MikeD said:
I'd like to point out that regardless of the what NEC says about this issue Ecotality was having their Blink units installed with cord and plugs both inside and outside and these were obviously passing inspections.
EVSE wiring - 30a vs 40a
- Thread starter wantonsoup
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
I'd like to point out that regardless of the what NEC says about this issue Ecotality was having their Blink units installed with cord and plugs both inside and outside and these were obviously passing inspections.
QueenBee: I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, so I'm not exactly sure of the point you are trying to make. But I'll make a response and hope it touches on your concern:
I can say that the Blink WE-30K (a cord-connectable model) EVSE that I am familiar with clearly specifies in its Installation Manual (v1.1 12/23/2010): "Indoor use only. Cord-connected models of this equipment are intended for indoor use only.". The similar looking Blink WE-30C EVSE (a direct wired model), on the other hand, is approved for outdoor installation.
If a contractor installed Blink cord-and-plug EVSEs outside, they did so contrary to the installation instructions (and perhaps UL code -- I didn't see any relevant NEC code). (BTW I am aware that, for whatever reason, not all residential Blink installations in my area were ever inspected by the local authority.) If an inspector ever approved this practice, they made a mistake imo (-- and I don't think Ecotality had anything to do with that).
All of the outdoor Blinks I have ever seen (including some installed by the contracting company that did mine), were direct wired. It's hard to imagine that an electrician would mount a 6-50 receptacle outdoors (or an inspector approve it), unless at least it had a weatherproof cover -- but no cord-and-plug EVSE that I have read instructions for has been documented for outdoor use (cover or not).
I can say that the Blink WE-30K (a cord-connectable model) EVSE that I am familiar with clearly specifies in its Installation Manual (v1.1 12/23/2010): "Indoor use only. Cord-connected models of this equipment are intended for indoor use only.". The similar looking Blink WE-30C EVSE (a direct wired model), on the other hand, is approved for outdoor installation.
If a contractor installed Blink cord-and-plug EVSEs outside, they did so contrary to the installation instructions (and perhaps UL code -- I didn't see any relevant NEC code). (BTW I am aware that, for whatever reason, not all residential Blink installations in my area were ever inspected by the local authority.) If an inspector ever approved this practice, they made a mistake imo (-- and I don't think Ecotality had anything to do with that).
All of the outdoor Blinks I have ever seen (including some installed by the contracting company that did mine), were direct wired. It's hard to imagine that an electrician would mount a 6-50 receptacle outdoors (or an inspector approve it), unless at least it had a weatherproof cover -- but no cord-and-plug EVSE that I have read instructions for has been documented for outdoor use (cover or not).
MikeD said:
Not sure what point I was trying to make other than that professionals being overseen by the manufacturer and local inspectors are doing corded installs outside (And inside). Clearly not having the cover would be bad, as for if this install is bad I'm not entirely sure. Obviously it's important to follow the instructions that got it UL certified and to follow NEC but I'm not convinced this install is unsafe. Here is the example I'm familiar with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6UY09bkl70" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Obviously having a 240 volt receptacle is less safe than not having one but AFAIK there are no limitations on having a 240 volt receptacle outside and AFAIK they don't even require GFCI protection, but with the availability of 240 volt GFCI breakers one would assume that in the near future NEC would start requiring them.
QueenBee: I don't disagree with anything that you wrote. My long reply to you I just now accidently deleted (maybe just as well!) so I'll just outline my thoughts quickly:
1) It is entirely possible neither the installer nor the inspector (if there was one) read the installation instructions carefully.
2) Rather than using what (I think) is the normal compliant approach of having a disconnect switch in the circuit just ahead of the direct wired EVSE, the installer choose to use the short pigtail plug that came with the Blink to satisfy the "disconnect switch within line of sight for servicing (so that someone in the house can't power up the appliance w/o being noticed)" NEC requirement.
3) A weatherproof cover (preferably locked to keep kids out) may be safe enough (but clearly it doesn't comply with instructions).
