Tenant access to panel

[imasaltedpretzel]

Currently, I own a multifamily duplex that shares a circuit panel. My intention is to hire an electrician to come in and split up the panel and add a service drop so the tenants can put the electricity under their own names (I currently pay electric and the tenants pay gas - meaning space heaters run throughout the winter and I face $400 monthly electric bills in addition to the added danger of space heaters). I've searched the code but I'm having trouble understanding tenant access. Only one tenant currently has access to the circuit breakers (the house is split physically upper/lower and the shared panel is in the basement). I've mapped out all outlets/lights for each room/apartment and the apartments don't share any circuits. Installing a new panel should be easy for the electrician as it's just a matter of rearranging breakers. My questions is - what kind of access do I have to require for the upstairs tenant? Currently the only access she would have is through the downstairs tenant, or a basement hatch door (not sure of the official name) that I could theoretically give her access to. This has never been a problem thus far - but I'm worried about the inspector's take on the code. Her apartment does have a door/stairway on the first floor that the electrician could theoretically run all the branches through with relative ease - but it's not ideal. In this scenario - would the electrician be able to run Romex from the new panel in the stairwell, down to an area in the basement next to the old panel, and install some sort of giant junction box with all of the upstairs apartment circuits to avoid ripping up walls to reroute wires? Does such a box exist? Kind of like a secondary breaker panel but just jumpers instead of breakers (since current protection will be in the stairwell)? Hope I made my questions clear and thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to shed some light.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I am not sure I follow everything but there are a few things that need to be considered. First off is that the service disconnects must be groupeart. 230.72. Also each occupant would need access to the service disconnect 230.72(C) . You mention a panel on a stairwell-- look at 240.24(F)- its a no no.

Also in a multi family building you would need a panel for common areas 210.25(B)

 

[imasaltedpretzel]

I am not sure I follow everything but there are a few things that need to be considered. First off is that the service disconnects must be groupeart. 230.72. Also each occupant would need access to the service disconnect 230.72(C) . You mention a panel on a stairwell-- look at 240.24(F)- its a no no.

Also in a multi family building you would need a panel for common areas 210.25(B)

Thanks for the info. I should have specified that there is a horizontal landing on the bottom of the stairwell which would be compliant with the code (if I understand it correctly). I'm obviously a novice here, but would an exterior service disconnect for each meter suffice as accessible in this case? Thanks again - I like researching and learning these things prior to meeting with the electricians. Give's me more confidence if I understand what the pro's are talking about.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Thanks for the info. I should have specified that there is a horizontal landing on the bottom of the stairwell which would be compliant with the code (if I understand it correctly). I'm obviously a novice here, but would an exterior service disconnect for each meter suffice as accessible in this case? Thanks again - I like researching and learning these things prior to meeting with the electricians. Give's me more confidence if I understand what the pro's are talking about.

Sure you could have the service disconnects adjacent to the meters.

 

[mwm1752]

The overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible to the tenants they serve -- at anytime the tenant will be able to access the OCD quickley, without hinderance of locked doors in which they do not have keys -- If the tenant can freely walk to the OCD for access then you are good -- I am also assuming the tenant has permanate provisions for cooking in their unit.

Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

 

[charlie b]

I think there is an easier answer than the one you suggest. The electrician can install a new circuit breaker panel close to the existing panel, and run a separate feeder from a new separate meter to the new panel. The two panels can be connected to each other by one or more conduits that allow wires to be run from one to the other. Right now, every circuit to the lower unit is connected to a breaker in the one existing panel. Those circuits you leave alone. Right now, every circuit to the upper unit is connected to a breaker in the same, one, existing panel. One circuit at a time, the electrician can disconnect the wire from its present breaker, splice an extension wire to it, run the extension wire over to the new panel, and land it on a breaker in the new panel. The electrician also disconnects the associated neutral and ground wires from the bus bars in the old panel, connects extension wires, and runs them to the new panel. Essentially, you will be using the old panel as a junction box.

The relevant code requirement comes from 240.24(B). Each occupant must have ready access to the circuit breakers serving loads in their unit. There is no rule that says that that occupant, and no other occupant, has to have access. In other words, I am hoping that you are not concerned about the possibility that one tenant might try to punish the other (e.g., for running their stereo too loud) by going to the commonly accessible basement and turning off breakers in the other tenant?s panel. That is certainly a nuisance, and such things could also happen by accident, but the code does not care about such things. A code official cannot cite this concern as a reason to fail the installation.

