# Sub panel in attic..



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

B4T said:


> I have a customer who wants a sub-panel located in the attic which is accessible by pull down stairs.. is this code compliant?? :blink:


 
Ifyou have 6.5 feet of height and normal working space it is


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

B4T said:


> I have a customer who wants a sub-panel located in the attic which is accessible by pull down stairs.. is this code compliant?? :blink:


IMO, this is compliant if you have the clearance required in 110.26. Some may argue that it is not readily accessible but I feel it is. I would check with the ahj.


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Ifyou have 6.5 feet of height and normal working space it is


I'm going to say that Article 110.26 (E) exception comes into play in this and headroom can be thrown out the window.

Other than that I'm in agreement with Dennis and Jerry. I was looking for anything that said otherwise but haven't found anything.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

thegoldenboy said:


> I'm going to say that Article 110.26 (E) exception comes into play in this and headroom can be thrown out the window..


In my opinion that exception only applies to panel replacements, not new panel locations.


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> In my opinion that exception only applies to panel replacements, not new panel locations.


It doesn't specify, and while I can see exactly where you're coming from on that, I would make the argument that it isn't specific enough about the intent and therefore is allowed.

*(E) Headroom.* The minimum headroom of working spaces
about service equipment, switchboards, panelboards, or motor
control centers shall be 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft). Where the electrical
equipment exceeds 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) in height, the minimum
headroom shall not be less than the height of the equipment.

Exception: In existing dwelling units, service equipment
or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be
permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m
(61⁄2 ft).


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

I can see it both ways.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

BBQ said:


> In my opinion that exception only applies to panel replacements, not new panel locations.


(E) Headroom. The minimum headroom of working spaces
about service equipment, switchboards, panelboards, or motor
control centers shall be 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft). Where the electrical
equipment exceeds 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) in height, the minimum
headroom shall not be less than the height of the equipment.
Exception:* In existing dwelling units*, service equipment
or panelboards that do not exceed 200 amperes shall be
permitted in spaces where the headroom is less than 2.0 m
(61⁄2 ft).

I see it as saying "existing dwellings" allows a panel to have less than 6.5 ft. of head room..

It does not specifically say new or replacement.. and this is an existing dwelling.. :whistling2:


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

B4T said:


> (E) Headroom. The minimum headroom of working spaces
> about service equipment, switchboards, panelboards, or motor
> control centers shall be 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft). Where the electrical
> equipment exceeds 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) in height, the minimum
> ...


Time to talk with the inspector on that one. Sounds reasonable enough. Pull down stairs. Probably semi finished?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> Time to talk with the inspector on that one. Sounds reasonable enough. Pull down stairs. Probably semi finished?


Not finished except for plywood floor and not a cardboard box in site.. :thumbup:


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

You looking to rewire the place? Put a sub in the attic and drop your circuits down from there?


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

What's the customer reasoning for wanting a panelboard in the attic? I don't see an honest benefit to it at all unless he plans on turning the attic into some form of hobby shop and readily has power available with ease of adding new circuits for lights or power.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> I can see it both ways.


 

I now can also. I didn't think that before. Since this house is exhisting, it may work.

New house, attic with 6' clearance, no subpanel

Exhisting house, attic with 6' clearance, adding subpanel ok.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> You looking to rewire the place? Put a sub in the attic and drop your circuits down from there?


For future AC bedroom circuits


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

I would wonder if high ambient tempertures would be an issue .


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

B4T said:


> (E) Headroom. The minimum headroom of working spaces
> about service equipment, switchboards, panelboards, or motor
> control centers shall be 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft). Where the electrical
> equipment exceeds 2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) in height, the minimum
> ...


The more I think about it this applies to your application. The code doesn't grandfather in old installs. There isn't a section that says it's legitament to have knob and tube in existing houses. To me this is saying, new or updated panels are permitted to be added to a existing residence. If it's not saying that then it really is odd that it is grand fathering in old installs.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> The more I think about it this applies to your application. The code doesn't grandfather in old installs. There isn't a section that says it's legitament to have knob and tube in existing houses. To me this is saying, new or updated panels are permitted to be added to a existing residence. If it's not saying that then it really is odd that it is grand fathering in old installs.


The code grandfathers stuff all the time..

Just yesterday we were talking about wall switch replacement where there is no EGC available.. 

