Demising wall

[hhsting]

I have one tenant A1 space that is going to be divided into two tenant spaces A, B by demising wall.

At the moment scope of work only is to build demising wall only. However the new space created tenant space B is unoccupied i.e no tenant. Tenant space A has panelboard which has all of tenant space B branch circuits overcurrent protection devices.

I am confused by NEC 2014 section 240.24(B) which says each occupant needs ready access to its overcurrent protection devices because all of tenant space B branch circuits overcurrent protection devices are in tenant space A however tenant space B is vacant but has landlord at its owner.

Under the above situation would 240.24(B) apply so that we would need to add in scope of work branch circuits overcurrent protection devices in new panelboard in tenant B space or 240.24(B) would not apply?

 

[LarryFine]

If it has to happen eventually, I'd definitely suggest doing it now, while both spaces are still vacant.

 

[hhsting]

If it has to happen eventually, I'd definitely suggest doing it now, while both spaces are still vacant.

Yes but is not that simple we enforce NEC 2014 and the client argument is if there is no tenant and unoccupied how can 240.24(B) apply which says each occupant needs ready accessible to its overcurrent protection devices?

 

[zbang]

If it doesn't apply now, it will when they lease the B space, and it may be a lot harder to do the work then. If nothing else, try selling the landlord on disconnecting the B branch circuits and pulling them back into B, and also doing any pipework into B that might pass through A from the feed point.

Is this a single or a multifloor building? Any more spaces but A & B? How is the service arranged? (We always ask so many questions .)

 

[hhsting]

If it doesn't apply now, it will when they lease the B space, and it may be a lot harder to do the work then. If nothing else, try selling the landlord on disconnecting the B branch circuits and pulling them back into B, and also doing any pipework into B that might pass through A from the feed point.

Is this a single or a multifloor building? Any more spaces but A & B? How is the service arranged? (We always ask so many questions .)

I am not the person who does this work. Problem came to us and I am acting as the AHJ in this case. Told the client/landlord that NEC 2014 section 240.24(B) would have to provide panelboard tenant B space and got response how can NEC 2014 section 240.24(B) apply since their is no tenant?

I got stuck.

 

[hhsting]

I am not the person who does this work. Problem came to us and I am acting as the AHJ in this case. Told the client/landlord that NEC 2014 section 240.24(B) would have to provide panelboard tenant B space and got response how can NEC 2014 section 240.24(B) apply since their is no tenant?

I got stuck.

Add to above yes there are more spaces but they are existing have tenants and are all divided. It’s existing building one story. No electrical scope was added so I don’t know about exact service arrangement or configuration

 

[packersparky]

Add to above yes there are more spaces but they are existing have tenants and are all divided. It’s existing building one story. No electrical scope was added so I don’t know about exact service arrangement or configuration

240.24(B) does not say "tenant" it says "occupant". If the space is capable of being occupied, whomever can occupy that space needs access to the overcurrent devices supplying that space. There may be no "tenant", but someone is capable of occupying that space (the owner).

 

[zbang]

Hmm....
Could be that something requires every space to have electricity, even if not used (along the same lines as having water service and a toilet). Is there a zoning bit that might point the way?

Another angle is that while space B doesn't need a panel or service, if it doesn't have one there can't be any electrics there at all (because of 240.24(B)); so they'd have to be cut back out of A's panel.

I also like the occupant vs tenant idea.

 

[hhsting]

Hmm....
Could be that something requires every space to have electricity, even if not used (along the same lines as having water service and a toilet). Is there a zoning bit that might point the way?

Another angle is that while space B doesn't need a panel or service, if it doesn't have one there can't be any electrics there at all (because of 240.24(B)); so they'd have to be cut back out of A's panel.

I also like the occupant vs tenant idea.

I don’t get it you like the idea of tenant vs occupant?

 

[zbang]

From post #7

 

[Fred B]

If he is designing a space that could "potentially" have a separate tenant, even if owner states "has no intention of renting or separately occupying newly created space, code requires accessibility to the circuit protection. Current owner may, and usually does not, continue ownership forever, sales happen even if at present no intention to do so. So method would need to be created that would allow all tenancy, real or potential, to have "unfettered", access (as our building inspector here says, not in code terminology) but "idea" is a code requirement as stated in post #6. So I OP's situation it would appear to have two options, space "A" becomes common space for access by all tenants current or "potential", or 2 add separate panel for space "B". Owners never like to here codes requirements when it conflicts with their "grand design", but the code is the code, and we could, and have, argued whether its it's right or wrong all day long in past posts, but if it's not liked for some reason the mechanism is there to try and get the code changed.
There are a number of safety reasons access need to be had by all tenants, emegency personnel, repair services technicians, etc. I've known of a case where the owner wasn't available, for days, to access the panel (it was in common space, or suppose to have been) in basement and landlord gave permission for a tenant to store items in basement that he (the tenant) subsequently padlocked the door to the basement, an issue arose in another tenants apt. and he couldn't get into basement to fix, couldn't reach the tenant that locked the basement either, also for several days. After the 3rd or 4th time of nuisance tripping (in reality the microwave oven was on an overloaded circuit causing tripping) and repeated delays trying get owner or tenant each time, they just "broke into" the basement. Owner finally got the point and rectified the accessibility issue.

 

[ActionDave]

Yes but is not that simple we enforce NEC 2014 and the client argument is if there is no tenant and unoccupied how can 240.24(B) apply which says each occupant needs ready accessible to its overcurrent protection devices?

It is that simple. The client is correct.

 

[gadfly56]

You could always tell him he can have it his way, but you'll be keeping an eye on the building, and if there is a hint that the "B" space gets leased without a permit getting pulled for the electric service into the space, you will padlock the space.

Alternatively, any space not leased is under the control of the landlord/owner. The landlord must have access to the overcurrent protection in his space without going into a leased space. He'll have to put that space on his panel.

 

[ActionDave]

You could always tell him he can have it his way, but you'll be keeping an eye on the building, and if there is a hint that the "B" space gets leased without a permit getting pulled for the electric service into the space, you will padlock the space.

That would be an overreach of authority of an extreme measure.

Alternatively, any space not leased is under the control of the landlord/owner. The landlord must have access to the overcurrent protection in his space without going into a leased space. He'll have to put that space on his panel.

There is nothing in the 2014 NEC, or any other edition, that supports your opinion. 90.1(B) specifically says uses the words, "not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use."

 

[gadfly56]

That would be an overreach of authority of an extreme measure.

There is nothing in the 2014 NEC, or any other edition, that supports your opinion. 90.1(B) specifically says uses the words, "not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use."

I disagree. Work performed without a permit can be prudently deemed "immediately hazardous to life and property" until properly inspected.

 

[ActionDave]

I disagree. Work performed without a permit can be prudently deemed "immediately hazardous to life and property" until properly inspected.

What work is being done without a permit?

 

[gadfly56]

What work is being done without a permit?

If the space "B" is leased, it needs it's own panel. Presumptively, the owner had the work done to be in compliance with the NEC, said work not having been permitted or inspected.

 

[mwm1752]

does the building have 24/7 maintenance? otherwise have OCPD for unit B readily accessible
Where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision,

 

[hhsting]

does the building have 24/7 maintenance? otherwise have OCPD for unit B readily accessible
Where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision,

It’s commercial building one tenant is retail and other empty. Exception don’t apply to branch circuits

 

[mwm1752]

A contractor splitting commercial into two spaces becomes 2 spaces - the space /white box finish requires a min of power & lighting which is powered by a branch circuit having OCPD's. There is much not known occupancy type - building type - required means of egress - to really nail down requirements.