4) I don't know why cord-and-plug 240v EVSEs aren't approved for installation outdoors, even with a weather proof cover. It may be that as you suggested that NEC would like all outdoor 240v receptacles to be GFCI protected like 120v receptacles currently are, but currently all 240v GFCI circuit breakers when used with EVSEs are prone to "nuisance trips" (I don't know that they are -- I'm speculating) and so would cause incomplete charging sessions -- resulting in GFCI removal (reactions similar to common AFCI circuit breaker dissatisfaction).
1) It is entirely possible neither the installer nor the inspector (if there was one) read the installation instructions carefully.
2) Rather than using what (I think) is the normal compliant approach of having a disconnect switch in the circuit just ahead of the direct wired EVSE, the installer choose to use the short pigtail plug that came with the Blink to satisfy the "disconnect switch within line of sight for servicing (so that someone in the house can't power up the appliance w/o being noticed)" NEC requirement.
3) A weatherproof cover (preferably locked to keep kids out) may be safe enough (but clearly it doesn't comply with instructions).
4) I don't know why cord-and-plug 240v EVSEs aren't approved for installation outdoors, even with a weather proof cover. It may be that as you suggested that NEC would like all outdoor 240v receptacles to be GFCI protected like 120v receptacles currently are, but currently all 240v GFCI circuit breakers when used with EVSEs are prone to "nuisance trips" (I don't know that they are -- I'm speculating) and so would cause incomplete charging sessions -- resulting in GFCI removal (reactions similar to common AFCI circuit breaker dissatisfaction).
Careful reading of NEC 625.13 leads to the conclusion that an EVSE that is "identified and listed" as suitable for the purpose shall be permitted to be cord-and-plug connected regardless of voltage (if it meets the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29). Article 625.29 is for indoor sites so the conclusion is that cord-and-plug connected Blink units comply with Code if installed indoors. Note that careful reading of 625.13 also leads to the conclusion that 125-volt, 15- or 20-ampere EVSEs are not required to be "identified and listed" to be plug connected. The key to understanding this is to note the word OR after amperes in the first sentence of 625.13.
Here is 625.13 from the 2011 NEC:
"Electric vehicle supply equipment rated at 125 volts, single phase, 15 or 20 amperes or part of a system identified and listed as suitable for the purpose and meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 shall be permitted to be cord-and-plug connected. All other electric vehicle supply equipment shall be permanently connected and fastened in place. This equipment shall have no exposed live parts."
Some 240-volt EVSE units designed to be hardwired will trip GFCI circuit breakers because they pass a small test current to ground to verify the equipment ground connection. Any 125-volt plug-connected EVSE should work with a normal GFCI since Code has required garage and outdoor receptacles to be protected by GFCI for many years. The Nissan unit works fine on GFCI circuits and the upgraded version (from evseupgrade.com) works fine on both 120- and 240-volt GFCI circuits.
Gerry
Here is 625.13 from the 2011 NEC:
"Electric vehicle supply equipment rated at 125 volts, single phase, 15 or 20 amperes or part of a system identified and listed as suitable for the purpose and meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 shall be permitted to be cord-and-plug connected. All other electric vehicle supply equipment shall be permanently connected and fastened in place. This equipment shall have no exposed live parts."
Some 240-volt EVSE units designed to be hardwired will trip GFCI circuit breakers because they pass a small test current to ground to verify the equipment ground connection. Any 125-volt plug-connected EVSE should work with a normal GFCI since Code has required garage and outdoor receptacles to be protected by GFCI for many years. The Nissan unit works fine on GFCI circuits and the upgraded version (from evseupgrade.com) works fine on both 120- and 240-volt GFCI circuits.
