NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dsturgeon1

Member
I have recently constructed an up and down two-family house with a common area basement. I have two panels in the basement with one panel serving the down unit and other one serving the up unit. There are some circuits in each panel that are used for lighting the basement, commonly used stair hallways, exterior lights and a sump pump. These are divided up equally between the two panels. Both tenants have access to the basement and both panels.

The local building inspector is now requiring me to add a house panel in addition to the two panels I already have to control ONLY the common areas.

I want to know if I'm really in vioation of NEC 210.25 if the panels installed are not inside the dwelling units, but are in a common area basement which is accessible to everyone. My understanding from reading the NEC Handbook is that NEC 210.25 "permits access to the branch-circuit disconnecting means without the need to enter the space of any tenants" and "prevents a tenant from turning off important circuits the may affect other tenants".

I'll appreciate all of your comments regarding this issue as I'm considering appealing this ruling at the state level.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

I have no problem with the location of the two panels, nor with both tenants having access to both panels. This would not be my choice, as it calls on both tenants to be trustworthy, even before the spaces are rented.

But the local building inspector is right. A branch circuit that supplies lights in the common area cannot come from the same "equipment" (meaning power panel) that supplies an individual unit. You would lose an appeal to the state level.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

Can you elaborate what is the imminent safety hazard if the panels are accessible in the common area basement? I understand that it would be a problem if the panels are kept inside the dwelling units and others are denied access to those essential circuits. It's quite possible that having a separate house panel is MORE of a safety hazard as you wouldn't know that the power is turned off in one of the units - the smoke detectors that communicate throughout the building could be disabled for instance. I argue that having a house panel, is this instance, does nothing to add to the safety of this building as this panel can also be turned off by the occupants or for non-payment of electrical service.

I think it's still worth my time to have this ruling ajudicated as I've been successful in getting a few other code variances approved that were even further out from the letter of the code. Adding an additional panel AT THIS LATE TIME is coming in at thousands of dollars.

In the worst case, I'll need to add the panel.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

The people who pay the bill have a right to control their bill.

If you are feeding common area lighting from a tenants panel they do not have control of 'their' power.

Would you be happy if your neighbors basement lighting was fed from your meter?

It is a very clear section

210.25 Common Area Branch Circuits.
Branch circuits in dwelling units shall supply only loads within that dwelling unit or loads associated only with that dwelling unit. Branch circuits required for the purpose of lighting, central alarm, signal, communications, or other needs for public or common areas of a two-family or multifamily dwelling shall not be supplied from equipment that supplies an individual dwelling unit.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

When you made the decision to place both panels in a common basement, you accepted the risk that a disgruntled tenant might do some malicious mischief with the other tenant's panel. That is not at issue here.

I can see three issues with placing common loads on unit panels, though I concede that none is a significant safety concern by itself. One is that if you need to work on a unit panel, you lose the lights in the area in which you are working. Another is that if you need to work on (e.g., add a circuit to) the common areas, you may need to turn off power to one or both of the units.

The third comes from the fact that few circuit schedules that are posted on the panel doors are accurate, and that few people trust what is written even if it were to be accurate. Thus, if you need to turn off a basement circuit to do local work, you would have to turn off breakers one by one, until you get the right one. In the mean time, you will have taken power from one or more of the tenants' circuits, without being able to know whether that was imposing a safety hazard at the time. For example, how would you know if a tenant was standing on a ladder doing some painting. A sudden and unexpected loss of lights might not be appreciated by that person.

The bottom line is that an electrician who needs to work on a common area should not have to touch a tenant's panel to do it.

I think the "worst case" is upon you.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

You ask for an imminent safety issue: Renter A moves out and terminates their service with the local electric utility. Renter B remains, but is deprived of required service in the common areas that just happens to be on Renter A's panel. Stairwell lighting comes to mind as a fine example.

Around here you'd need to install separate metering and thus a separate panel for common areas anyway as part of renters' rights laws that have nothing to do with the NEC, for exactly the reason iwire states.

If the whole building is on the same landlord-paid meter, both arguments fall apart, but I don't know of any landlord that supplies electric service for separated tenants as part of rent.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

I understand what your saying. But they can control their bill by turning on and off switches. There is nothing preventing them from doing that. Besides, the common areas are for their benefit too as they use the common areas also. So why do you think they should have it entirely for free?

I reviewed the code commentary for this section and there is nothing saying that this part of the code is enforced because the tenants are only entitled to pay what is inside of their units, despite the fact that they benefit from other common areas in the building. This is beyond the scope of what NEC 210.25 is meant to cover. That may be an issue for consumer affairs, but not for life safety. As far as I know, the Better Business Bureau does not engage in building code enforcement.

I noticed that you left the first sentence out of NEC 210.25 in your response. Indeed, the second sentence can be taken out of context. It's important not to leave it out as both sentences are part of the entire code section, and the first sentence prefaces the second sentence. If not, why are they in one code section instead of entirely separate ones? The first sentence begins "Branch circuits IN DWELLING UNITS..." which I think means when panels are inside the dwelling unit. This is further clarified the NEC code commentary which says the following:

"Not only does 210.25 prohibit branch circuits from feeding more than one dwelling unit, it also prohibits the sharing of systems, equipment, or common lighting IF THAT EQUIPMENT IS FED FROM ANY OF THE DWELLING UNITS."

