# Multi-Tenant Panel Location



## Darto800 (Apr 8, 2016)

I have a commercial building with 2 tenants. They each have there own electrical utility feed and pay their own bill. Tenant A has a distribution panel in Tenant B suite but it's fed through their own main switch board and doesn't feed any of Tenant B's loads. The panel serves roof top HVAC equipment that all has local disconnect switches. The distribution panel also can be disabled from a breaker on Tenant A's main switch board. Tenant B's electrician is claiming it is a code violation to have Tenant A's distribution panel in their space. Can anyone confirm if this is true and if so can you please site the code? Thank you! Much appreciated.


----------



## Darto800 (Apr 8, 2016)

Here are the reasons this is a code violation according to Tenant B's electrician:


(a) If there was an issue, fire, earthquake, etc, responders turning off the breaker feeding your unit would think it's de-energized, in fact they would still be working unknowingly with a live 480-volt system present.
(b) Anyone working on the roof top HVAC that needed to turn off power serving the units should have access to the breakers without going to address other than the one the HVAC serves.
Without going into National Electrical Code, for the above reasons alone I believe an electrical inspector would have issues with the present installation and energizing of the hall 480-volt panel


----------



## Electek inc (Mar 11, 2016)

Don't see a violation. I could question are they are lockable. Emergency responders don't assume things are de-energized. They are trained and protocols are followed.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

240.24(B) assuming that they don't have access to each others spaces.


----------



## Darto800 (Apr 8, 2016)

They don't have access to each other space but the entire distribution panel can be de-energized from main switch board in the tenant A's space. Also the building management has access with 24/7 on-call maintenance responders. Will that good enough for the inspectors?


----------



## tates1882 (Sep 3, 2010)

So basically one tenant can't access the panel that feeds the branch circuits for their space because it's in the others space? 
If this is the case then it's a violation of 240.24b2


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Darto800 said:


> They don't have access to each other space but the entire distribution panel can be de-energized from main switch board in the tenant A's space. Also the building management has access with 24/7 on-call maintenance responders. Will that good enough for the inspectors?


this>>



> unless otherwise permitted in 240.24(B)( 1 )
> and (B)(2)


leads to this>>


> continuous building management supervision


which implies a resident landlord,inn owner, motel clerk .....:whistling2:

Anecdotally, we had a reno-scenario where the landlord lived in the building next door, which our ahj considered '_continuous_' .....

~CS~


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> this>>
> 
> 
> leads to this>>
> ...


Sounds like the OP is the HO.


----------



## Darto800 (Apr 8, 2016)

Thanks CS. So in your experience having 24/7 security that can call in on-call building maintenance to access a panel would not be considered 'round the clock' surveillance by the AHJ?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Yes ,but your AHJ _mileage_ may differ , as it can be viewed as interpretational Dart

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Darto800 said:


> They don't have access to each other space but the entire distribution panel can be de-energized from main switch board in the tenant A's space. Also the building management has access with 24/7 on-call maintenance responders. Will that good enough for the inspectors?


It would get a red tag from me. On call does not cut it for me.


----------



## Darto800 (Apr 8, 2016)

OK thanks CS and Don. Last question.. any chance the fact that the distribution panel can be completely de-energized by opening a breaker on the main switchboard which the tenant DOES have access to give me a loophole in your opinions?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Darto800 said:


> OK thanks CS and Don. Last question.. any chance the fact that the distribution panel can be completely de-energized by opening a breaker on the main switchboard which the tenant DOES have access to give me a loophole in your opinions?


No change ... that does not give the required access to the branch circuit OCPDs.

The only time I would accept supervision is with a full time, 24/7 on site electrician.


----------



## Darto800 (Apr 8, 2016)

Ok, understood. Much appreciated.


----------



## Electek inc (Mar 11, 2016)

Looking at 240.24 B. If unit A has access to a breaker on the feeder of panel A, which sounds like they do, I see no violation
Article states: all overcurent devices protecting conductors supplying occupancy. Doesn't say branch circuits.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Electek inc said:


> Looking at 240.24 B. If unit A has access to a breaker on the feeder of panel A, which sounds like they do, I see no violation
> Article states: all overcurent devices protecting conductors supplying occupancy. Doesn't say branch circuits.


It is very clear that the charging statement in 240.24(B) includes branch circuit breakers. If it didn't it would not have a reference to 240.24(B)(2).


> (B) Occupancy. Each occupant shall have ready access to* all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying that occupancy*, *unless otherwise permitted in* 240.24(B)(1) and *(B)(2)*.


Nothing in the words "protection conductors supplying that occupancy" can be read as applying only to feeder conductors. 

(B)(2) acts as an exception for branch circuit OCPDs that supply guest rooms or guest suites.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

My _'aside Q'_ would be all the dual purpose CAFCI breakers we're using these days , and the '14 accessible requirement. 

For ex, we are positioning condo panels in hallways near kitchens with this in mind, preferably w/in sight 

Am i reading too much into this?

~CS~


----------