Gerry
While we are on this topic. Something I've been wondering. Around here dishwashers and sometimes even garbage disposals will be hardwired with no line of sight switch/disconnect but on their breakers they'll add a little lock out device (Which GE should really improve because the dang thing always falls out when you take the panel cover off). Would this be a suitable alternative to a disconnect mounted near the EVSE?MikeD said:
I'm not sure if these same NEC rules apply to commercial installs (I would assume so) but I've noticed a lot hard wired public units that have no apparent line of sight disconnect.
When I installed my minisplit heat pump I wondered if the inspector was going to point out the lack of line of sight disconnects for in the inside units. I used a disconnect on the outside unit and had one of the circuit breaker lock out devices handy in case they brought it up but he didn't. I'm pretty sure technically each inside unit would need to have disconnect or the lock out device. I certainly didn't want each unit to have it's built in on/off switch and an additional switch on the wall.
Queenbee: I see that Article 422.31 (Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances) provides that an alternative for a "line of sight switch" is a lockable device on the circuit's breaker (that remains on that breaker permanently) that can be used to lock the breaker in the open position when the appliance is being serviced.
I am not familiar with GE breakers/lockouts that you mentioned, but I am with the Square D ones and they have to be removed from the breakers before the cover can be removed.
So I think you are correct to bring this approach up as adequate for many appliances, and I would guess that most inspectors would OK it for an outdoor direct wired EVSE and not require a nearby disconnect switch.
More complex appliances like an outdoor A/C unit or heat pump require a nearby "disconnecting means" probably because the repair-person may have to power the unit on and off multiple times during servicing, and one needs to see clearly that the unit is off or not (and not depend on one's memory -- i.e. "Is that circuit breaker locked open now or not???"). Article 440.14 (Location) seems to require "disconnecting means" be "within sight from" as well as "readily accessible" from such appliances.
I am not familiar with GE breakers/lockouts that you mentioned, but I am with the Square D ones and they have to be removed from the breakers before the cover can be removed.
So I think you are correct to bring this approach up as adequate for many appliances, and I would guess that most inspectors would OK it for an outdoor direct wired EVSE and not require a nearby disconnect switch.
More complex appliances like an outdoor A/C unit or heat pump require a nearby "disconnecting means" probably because the repair-person may have to power the unit on and off multiple times during servicing, and one needs to see clearly that the unit is off or not (and not depend on one's memory -- i.e. "Is that circuit breaker locked open now or not???"). Article 440.14 (Location) seems to require "disconnecting means" be "within sight from" as well as "readily accessible" from such appliances.
iluvmacs
Well-known member
QueenBee said:
The install that I mentioned I performed used a breaker lockout kit in the panel instead of a local line-of-sight disconnect. This was on specific suggestion of the electrical inspector, since the owner of this house was trying to avoid having an "ugly" disconnect next to the EVSE in his garage...
iluvmacs
Well-known member
QueenBee said:
Actually more expensive this way. A simple disconnect is <$10. The tiny little piece of metal to put on the breaker to make it lockable was $12 (!), and the lock was $16. No difference in wiring, and mounting hardware is negligible. We installed everything ourselves, so there was no labor cost. Personally, I like having a local disconnect at my EVSE in case there is some issue, then I don't have to run to the breaker box to shut it off.
I don't think it has to be be lockable with a pad lock does it? Around here where we have lots of GE panels in residential they use these cheap things on dishwasher circuits: http://www.galesburgelectric.com/GE-THP100-Padlocking-Handle-Lock.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;iluvmacs said:
The wiring would certainly be different; longer, with more connections, and more labor. I can't find the recent install where the disconnect was mounted at eye level but it was certainly more labor to do that than to just wire it directly and snap in the above $3 lockout.
wantonsoup
Well-known member
Finally had the Schneider EVSE installed, I bought 8-2 NM wire and a 40-amp breaker. The electrician hard-wired it in my garage running it first to a junction box, then in a steel conduit up to the EVSE. So, theoretically, I could always turn the junction box into an outlet down the road. Took about 2.5 hours and I paid by the hour so it was very reasonable.
Now I just need a Leaf!
