NEC definitely allows cord-and-plug connected 240V EVSEs

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

wwhitney

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
871
Location
Berkeley, CA
I've noticed some debate recently on whether the 2008 (and 2011) NEC allows EVSEs (other than 15A-20A/120V models) to be cord-and-plug-connected. I don't think the debate quite reached my last point below; if it has, I apologize for missing it.

As previously reported, 2008 NEC 624.13 says the following (parentheses by me):

625.13 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. 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.

The second "or" in the first sentence should be parsed as shown. So the permission given in the first sentence includes that given by deleting the first phrase enclosed in parentheses, yielding "Electric vehicle supply equipment 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."

I've checked the current (2007) California Electrical code (based on the 2005 NEC), and it has no changes to this section. Other states could vary, they do sometimes amend the NEC before adopting it.

For those conversant in building code language, this should be sufficient. However, in case there is any doubt remaining, it is worth looking to the statements made by the code-making panel in charge of section 625 during the process of preparing the changes for the 2011 NEC. In this document from the NFPA, see the bottom left corner of page 454, the panel statement on proposal 12-28 Log #2121 NEC-P12. It reads "The panel reaffirms its action on this proposal. An EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when the voltage is greater than 120 VAC." That is definitive, I think.

Now all we need is for someone to sell one commercially for us. :) I still believe it is true that the various NEMA plugs and receptacles were not designed for daily insertion and removal, so such a unit should not be moved between two locations on a daily basis (e.g. used at both home and work). But on a weekly or less frequent basis it could be very convenient.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Welcome to the forum Wayne.

Please search.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=10915#p10915

So - we agree that the current NEC might now allow portable and/or plug-in EVSE.

But since the overall EVSE process from the AC connection to the car connector is governed by J1772, and J1772 states quite clearly that level 2 EVSE is hard-wired to the supply, what'll you think it'll take to modify the spec before EVSE manufacturers can comply?
 
AndyH said:
In that post you quote a "substantiation" from the ROC document. A "substantiation" is just a comment made by the public at large, a reason given for a proposed change. The next proposal down gives the "panel statement" I quoted, which is what the code making panel itself has to say.

AndyH said:
So - we agree that the current NEC might now allow portable and/or plug-in EVSE.
There's no "might" about it, both the 2008 NEC and the 2011 NEC as currently drafted allow cord-and-plug-connected EVSE meeting the given requirements.

AndyH said:
But since the overall EVSE process from the AC connection to the car connector is governed by J1772, and J1772 states quite clearly that level 2 EVSE is hard-wired to the supply, what'll you think it'll take to modify the spec before EVSE manufacturers can comply?
I didn't see that information in the thread you quoted, can you provide a pointer to the relevant section of J1772? I agree that requirement should be deleted. In any event, the requirement doesn't yet have the force of law. Now if UL incorporates it into its listing requirements, that would effectively kill the possibility, as the cord-and-plug-connection allowance provided by NEC 625.13 requires the EVSE be listed for the purpose.

Thanks,
Wayne
 
Have you read the latest J1772? It's very clear which devices can have a plug and which cannot. There's a link to a soft copy of the J1772 here as well.

Again - welcome!
 
AndyH said:
Have you read the latest J1772? It's very clear which devices can have a plug and which cannot.
OK, I found the J1772 pdf file and looked through it quickly it and searched for a few relevant terms. Nothing jumped out at me. Can you provide a page number or other reference for me?

Thanks,
Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
For those conversant in building code language, this should be sufficient. However, in case there is any doubt remaining, it is worth looking to the statements made by the code-making panel in charge of section 625 during the process of preparing the changes for the 2011 NEC. In this document from the NFPA, see the bottom left corner of page 454, the panel statement on proposal 12-28 Log #2121 NEC-P12. It reads "The panel reaffirms its action on this proposal. An EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when the voltage is greater than 120 VAC." That is definitive, I think.

We have two possible page 454s. The first is page 454 of the PDF doc. The second is 70-454 (PDF page 467).

Page 70-454, lower left, is not the 12-28/NEC-P12 you suggest.