 

[imasaltedpretzel]

I think there is an easier answer than the one you suggest. The electrician can install a new circuit breaker panel close to the existing panel, and run a separate feeder from a new separate meter to the new panel. The two panels can be connected to each other by one or more conduits that allow wires to be run from one to the other. Right now, every circuit to the lower unit is connected to a breaker in the one existing panel. Those circuits you leave alone. Right now, every circuit to the upper unit is connected to a breaker in the same, one, existing panel. One circuit at a time, the electrician can disconnect the wire from its present breaker, splice an extension wire to it, run the extension wire over to the new panel, and land it on a breaker in the new panel. The electrician also disconnects the associated neutral and ground wires from the bus bars in the old panel, connects extension wires, and runs them to the new panel. Essentially, you will be using the old panel as a junction box.

The relevant code requirement comes from 240.24(B). Each occupant must have ready access to the circuit breakers serving loads in their unit. There is no rule that says that that occupant, and no other occupant, has to have access. In other words, I am hoping that you are not concerned about the possibility that one tenant might try to punish the other (e.g., for running their stereo too loud) by going to the commonly accessible basement and turning off breakers in the other tenant?s panel. That is certainly a nuisance, and such things could also happen by accident, but the code does not care about such things. A code official cannot cite this concern as a reason to fail the installation.

The issue here is that it is not currently a shared basement. I'm thinking the best thing to do is make a separate junction box for each circuit next to the old panel and then run new romex to the upstairs tenants stairwell landing. Since the landing is on the first floor - coming up through the basement should be relatively noninvasive (The landing is flat ground for roughly 4 ft). My concern now is that the new panel location is on the opposite side of the house from the current meter. Are meters required to be collocated? If not - do electric companies typically install in separate areas of the house like this? I feel it would be dangerous in the event of the Fire Department pulling one meter - not seeing the other one on the other side of the house - and someone getting hurt. If they do have to drop the new meter by the old one I'd have to install an exterior disconnect - not a big deal but it's just added $$ plus running whatever gage wire as dictated by code. Plus at that point i might as we add a second disconnect to avoid similar confusion of only closing one switch and thinking all power is cut. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for the help!

 

[mwm1752]

I think there is an easier answer than the one you suggest. The electrician can install a new circuit breaker panel close to the existing panel, and run a separate feeder from a new separate meter to the new panel. The two panels can be connected to each other by one or more conduits that allow wires to be run from one to the other. Right now, every circuit to the lower unit is connected to a breaker in the one existing panel. Those circuits you leave alone. Right now, every circuit to the upper unit is connected to a breaker in the same, one, existing panel. One circuit at a time, the electrician can disconnect the wire from its present breaker, splice an extension wire to it, run the extension wire over to the new panel, and land it on a breaker in the new panel. The electrician also disconnects the associated neutral and ground wires from the bus bars in the old panel, connects extension wires, and runs them to the new panel. Essentially, you will be using the old panel as a junction box.

The relevant code requirement comes from 240.24(B). Each occupant must have ready access to the circuit breakers serving loads in their unit. There is no rule that says that that occupant, and no other occupant, has to have access. In other words, I am hoping that you are not concerned about the possibility that one tenant might try to punish the other (e.g., for running their stereo too loud) by going to the commonly accessible basement and turning off breakers in the other tenant?s panel. That is certainly a nuisance, and such things could also happen by accident, but the code does not care about such things. A code official cannot cite this concern as a reason to fail the installation.

If you cannot reach the OCD for quick operation due to lack of access to the space then it is not readily accessible IMO

 

[charlie b]

If you cannot reach the OCD for quick operation due to lack of access to the space then it is not readily accessible IMO

It seems a bit backwards to me, but having a locked door between yourself and the equipment means that it is not "accessible," but it can still be "readily accessible." Read the two definitions in article 100, and you will see the notion of "locked door" in only one of them. That said, if the tenant does not have a key to the locked door, then the equipment ceases to be "readily accessible."

 

[mwm1752]

It seems a bit backwards to me, but having a locked door between yourself and the equipment means that it is not "accessible," but it can still be "readily accessible." Read the two definitions in article 100, and you will see the notion of "locked door" in only one of them. That said, if the tenant does not have a key to the locked door, then the equipment ceases to be "readily accessible."

Charles,
I believe we are on the same page just using different fonts -- When I write lack of access my meaning is that the tenant cannot access due to no permission to pass, yes if tenant has a key to get past a locked door then they would have access -- I would also agree the terminology of readily accessible does seem to define it as a particular space with no obstacles infront of the equipment -- but I do not believe the term is defined as such when tenants need to reset their OCD