Would someone respond back who actually wrote this code section?
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

Originally posted by dsturgeon1: The first sentence begins "Branch circuits IN DWELLING UNITS..." which I think means when panels are inside the dwelling unit.
Click to expand...
I think otherwise, and your quote from the code commentary does not dissuade me. The NEC definition of "branch circuit" speaks of the conductors from the breaker to the load. In your case, a portion of each of those conductors is in the common area, and the rest is within the boundaries of the individual dwelling unit. Any AHJ is going to interpret this "first sentence" as meaning a branch circuit that starts in the panel in the basement cannot supply loads within the dwelling unit and loads in the common area.

I concede that the first sentence (of 210.25) does not prohibit one branch circuit from supplying a load within the unit while another breaker in the same panel supplies a load in the common area. You can't do that, but it is not the first sentence that prohibits it. The second sentence does.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

I don't know what state you live in...BUT, I can tell you this for NJ...
- NJ LL/T laws REQUIRE all tenants have access to their panels unless an on-site super is available.
- No tenant will willingly pay for utilities not directly used by them ie, common areas. This is also a part of NJ's LL/T laws.
- NJ requires a "house panel", for new construction/major rehabs, exactly as the building inspector stated ~ one for each unit, plus one for common areas.

You *could* try and fight this thing - but you may need to look in more areas than just the NEC.
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

So you built a house.

You did not follow the codes (which are quite clear) in order to pass required inspections.

You are now complaining that it will cost you thousands of dollars to correct your errors.

Do you really think that you should be granted an exception and if so what makes you so special that the code does not apply to you?

This is mind boggling to me.

This statement really makes me wonder. "I've been successful in getting a few other code variances approved that were even further out from the letter of the code"
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

Originally posted by dsturgeon1:
My understanding from reading the NEC Handbook is that NEC 210.25 "permits access to the branch-circuit disconnecting means without the need to enter the space of any tenants" and "prevents a tenant from turning off important circuits the may affect other tenants".
Click to expand...
Oh, like the tenants are familiar with the NEC?

Sturge (and credit to previous posters of the same info),

There is nothing legal to prevent each tenant from locking their own panel. Either tenant can move, and terminate their electric service.

A short or overload within either unit could kill a common-area circuit. A short or overload in a common area could kill a tenant's circuit.

This applies to inside and outside stairways and corridors. If the cost of the house panel's electricity is a problem, collect it in the rent.

(They're paying for it now anyway, right?)
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

Originally posted by dsturgeon1:
It's quite possible that having a separate house panel is MORE of a safety hazard as you wouldn't know that the power is turned off in one of the units - the smoke detectors that communicate throughout the building could be disabled for instance. I argue that having a house panel, is this instance, does nothing to add to the safety of this building as this panel can also be turned off by the occupants or for non-payment of electrical service.
Click to expand...
So, one tenant having total control of the circuit powering the smokes is better? What if a tenant is shut off for non-payment? There goes everyone's safety, and the owner's building!

Paying the house-panel's bill is the responsibility, as is keeping smokes operational, even with one unit empty. If that were disconnected for non-payment, I'd be one concerned tenant!
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

Originally posted by dsturgeon1:
I understand what your saying. But they can control their bill by turning on and off switches. There is nothing preventing them from doing that.
Click to expand...
Or cutting off breakers!
Besides, the common areas are for their benefit too as they use the common areas also. So why do you think they should have it entirely for free?
Click to expand...
No, roll it into the rent. A lawsuit for a broken leg is much more expensive.
I reviewed the code commentary for this section and there is nothing saying that this part of the code is enforced because the tenants are only entitled to pay what is inside of their units, despite the fact that they benefit from other common areas in the building. This is beyond the scope of what NEC 210.25 is meant to cover. That may be an issue for consumer affairs, but not for life safety. As far as I know, the Better Business Bureau does not engage in building code enforcement.
Click to expand...
:roll:
The first sentence begins "Branch circuits IN DWELLING UNITS..." which I think means when panels are inside the dwelling unit.
Click to expand...
No, it says "circuits", not "panels"
This is further clarified the NEC code commentary which says the following:

"Not only does 210.25 prohibit branch circuits from feeding more than one dwelling unit, it also prohibits the sharing of systems, equipment, or common lighting IF THAT EQUIPMENT IS FED FROM ANY OF THE DWELLING UNITS."
Click to expand...
That is contrary to your position. You DO understand; you just don't like it.
Would someone respond back who actually wrote this code section?
Click to expand...
And that would be who?

[ January 11, 2006, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

I'll appreciate all of your comments regarding this issue...........
Click to expand...
should have been worded: ' appreciate all comments that would help me convience the inspector he is wrong' :)
 
Re: NEC 210.25 Common area branch circuits

I once saw a tenant go without water because the water pump was tied onto the other tenants panel and the pco.turned that tenants power off for non payment.

romeo

P.S. There may also be a Board of Health violation here .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top