Page 454 of the PDF (hard-copy page 70-441), lower left, is about 625-29(b) - EVSE wall mounting and considerations for hazardous environments. This has absolutely nothing to do with confirming/denying the ability to connect a Level 2 EVSE with a plug/socket.
12-34 Log #2405 NEC-P12 Final Action: Accept
(625.29(B))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Brian E. Rock, Hubbell Inc.
Comment on Proposal No: 12-64
Recommendation: I support the panel action.
Substantiation: This Comment is provided to aid Panel 12 with regard to the
accuracy of the Panel Statement for P12-84. As one of the co-authors (along
with Tim Croushore, Greg Nieminski, Charlie Claar, Craig Toepfer, etc.) under
EPRI IWC Task Force Chair Dave Brown of the original Article 625, I can
provide insight as to the technical basis for the 18-inch lower height limit that
the Submitter sought to change.
The primary purpose of the National Electrical Code® is to insure
installations safe from the risk of fire and shock. To the extent that other
mandates unrelated to this primary purpose (such as ADA), those were taken
into account, as reflected by 4-foot upper height limit from ADA. Where
those mandates for other purposes leava a “gap” in terms of electrically safe
installations, the primary purpose must predominate.
For the lower limit, however, the use of electric vehicle charging equipment
is highly likely in a mixed environment of electric-powered and gasolinepowered
vehicles. This mixed usage environment includes refueling/recharing
of gasoline- and electric-powered vehicles.
Section 625.28 requires that EVSE installed in Hazardous (Classified)
Locations must comply with Articles 500 through 516, specifically Article 514
for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities. Table 514.3(B)(1) establishes an upper
gasoline fume height limit of 18 inches, this was taken by the Task Force to
establish the lower limit for nonhazardous (unclassified) ordinary locations
so that there would be no “gray areas” with regard to this boundary between
potential gasoline fume accumulation and where EVSE could be safely located
in ordinary locations.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14


This is the item that was presented and approved - from which I pulled the 'substantiation' text (I suggested in my post to look for the article mid-page, left column, page 453:

12-27 Log #1405 NEC-P12 Final Action: Accept
(625.13)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Frank C. Lambert, Georgia Tech/NEETRAC / Rep. Plug-In Hybrid
& Electric Vehicle Working Group
Comment on Proposal No: 12-54
Recommendation: We support the committee’s action on this proposal.
Substantiation: EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and
625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when it is greater than 120 VAC.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
_______________________________________________________________

This change was apparently compiled for a June 2010 meeting.

The current J1772 spec was ratified in Jan 2010 - well before this change was accepted. In addition, the roll-out plan, DOE-funded studies and presentations, and current EVSE products that are either on the streets or are undergoing UL approval, were prepared before this NEC change was accepted.

What it comes down to now is the UL approval and/or warranty support an EVSE manufacturer will provide if an end-user purchases a device designed for permanent wall mounting and installs a flexible cord with the required strain relief. (I wonder if the plastic case for the AV EVSE was designed to support a strain relief for the entry cord?)

Can we use a plug legally? Maybe. Illegally? Doesn't matter how the NEC has changed.
 
wwhitney said:
For those conversant in building code language, this should be sufficient. However, in case there is any doubt remaining, it is worth looking to the statements made by the code-making panel in charge of section 625 during the process of preparing the changes for the 2011 NEC. In this document from the NFPA, see the bottom left corner of page 454, the panel statement on proposal 12-28 Log #2121 NEC-P12. It reads "The panel reaffirms its action on this proposal. An EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when the voltage is greater than 120 VAC." That is definitive, I think.
My apologies, the statement on comment 12-28 Log #2121 NEC-P12 is on page 453 of the PDF file, not 454. This page is also marked 70-440 on the bottom.

AndyH said:
This is the item that was presented and approved - from which I pulled the 'substantiation' text (I suggested in my post to look for the article mid-page, left column, page 453:
Right, the comment I am referencing is the one just below that.

AndyH said:
This change was apparently compiled for a June 2010 meeting.
I'm not sure of the timing. The NEC revision process is quite involved:

For each code cycle there is a deadline for submitting proposed changes; anyone can do that. Then the code-making committees consider each proposal and take an action on it, often a vote. If the vote is negative, then they usually make a statement why. This content becomes the Report on Proposals, the ROP, which is made public. Then people get an opportunity to comment on each committee action on each proposal. The code making committees then consider all the comments and again vote on any actions recommended by the commenters. This becomes the Report on Comments, the ROC. At this point I believe that a Draft NEC gets published, and there may be one more round of comments and voting (not sure).

