Ya know Local, I think that you make a plausible semantic argument that indicates a (small) hole in the code. But I think that the semantic argument is wrong.

If I understand the semantic argument correctly, you need to claim 1) that the neutral in a two wire circuit is carrying _unbalanced_ current, and 2) that 'other conductors' can mean _1_ or more conductors.

I would respond that in a two wire circuit the neutral is carrying the current which perfectly balances the current flowing in the corresponding 'hot'. So the neutral is carrying _balanced_ current. And that _other conductors_ means more than one, meaning that this only applies to multiwire circuits.

All current flowing in a circuit must be balanced by the current flowing in other parts of the circuit. You _cannot_ have current flowing into a point, and not have the same amount of current flowing out of the point. Electrons simply don't pile up [Linked Image]

Actually, if you take this semantic argument too far, then you have to recognize that all current flow in a multiwire circuit is balanced by current flow elsewhere, and therefore must _always_ count the neutral as current carrying [Linked Image]

But I believe that the correct reading of 310.15(B)(4)(a) is (A neutral conductors) that carries only (the unbalanced current from other conductors)..., meaning that you have a set of 'hot' conductors, and current flow is being variously balanced between those hot conductors, and the neutral is only carrying what is left over. This is the reading that happens to agree with the physics [Linked Image]

-Jon