AFAICT, that's only a violation if the circuit supplies a load in the second occupancy. There is no requirement on routing of circuits, that I know of. The following is the only requirement I know of that is close to what you believe.I am looking for 2008 NEC code reference that prohibits branch circuits from one occupancy being run through another occupancy and then back into the first occupancy. . I say it is a code violation, but cannot find the code reference. Can anyone help?
210.25 Branch Circuits in Buildings with More Than One Occupancy.
(A) Dwelling Unit Branch Circuits. Branch circuits in each dwelling unit shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit.
(B) Common Area Branch Circuits. Branch circuits required for the purpose of lighting, central alarm, signal, communications, or other needs for public or common areas of a two-family dwelling, a multifamily dwelling, or a multi-occupancy building shall not be supplied from equipment that supplies an individual dwelling unit or tenant space.
I am looking for 2008 NEC code reference that prohibits branch circuits from one occupancy being run through another occupancy and then back into the first occupancy. . I say it is a code violation, but cannot find the code reference. Can anyone help?
210.25 Branch Circuits in Buildings with More Than One Occupancy.
(A) Dwelling Unit Branch Circuits. Branch circuits in each dwelling unit shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit.
You may be thinking of 210.25. I don't believe it prohibits a branch circuit from one commercial occupancy being routed into or through another commercial occupancy however, it only prohibits it for dwelling units.
Smart $ posted the section, I don't see it prohibiting this for dwellings. It does say the load served must be associated with the dwelling the circuit originates in. Air conditioning equipment would be a common application of this section.
Smart $ posted the section, I don't see it prohibiting this for dwellings. It does say the load served must be associated with the dwelling the circuit originates in. Air conditioning equipment would be a common application of this section.
It says a branch circuit supplying the Smith's house cannot be in the Johnson's house.
Bob (iwire) posted it as well. I agree with Bob. There is no language in that section about where circuits "originate." Only whether or not they are "in" a dwelling unit.
If a branch circuit from a panel in dwelling unit A passes into dwelling unit B, then the branch circuit is "In dwelling unit B" but it is "supplying loads in dwelling unit A." This would be a violation, IMO.
I believe that 210.25 is not a player in this game, and would not be even if we were talking about a multi-family dwelling unit.
.It only says that my panel cannot be the source of power to your load. It does not forbid me to run a conduit through your unit to serve a load in my unit
Branch circuits in each dwelling unit shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit.
I conclude that the suggested installation is acceptable, from an NEC perspective.
Next we need to define what is "in the dwelling unit".
I believe that 210.25 is not a player in this game, and would not be even if we were talking about a multi-family dwelling unit. It only says that my panel cannot be the source of power to your load. It does not forbid me to run a conduit through your unit to serve a load in my unit. The key words are, ?. . . shall supply only loads.? The wires inside a conduit are not the ?load? that is being supplied.
I conclude that the suggested installation is acceptable, from an NEC perspective. Whether it is an acceptable practice, from the point of view of the owner, is another matter. But then, on this forum we have discussed many a bad design that is not in violation of the NEC.
I thought you might.I disagree
I hereby throw down the gauntlet of Charlie's Rule upon thee! :happyyes: That is not what 210.25 says. What it does say is that a circuit in one unit can't supply a load in another unit. Taking a circuit from my panel, running it through your attic, and connecting it to my laundry receptacle is not supplying a load in your unit.I cannot have a branch circuit 'in' one dwelling that supplies another
OK, I did that. It is defined in terms of the circuit conductors. But here again, the rule in 210.25 does not say that the circuit conductors are not allowed in another unit, but rather the load being supplied cannot be in another unit.Please referance Artcile 100 for the defintion of Branch circuit.
I kind of thought about that way then Dave and Bob changed my mind some, now I am not really sure how to interpret just exactly what it says. I think it is a good idea to avoid running through another occupancy, but wondered if a crawl space or mechanical chase would be considered outside the occupancy. The air conditioning circuit is probably the most common item you may run into this issue with, as well as a supply feeder for an occupancy.
Let me mention at this moment, and I think I will post a separate thread as another reminder, that there are only a few weeks left, to get in any proposals for the 2014 NEC. The deadline is November 4, 2011, at 5 PM EST.. . . I think it needs to be rewritten.
I believe that 210.25 is not a player in this game, and would not be even if we were talking about a multi-family dwelling unit. It only says that my panel cannot be the source of power to your load. It does not forbid me to run a conduit through your unit to serve a load in my unit. The key words are, ?. . . shall supply only loads.? The wires inside a conduit are not the ?load? that is being supplied.
I conclude that the suggested installation is acceptable, from an NEC perspective. Whether it is an acceptable practice, from the point of view of the owner, is another matter. But then, on this forum we have discussed many a bad design that is not in violation of the NEC.