The Code makes an exception for the switch replacement as is.. :thumbsup:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Mr Rewire said:


> I would wonder if high ambient tempertures would be an issue .


 
Of course, if you go up, you'll sweat.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

B4T said:


> The code grandfathers stuff all the time..
> 
> Just yesterday we were talking about wall switch replacement where there is no EGC available..
> 
> The Code makes an exception for the switch replacement as is.. :thumbsup:


Maybe I'm off on that but is it grandfathering in the existing switch or saying that the new switch you want to install is compliant?


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

nitro71 said:


> The more I think about it this applies to your application. The code doesn't grandfather in old installs. There isn't a section that says it's legitament to have knob and tube in existing houses. To me this is saying, new or updated panels are permitted to be added to a existing residence. If it's not saying that then it really is odd that it is grand fathering in old installs.


Actually there is...

*II. Installation*
*394.10 Uses Permitted.* Concealed knob-and-tube wiring
shall be permitted to be installed in the hollow spaces of
walls and ceilings, or in unfinished attics and roof spaces as
provided by 394.23, only as follows:
(1) For extensions of existing installations
(2) Elsewhere by special permission

*394.12 Uses Not Permitted.* Concealed knob-and-tube
wiring shall not be used in the following:
(1) Commercial garages
(2) Theaters and similar locations
(3) Motion picture studios
(4) Hazardous (classified) locations
(5) Hollow spaces of walls, ceilings, and attics where such
spaces are insulated by loose, rolled, or foamed-inplace
insulating material that envelops the conductors

And from the way I read it, we're allowed to extend it if done so properly. But who would bother to do that.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> Maybe I'm off on that but is it grandfathering in the existing switch or saying that the new switch you want to install is compliant?


I take it as grandfathering existing wiring conditions and making the switch replacement code compliant..


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

thegoldenboy said:


> Actually there is...
> 
> II. Installation
> 394.10 Uses Permitted. Concealed knob-and-tube wiring
> ...


It discusses adding new construction to the existing circuit. Doesn't mention the legitimacy of the existing install.


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

nitro71 said:


> It discusses adding new construction to the existing circuit. Doesn't mention the legitimacy of the existing install.


Knob and Tube is a legitimate install unless there's insulation in contact with it. Art. 394.12 (5)

If it wasn't a legitimate wiring method, they would omit the Article in it's entirety and replace it with something demanding it's replacement.

If it wasn't legitimate in an existing install why would 394.10 go and say that we're allowed to add onto existing installations? 

I'm not trying to start anything with you Nitro, but I'm just not grasping your logic or reasoning behind this one.


----------



## NEC Genius (Apr 7, 2011)

Since when did you worry about electrical equipment being accessible? :laughing:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

NEC Genius said:


> Since when did you worry about electrical equipment being accessible? :laughing:


Don't you have a bridge to visit..


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

thegoldenboy said:


> Knob and Tube is a legitimate install unless there's insulation in contact with it. Art. 394.12 (5)
> 
> If it wasn't a legitimate wiring method, they would omit the Article in it's entirety and replace it with something demanding it's replacement.
> 
> ...


It's not my logic. I'm just trying to figure out if the code writers meant to grandfather anything in or not.

It isn't legitament to install it in new construction unless you have special permission. Essentialy this article is discussing extending knob and tube installs. If you see the recent extending non-grounded circuits discussion it isn't legitament to add a new outlet without a ground. IE: extend knob and tube.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

NEC Genius said:


> Since when did you worry about electrical equipment being accessible? :laughing:


----------



## NEC Genius (Apr 7, 2011)

B4T said:


> Don't you have a bridge to visit..


Yeah, I get good WiFi reception outside of Starbucks. :jester:


----------



## NEC Genius (Apr 7, 2011)

Seriously though, if you are ok with burying boxes, surely you must be ok with a buried panel, right? Logically speaking?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> It's not my logic. I'm just trying to figure out if the code writers meant to grandfather anything in or not.
> 
> It isn't legitament to install it in new construction unless you have special permission. Essentialy this article is discussing extending knob and tube installs. If you see the recent extending non-grounded circuits discussion it isn't legitament to add a new outlet without a ground. IE: extend knob and tube.


I don't know of anything the code said must be removed or a wiring method that was accepted at one time and was not grandfathered into new codes.. 

