Undefined Terms Can Have Real Consequences: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the NEC Code-Making Process

There are words in the National Electrical Code that practitioners use every day without a second thought. “Backfeed” is one of them. What emerged during a Code-Making Panel 4 meeting in the 2026 NEC revision cycle is that even the people writing the code didn’t all agree on what it means. 

In this clip, Rebekah Hren walks through a debate over Article 705.30 and overcurrent protection devices that kept circling back to the same unresolved question: what are we actually talking about when we say backfeed? With no definition in the code and anecdotes flying around the room in place of field evidence, the panel ultimately decided to leave it alone for 2026 and revisit it in 2029.

It’s a small window into just how much deliberate work goes into defining the language practitioners rely on every day, and how easy it is to underestimate that from the outside. 

Rebekah, Brian Mehalic, and Alex Jahp cover Article 705 and much more in their course –  Comprehensive 2026 NEC Requirements for Electrotech: PV, ESS, EVs, PCS, and More –  available now on HeatSpring.

Enroll here!

Transcript below

Brit: Before we move on from the code-making panel, what’s a debate you’ve been a part of or witnessed in the process that practitioners would have no idea about, but is interesting to see from the inside?

Rebekah: The thing that occurs to me is we had a pretty contentious argument about backfeeding in this latest round for the 2026 NEC. It was really related to Article 705, specifically 705.30, overcurrent protection devices, and what you’re allowed to backfeed and what you are not allowed to backfeed.

What I realized sitting in the room was that we all had different ideas in our heads of what that word “backfeed” means. What are we really talking about? There’s no definition in the code. So that argument just went around in circles. We kept coming back to it, and what we realized is that we kind of have to leave this one alone for 2026 and revisit it in 2029. We need to have a better idea of what we’re talking about. We need to have a better idea of what the UL tests are for backfeeding. We really didn’t know, so there were a lot of anecdotes being thrown around about safety hazards that maybe we didn’t have evidence for in the field.

I know we’re going to revisit that in the 2029 code, but it was pretty interesting to realize that there are words in the code like “backfeed” that aren’t well-defined yet, and even the people in the room writing the code don’t all agree on what they mean.