit connections be any different in this case?

The difference in my mind is that the two circuits pass through the original panel. If there was a violation I would point to that. (312.8)

To clarify:

1 is a sub. 100A off of a 200A main.
Just side by each and trani loops thru the 2" nipple

I think I am keeping up. I see the current coming into the 200 from the utility, going out the feeder to the 100, through a breaker, coming back into the 200 on the branch circuit taps and going off to the load. It returns on the neutral and goes straight back to the utility. The EGC is connected to the bus with the main bonding jumper. I see no inductive heating problems (300.3) and no ground integrity problems (250.4). That leaves me whether you are using the cabinet for a raceway and if there is adequate space (312.8).
I agree it isn't trade practice and it may be considered sloppy but I don't see a hazard or a particular violation beyond "I don't like the looks of that".
... but that is just the interpretation at the end of Pine tree lane, the only place where I am AHJ these days

Greg:

As I said above, not something that I would do as a common practice. Thinking about it what entered my mind is...
Possibility of un-landing a 'hot' neutral in the 'main' panel that was sourced from the 'subpanel'. That would be my concern.

Basis would be that the neutral should be located within the same 'panel' as the ''hot".

No argument, I have not looked for a specific article, just something I would not do or condone, and I probably would not write a red sticker for it, unless I have an article.

Sorry, I haven't had time to read all the inputs but just wanted to clarify something. The reason I hesistate on moving the neutrals is that the neutral buss is packed full and hard and dangerous to get into. The subpanel is directly attached to the main panel by 1 1/2 pvc. Just wanted to clarify the reason I didn't go ahead and move the neutral also... Thanks again, and I will read the other inputs as soon as I can..... Steve

OK, I have to grab this and run with it.....

The OP responded...
"The reason I hesistate on moving the neutrals is that the neutral buss is packed full and hard and dangerous to get into. The subpanel is directly attached to the main panel by 1 1/2 pvc. Just wanted to clarify the reason I didn't go ahead and move the neutral also... Thanks again, and I will read the other inputs as soon as I can..... Steve"

Using his words 'packed full and hard and dangerous to get into' would be all the more reason to get two out of there and maybe tidy up a little! Didn't you have to terminate the new sub panel neutral in there?

The word 'dangerous' scares me!

So far, I can only find one "POSSIBLE" NEC issue - 210.4(A):


In a _Technical_sense... I do not see any performance issues, or "Smoke-Loss problems" with the current installation.

Albeit, I would have chosen to bring the Grounded Neutral Conductors of the relocated Circuits, to the newly installed Panelboard. This would be done, so as to "Keep The Circuitry Together"
Similar to what others have mentioned, if an L-L 2 Wire Branch Circuit is available, I would also choose to relocate that Circuit to the new Panelboard, and use its original 2 pole spaces for the new Feeder Device.

This setup appears to be an existing 200 Amp, 120/240V 1 Phase 3 Wire Service Panelboard (Meter Section + Main Service Disconnect & MBJ, with 200 Amp Panelboard combined), and the OP has installed a new 100 Amp, 120/240V 1 Phase 3 Wire Panelboard directly next to it - and fed the new Panelboard with a new 100 Amp Circuit via 1-1/2" PVC Nipple. New Panelboard Feeder is derived from 100/2 MCCB installed in existing Service Panelboard at positions of the existing, relocated Branch Circuit.

So much for Mr. Obvious, huh???

Per the new Grounded Feeder Conductor, I am also curious how the OP terminated the #2 (or #4?) Neutral Feeder to the Existing Service Panelboard's Neutral Bus Kit, due to the "Can-O'-Worms effect" surrounding the Neutral Bus (packed full and hard and dangerous to get into).

Back in the day when I actually worked hard in this trade (read: when I worked in the field), I had dealt with a few Services which had a similar "Dangerous" placement of the Neutral Bus Kit, and I needed to remove and/or add Conductors to it.
Turning off the Main Disconnect was good on some, but others were just too dangerous (or no Main Disconnect).
In these cases, we would:

* Pull the kWH Meter (when the sealing rings were the thin Aluminum ones),

or,

* Cut the Service Entrance at the Drip Loop (where the Meter sealing Ring was the "Tamper-Proof type).

I can recall some Services with "High Pucker Values" to be ITE / Bulldog "Pushmatic", Zinsco type Q, Square D type XO (and some earlier QO Panelboards - the "Thin Ones"), some Crouse-Hinds types, Challenger circa 1980's, and of course FPE's "Stab-Lok Panellettes"

It's been so long, I can hardly remember what a Residential Service Panelboard looks like!!!

Adding my $0.02

Scott

I knew when I said "dangerous" that would get some eyebrows. Actually just what I meant was that it's kinda tight for me to get in there and remove neutrals. I figure 2 wirenuts is better than 6 ( including grounds). The romex that carries these circuits are buried among the rest. To completely remove them and take them to the other panel would be a major task, (probably have to cut the seal on the meter and pull it, which is not included in the permit description). If there is no obvious code violation, it's simpler and more reasonable under the circumstances to leave it as is. As far as the new "feeder neutral and feeder ground",
I managed to double up on some of the existing "grounds"
(not neutrals) to get some room for (2) "add on lugs". Hope this paints the picture a little better. Thanks for the input. Steve...

I am stretching a bit but it is important for all circuit conductors to be in close proximity to each other for the lowest ground fault impedance. there are rules which required the bonding wires and neutrals to be in the same cable or raceway as the ungrounded wire. This is to deal with the magnetic field that is around a wire. In a fault the field strength increases and so does the opposition to current flow (impedance) by placing the neutral with the hot the two are inside the same field and allow current to pass quickly or with less impedance than if the neutral and hot follow a divergent path. So I believe it could be a problem in a fault.

So you don't believe there should ever be switch loops?