K & T is as crude as anything electrical can get.. IMO


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

When you find out what that section of code really means let us know!


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

nitro71 said:


> It's not my logic. I'm just trying to figure out if the code writers meant to grandfather anything in or not.
> 
> It isn't legitament to install it in new construction unless you have special permission. Essentialy this article is discussing extending knob and tube installs. If you see the recent extending non-grounded circuits discussion it isn't legitament to add a new outlet without a ground. IE: extend knob and tube.


All I'm saying it says we're allowed to extend it in accordance with 394.23 (A) + (B), not that it's practical by any means.

If you think of it this way, if existing installations weren't grandfathered in we would have to redo anything done under the previous code cycle that contradicts what's said in the new code cycle.

The mayhem and headache involved in this is insane. 

If I installed an outlet in a dwelling in 2005 it would've been a non TR type. 

If I replaced an outlet in the same dwelling in 2008 it would have to be of the TR type. 

I know the following doesn't apply anywhere other than Massachusetts but this is something that they put into effect for situations like this:

527 CMR 12.00 

Rule 3: 

Additions or modifications to an existing installation shall be made in accordance with this Code without bringing the remaining part of the installation into compliance with the requirements of this Code. The installation shall not create a violation of this Code, nor shall it increase the magnitude of an existing violation. 

Maybe your State has something written similar that supersedes the Code in this instance.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

NEC Genius said:


> Seriously though, if you are ok with burying boxes, surely you must be ok with a buried panel, right? Logically speaking?


Logically ?:blink::laughing:


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

No one has asked but I'm going to assume because of the pull down staircase that the attic is an unfinished space. That means it's going to get very hot in the summer time. IMO this is a bad design.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> No one has asked but I'm going to assume because of the pull down staircase that the attic is an unfinished space. That means it's going to get very hot in the summer time. IMO this is a bad design.


What about panels in commercial kitchens.. 

They can be hotter than any attic in the summertime..


----------



## Roger123 (Sep 23, 2007)

BBQ said:


> I can see it both ways.


 
Wow!!! A compromise!!! Wow!!!


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

B4T said:


> What about panels in commercial kitchens..
> 
> They can be hotter than any attic in the summertime..


That doesn't make it right, nor is it justification for putting a panel in an attic.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> That doesn't make it right, nor is it justification for putting a panel in an attic.


This is not your basic crummy attic I am dealing with..

The attic has windows and a complete plywood floor with not a wire in site.. 

I am doing a whole house fan this summer and if he ever decides to central AC.. the power is there for it..

Heavy duty aluminum pull down stairs for access makes this a pleasure to work in.. :thumbup:


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

B4T said:


> This is not your basic crummy attic I am dealing with..
> 
> The attic has windows and a complete plywood floor with not a wire in site..
> 
> ...


I say ask your AHJ if it'll fly and if he says yes...

Laugh yourself all the way to the bank. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Roger123 said:


> Wow!!! A compromise!!! Wow!!!


Goldenboy was right ...... can't hide from that.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

Again, central air wiring from a sub panel is another poor design, especially from a sub panel in an attic.


----------



## doubleoh7 (Dec 5, 2009)

B4T said:


> This is not your basic crummy attic I am dealing with..
> 
> The attic has windows and a complete plywood floor with not a wire in site..
> 
> ...


 
I don't think I've ever seen an attic like that.:laughing:


----------



## Cletis (Aug 20, 2010)

*Sub*

I wouldn't do it unless it wasn't inspected and he paid good cash. 

Can't you talk him into just running 2 branch circuits in attic labeled and ready for future use for those items??

Cletis


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Again, central air wiring from a sub panel is another poor design, especially from a sub panel in an attic.


Since when is wiring the blower motor from a sub panel a poor design.. :blink::blink:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

B4T said:


> Since when is wiring the blower motor from a sub panel a poor design.. :blink::blink:


You had said 'central air' not blower motor. I am sure Mag was responding based on 'central air'.

It is almost always a poor design to add large loads to sub panels.

So if it is just a blower motor, no problem, if it is the compressor unit that could be a problem.


----------



## Cletis (Aug 20, 2010)

*Sides*

I can see both sides. Always better to put biggest loads in main. Reduces connection problems along the way, BUT, big things are run off sub panels off sub panels all the time as well......