Anyway the ROC file we both referenced does not contain the original proposals or the comittee actions on those proposals, it only contains the comments on the committee actions and the committee responses to the comments. For example, in the entry you referenced, we have the submitter of the comment, the proposal number for which the submitter is commenting on the committee's action, the submitter's recommendation, his reasons for the recommendation (the substantiation), and the panel's action in response to that comment.

The upshot is that a "substantiation" is just anybody's stated reason for the code making committee to do something. In contrast, a panel statement, usually made after a vote, is a reflection of what the pane itself has to say on something. So the "panel statement" I originally quoted shows how the panel that wrote 625.13 interprets it. Sorry I wasn't clear about the difference in my original post.

AndyH said:
What it comes down to now is the UL approval and/or warranty support an EVSE manufacturer will provide if an end-user purchases a device designed for permanent wall mounting and installs a flexible cord with the required strain relief.
Oh, I'm not proposing that at all. I'm just saying that there is no legal impediment I am aware of to a manufacturer designing, listing, and selling a cord-and-plug-connected EVSE operating at 240V compliant with NEC 625.13. Unless there is some part of J1772 you can point me to, and UL incorporates that part of J1772 into its listing requirement.

Cheers, Wayne
 
12-27 Log #1405 NEC-P12 Final Action: Accept
(625.13)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Frank C. Lambert, Georgia Tech/NEETRAC / Rep. Plug-In Hybrid
& Electric Vehicle Working Group
Comment on Proposal No: 12-54
Recommendation: We support the committee’s action on this proposal.
Substantiation: EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and
625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when it is greater than 120 VAC.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
_______________________________________________________________

So...this specific item is essentially a statement of support from Mr. Lambert?

What does the "final action: Accept" and "panel meeting action: accept" mean?

I hoped that the pair of 'accept' items meant that the substantiation text would appear in the next revision.

edit... I did jump ahead when I read this - because this gent couldn't support the decision to allow plug-in connections if there wasn't something posted somewhere that allowed plug-in connections. I hadn't found the 'source' item however.
 
Nice - this is what I was planning to spend some time on. Liiks like Wayne has already done that.

BTW, Wayne welcome to the forum. Are you involved with NEC or industry in some way ?
 
AndyH said:
12-27 Log #1405 NEC-P12 Final Action: Accept
(625.13)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Frank C. Lambert, Georgia Tech/NEETRAC / Rep. Plug-In Hybrid
& Electric Vehicle Working Group
Comment on Proposal No: 12-54
Recommendation: We support the committee’s action on this proposal.
Substantiation: EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and
625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when it is greater than 120 VAC.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
_______________________________________________________________

So...this specific item is essentially a statement of support from Mr. Lambert?
Yes, that's right. To even find out what is being discussed, we need to find the ROP and look for proposal 12-54. The ROP is available from the NFPA's website. Proposal 12-54 occurs on PDF page 809 and consists of changing 625.13 to read "Electric vehicle supply equipment rated at 125 volts, single phase, 15 or 20 amperes 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." That is, the proposal would have specifically deleted the language that currently allows cord-and-plug-connected EVSE operating at greater than 120VAC.

The panel's action on proposal 12-54 was to reject the proposal unanimously and issue the statement "Panel Statement: Cord and plug connected electric vehicles are already permitted. CMP-12 does not accept eliminating equipment that meets the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29. This is outside the scope of the NEC as it deals with the hazards of fire and shock, and the NEC does not regulate product development"

After this all occurred and was published in the ROP, then Mr. Lambert wrote in to say "good job".

AndyH said:
What does the "final action: Accept" and "panel meeting action: accept" mean?
It means that the panel voted to agree with Mr. Lambert that it had done a good job. :)

AndyH said:
I hoped that the pair of 'accept' items meant that the substantiation text would appear in the next revision.

No, but what I mentioned in my original post is that there was another comment on the committee action on proposal 12-54, comment 12-28, just after the one discussed above. There someone wrote in to suggest that instead of rejecting Proposal 12-54, they should rewrite it to change 625.13 to allow any EVSE that is rated at 240V/20A or less to be cord-and-plug-connected (without being explicitly referred to 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29). Sort of the opposite effect of the original proposal. The committee rejected this proposed action in comment 12-28. In doing so they issued the panel statement I originally quoted which says, to paraphrase, "in case it wasn't clear, 625.13 already allows EVSE operating at 240V to be cord-plug-connected, subject to compliance with 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29."

