Commercial Multi-occupancy Building Branch circuits

[bkelly]

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?

 

[david luchini]

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 $]

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?

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.

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.

 

[infinity]

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?

You won't find a violation in the NEC because there isn't one. Every run a poke-through in a commercial building? Run pipe or cable down in a wall to ceiling below, across and back up in the poke-through. One tenant on one floor another tenant on floor below.

 

[hurk27]

Maybe not in the NEC but this called like around here as "utility trespass" when each Occupancy is owned by different owners, this can be a big problem in strip malls and condominium town homes where there might not be any common areas to run feeders from a single bank of meters, in these cases each unit gets its own service.

Sometimes even under the slab can be a problem as what if a person in a middle unit want to cut a hole in his floor for a sunk in hot tub, and cuts through another units feeders, well there are cases that was ruled in favor of the one who cut the feeder under the trespass violation, the builder and EC was found at fault since there was no specs from an engineer to say otherwise or deed.

This has to be spelled out as to where the common areas are and what rights each tenant has for use of this space

 

[bkelly]

Hey, good enough for me. I remember being turned down years ago for this and accepted it as "code". It might have been a local requirement or an inspectors "rules". Thanks for the help.

 

[iwire]

In my opinion the section below prohibits a branch circuit for dwelling A to pass through dwelling B.

This section does not apply to commercial occupancy.

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.

 

[kwired]

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.

 

[iwire]

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.

 

[david luchini]

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.

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.

 

[kwired]

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.

OK you are right, "loads associated only with that dwelling unit" kind of threw me off and I had to think about it some more. Next we need to define what is "in the dwelling unit". Can a circuit to an air conditioning unit for apartment A pass through an attic or crawlspace that is above, below or otherwise somehow in the space that apartment B occupies, The feeder supplying apartment A could be there, I think.

What about a common wall between apartment A and B with receptacle outlets on both sides of the wall?

 

[charlie b]

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.

 

[iwire]

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.

Of course it is a player in a muiltifamily.

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

.

I disagree

From 210.25(A)

Branch circuits in each dwelling unit shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit.

I cannot have a branch circuit 'in' one dwelling that supplies another

Please referance Artcile 100 for the defintion of Branch circuit.

I conclude that the suggested installation is acceptable, from an NEC perspective.

I conclude that the suggested installation is not acceptable, from an NEC perspective.

 

[iwire]

Next we need to define what is "in the dwelling unit".

I agree with you, that would get kind of tricky in many instances.

Common walls, common ceilings / floors etc.

 

[kwired]

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 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.

 

[charlie b]

I disagree

I thought you might.

I cannot have a branch circuit 'in' one dwelling that supplies another

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.

Please referance Artcile 100 for the defintion of Branch circuit.

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.

 

[Last Leg]

I don't think this would be a violation in commercial installations. There are House Panel circuits often run through Tenant spaces for Canopy lighting, wall packs, F/A panels, etc. I don't see the difference in it being the building management panel or another tenant panel.

 

[david luchini]

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.

I don't believe the supply feeder for an occupancy would be an issue, as 210.25 relates only to branch circuits. I would consider crawl spaces or mechanical chases or common attics to be outside the occupancy.

Of course the air conditioning circuit could be run as a feeder with the branch ocpd at the unit, to get around 210.25. If the intent of 210.25 is to prohibit branch circuits originating in one dwelling unit from supplying loads in or associated with another dwelling unit, I think it needs to be rewritten.

 

[charlie b]

. . . I think it needs to be rewritten.

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.

 

[construct]

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.

Based on the exact wording of 210.25, I agree with this.