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Cletis said:


> I can see both sides. Always better to put biggest loads in main. Reduces connection problems along the way, BUT, big things are run off sub panels off sub panels all the time as well......


Yes big loads are often run from subs, that does not mean it is good design. You would have to look at the specifics of the job. Often running big loads from subs causes surges on the other sub-panel circuits. 

In a home it can lead to dimming lights at start up and some HOs find that very annoying.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

B4T said:


> Since when is wiring the blower motor from a sub panel a poor design.. :blink::blink:


What BBQ said. 

I don't mean to give you a hard time, I'm just trying to fit in here. :thumbsup:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> What BBQ said.
> 
> I don't mean to give you a hard time, I'm just trying to fit in here. :thumbsup:


I should of said blower motor.. 

This is a (2) story house and the HVAC guys almost always put the compressors in front of the electric meter so they can move it again for free.. :whistling2:

Most of these guys also do their own wiring even if they are not suppose to be dabbling in that end of the job..


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

B4T said:


> I should of said blower motor..
> 
> This is a (2) story house and the HVAC guys almost always put the compressors in front of the electric meter so they can move it again for free.. :whistling2:
> 
> Most of these guys also do their own wiring even if they are not suppose to be dabbling in that end of the job..


Yeah, same here, but eventually they need us for service upgrades. Sometimes they just tap off the MB and put in some crap they bought at HD.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

What's the official verdict on 110.26 (E)? Does it apply to new panels being installed or only existing ones? If I remember I'll ask the inspector when I give him a ring on Monday.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> What's the official verdict on 110.26 (E)? Does it apply to new panels being installed or only existing ones? If I remember I'll ask the inspector when I give him a ring on Monday.


It depends who you ask and how you interpret the code.. :whistling2:


----------



## Trickelcharge (Mar 4, 2011)

If and when the guy moves out who would assume there is a panel in the attic? I have seen it done before, to me attics are good for storage. I would label the feed to sub as IN ATTIC stop looking in closets and such. I would just think about the poor old electrician up in the attic troubleshooting circuits and hooking them up etc. etc. It wouldn't be too much work to cut it in a wall below and stick a pipe in the top for future circuits would it? It's pretty easy to notice a panel in a hallway or anywhere but the  attic.:sweatdrop:


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Trickelcharge said:


> If and when the guy moves out who would assume there is a panel in the attic? I have seen it done before, to me attics are good for storage. I would label the feed to sub as IN ATTIC stop looking in closets and such. I would just think about the poor old electrician up in the attic troubleshooting circuits and hooking them up etc. etc. It wouldn't be too much work to cut it in a wall below and stick a pipe in the top for future circuits would it? It's pretty easy to notice a panel in a hallway or anywhere but the  attic.:sweatdrop:


I am putting 8' (4) lamp T-8 fixtures in the attic.. even Stevie Wonder could see there is a sub-panel there.. 

I will also label the main in the basement..


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

B4T said:


> I am putting 8' (4) lamp T-8 fixtures in the attic.. even Stevie Wonder could see there is a sub-panel there..
> 
> I will also label the main in the basement..


what size feeders?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> what size feeders?


I'm running #8.. maybe a (8) circuit box..


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

B4T said:


> I'm running #8.. maybe a (8) circuit box..


conduit up the side of the house?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> conduit up the side of the house?


Nope.. snaking it along side the chimney along with wires for a security system.. 

I was able to drop a sinker from the attic all the way into the basement..

Balloon framing along side the chimney is a wonderful thing.. :thumbup:


----------



## jefft110 (Jul 7, 2010)

Trickelcharge said:


> If and when the guy moves out who would assume there is a panel in the attic? I have seen it done before, to me attics are good for storage. I would label the feed to sub as IN ATTIC stop looking in closets and such.* I would just think about the poor old electrician up in the attic troubleshooting circuits and hooking them up etc. etc. *It wouldn't be too much work to cut it in a wall below and stick a pipe in the top for future circuits would it? It's pretty easy to notice a panel in a hallway or anywhere but the  attic.:sweatdrop:


Meh..convenience for me now is more important than convenience for someone else later.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Sounds good to me, it's safe, it works, and that's what the customer wants. 


Also I'd have no problem putting an AC on a sub panel I knew could handle the load, and I wouldn't even think twice about putting an AHU on a sub.


----------

