You raise a very interesting and practical point about the size of the equipment grounding conductor (EGC) in cord sets equipped with inline GFCIs. Here's a breakdown of why the current approach is taken, and why your proposal, while logical, likely wouldn't be adopted without significant research and changes to electrical codes

Why Full-Size EGCs are Currently Used:
Traditional Safety Standards

Electrical codes and standards like the NEC (National Electrical Code) are inherently conservative. They prioritize safety above all else. The historical philosophy has been to provide a robust EGC that can handle fault currents sufficient to quickly trip a circuit breaker even if the GFCI fails. This is a "defense in depth" approach.

Ground Fault Path Impedance

A full-size EGC minimizes the impedance of the ground fault path. Lower impedance means higher fault currents and faster tripping of the overcurrent protective device (circuit breaker). This is especially important in older installations where grounding may not be as reliable.

Mechanical Protection and Durability

A larger EGC offers better mechanical protection. It's more resistant to damage from flexing, abrasion, and accidental impacts. While a 16 AWG conductor might work electrically, its long-term durability in a cord set environment is questionable.

Code Compliance

Electrical codes (like the NEC in the US) generally require the EGC to be sized based on the overcurrent protection device rating of the circuit. For a 15A or 20A circuit (common for cord-connected tools and appliances), 12 AWG or 10 AWG is required for the EGC. Codes are slow to change, and require extensive testing and justification.

Redundancy

The EGC provides a path for fault current even if the GFCI fails to operate.

Why Your Proposal, While Logical, Faces Challenges



GFCI Reliance

Your idea relies heavily on the reliable operation of the GFCI. While GFCIs are very effective, they can fail. If the GFCI fails and a ground fault occurs, the smaller EGC might not provide enough fault current to trip the circuit breaker, potentially leading to a dangerous situation.

Skepticism/Perception of Risk

Many electricians and safety professionals would be very wary of reducing the size of the EGC. There is a perception that bigger is better when it comes to ground fault protection. Overcoming this perception would require a significant amount of evidence that the reduced-size EGC with a GFCI provides equivalent or better safety.

Cord Damage

16 AWG is physically much more fragile than 12 or 10 AWG. It is more prone to damage during normal use, especially in demanding environments. A damaged EGC is useless.

Standards and Listing

Manufacturers of cord sets must comply with UL (Underwriters Laboratories) or other nationally recognized testing laboratories. These labs follow very strict safety standards. Changing these standards requires a huge amount of testing, lobbying and engineering to be viable.

Code Change Process

Getting a change like this accepted into the NEC is a very lengthy and rigorous process. It requires demonstrating that the change is safe, effective, and doesn't introduce new risks. It would need to be supported by test data, field experience, and expert opinion.

Addressing Your Points



"Indefinitely Serving as Neutral"

You are correct that in a ground fault scenario, the EGC is essentially acting as a return path for current. That is its purpose: to conduct fault current back to the source. A full-size EGC can handle that current continuously until the overcurrent protection device trips.

16 AWG Extension Cords

The fact that 16 AWG extension cords exist doesn't automatically justify using a 16 AWG EGC in a GFCI-protected cord set. Extension cords are often used in less demanding applications.

In conclusion, while your idea has merit in terms of weight reduction and potentially cost savings, the current standards prioritize a conservative approach to safety. Any change would require extensive research, testing, and convincing evidence to demonstrate that the proposed approach provides an equivalent or higher level of safety. It is unlikely such a proposal could pass without addressing the challenges outlined above. Flag for review