Now I just need a Leaf!
wantonsoup said:
Nice work, I really like this approach to doing stuff. Attempt to get a good understanding of things, provide materials, pay by the hour, and take the on the risk that if there is a problem/things take longer/etc. It's a great way to get things done when you don't have all the skills/experience and you have someone who does who just wants to get the job done and be paid a fair amount.
wantonsoup
Well-known member
Thanks. My advice to other people is never tell an electrician you're having them wire up an electric car. The price jumps to $500-900 for some ungodly reason. But a 40a 220 line is an hour or two of work at $70/hr..
wantonsoup said:
Yep, it's all about the risk that it might be more work for them or they be called back. Any good electrician is going to warranty their work and an EVSE adds a lot of complexity to just a 40A/240V circuit. A normal customer would be wanting the electrician to come back their EVSE isn't working and they have to account for that in their bid.
planet4ever
Well-known member
Isn't is rather odd to run NM wire inside steel conduit? I have always assumed it was correct to use NM inside walls and the like, but individual wires in conduit for exposed wiring.wantonsoup said:
Ray
planet4ever: In my case, NM cable was run (by electrical contractors) from the breaker box to just above the EVSE along the floor joists in the basement/garage, then inside intermediate metal conduit down a cider block wall, finishing with a short u-loop of flexible metal conduit entering the bottom of the EVSE (total length of conduit less than 5 feet).
NEC 334.15(B) (Protection from Physical Damage) requires that NM cable be protected by conduit (and allows metal conduit) when necessary.
Perhaps your perception about using individual wires inside conduit comes from not only a cost savings standpoint but also that it is much easier to pull wire(s) through a long length of conduit rather than cable(s). There is also the additional space (note there are maximum conduit fill restrictions) required by the cable sheathing, and for more than one circuit being run through the conduit there is the possible (cost and space) savings of needing only one grounding wire.
NEC 334.15(B) (Protection from Physical Damage) requires that NM cable be protected by conduit (and allows metal conduit) when necessary.
Perhaps your perception about using individual wires inside conduit comes from not only a cost savings standpoint but also that it is much easier to pull wire(s) through a long length of conduit rather than cable(s). There is also the additional space (note there are maximum conduit fill restrictions) required by the cable sheathing, and for more than one circuit being run through the conduit there is the possible (cost and space) savings of needing only one grounding wire.
iluvmacs
Well-known member
QueenBee said:
The inspector had "highly recommended" the type that was permanently attached to the panel, not a removable type. So we got the one that Square D sells for their breakers that does just that.
Wiring differences would vary by specific installation. It would have been no difference in length for us, since a potential disconnect box would just have been located in the last foot of space before the wiring was going to the EVSE anyway. And yeah, it might have taken another 15 minutes to install... but we weren't exactly getting paid for doing our own work!
iluvmacs said:QueenBee said:
The inspector had "highly recommended" the type that was permanently attached to the panel, not a removable type. So we got the one that Square D sells for their breakers that does just that.
Wiring differences would vary by specific installation. It would have been no difference in length for us, since a potential disconnect box would just have been located in the last foot of space before the wiring was going to the EVSE anyway. And yeah, it might have taken another 15 minutes to install... but we weren't exactly getting paid for doing our own work!
Hah, yeah, I would second the inspectors recommendation. The one I references is really a horrible design from a long term maintenance point of view. The one I put on my dishwasher was only from the time I passed inspection to the next time I took the front cover off.
A few months back (before buying a Leaf) I did a home remodel and ran a 10 gauge wire to the garage for future EV charger. I then bought my Leaf and purchased the Schneider EV2430WS 30-amp EVSE. After I saw the EVSE required a 40amp breaker (and therefore 8 ga wire) I was worried. I talked to an electrician and given the 6.6kWh draw he suggested I just use a 30amp breaker to see if trips, he was sure it wouldn't be a problem. I have been using the EVSE for a couple of weeks now and have never had the breaker trip. Just wanted to let others know my real world experience.