Hence the title of this thread.

Cheers, Wayne
 
evnow said:
BTW, Wayne welcome to the forum. Are you involved with NEC or industry in some way ?
Only as an interested polyglot. I'm working full time (and alone) on remodeling my 1910 house in Berkeley, CA. That included replacing all the premises wiring, so I became interested in the NEC and started following discussions at the great website forums.mikeholt.com. From reading there I absorbed how to decipher ROPs and ROCs, and how to use them to elucidate the meaning of unclear code language via the code-making panels' comments. Of course, such comments don't have the force of law, but hopefully would help one convince any misguided local building officials.

Cheers, Wayne
 
AndyH said:
So...this specific item is essentially a statement of support from Mr. Lambert?

Yes. Essentially there were two comments on this aspect with Lambert supporting and Anthony (#2121) asking for a revision. The support would have been to essentially oppose the revision. The support was accepted (essentially means no change) and the revision request was rejected. But the important thing is panel statement - which clarifies the position in black&white.

Panel Statement: The panel reaffirms its action on this proposal. An EVSE meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 can be cord-and-plug connected even when the voltage is greater than 120 VAC.

This is what we should use everywhere to show that 240V EVSE need not be hardwired.
 
wwhitney said:
Only as an interested polyglot. I'm working full time (and alone) on remodeling my 1910 house in Berkeley, CA. That included replacing all the premises wiring, so I became interested in the NEC and started following discussions at the great website forums.mikeholt.com. From reading there I absorbed how to decipher ROPs and ROCs, and how to use them to elucidate the meaning of unclear code language via the code-making panels' comments. Of course, such comments don't have the force of law, but hopefully would help one convince any misguided local building officials.

Interesting, thanks for the link.

So, are you planning to wire the house for now for an EVSE ?
 
I think that there is NOT any "clear statement" in the J1772 standard that Level 2 EVSE's be hardwired.

Table 1 says "Per NEC 625"

Figure 4 (described as "The primary method ...", not the ONLY method) labels the two hot wires simply as the "Electric Supply", without any requirement for plugin or hardwired.

Perhaps, because a plug is not shown explicitly in Figure 4, some interpret that as "plugin forbidden"?

So, nothing I can find in J1772 specificly requires "hard-wired" (or specifically prohibits plugin) for Level 2 EVSE.

So, what part of J1772 is AndyH referring to?

Some states have not yet adopted the 2008 NEC, and an earlier version of NEC 625 apparently did not provide for plugin Level 2 EVSEs. Perhaps that is where the confusion arises?
 
evnow said:
So, are you planning to wire the house for now for an EVSE ?
Well, my garage is detached and currently in danger of falling down. :) Right now I'm remodeling my ktichen, after that I have some exterior work to finish. So sometime next year I can demolish the garage and build a replacement. It will likely have a 60 or 100 amp feeder to it and therefore be trivial to wire for an EVSE.

In the meantime, I will rely on 120V charging via an exterior receptacle by the driveway. My girlfriend's commute is about 20 miles roundtrip, so no problem. I obviously work at home and can use the Prius for my occasional needs. Also, I refuse to pay someone $1500 for easy work I can do myself, including the permits.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Also, I refuse to pay someone $1500 for easy work I can do myself, including the permits.

Absolutely. I think Nissan didn't realize that initially there will be a lot of people who want to do this on their own or may be there really aren't that many. It just seems so in a forum like this. Either way - Nissan should encourage such people clealy stating they welcome such enthusiasts. May be even sell EVSE through the dealers ... if someone is going to make money selling EVSEs, why not their dealers ?
 
evnow said:
wwhitney said:
Also, I refuse to pay someone $1500 for easy work I can do myself, including the permits.

Absolutely. I think Nissan didn't realize that initially there will be a lot of people who want to do this on their own or may be there really aren't that many. It just seems so in a forum like this. Either way - Nissan should encourage such people clealy stating they welcome such enthusiasts. May be even sell EVSE through the dealers ... if someone is going to make money selling EVSEs, why not their dealers ?
Thank you, Wayne, for all the elucidation !

Yes, sell thru dealer, good idea. But we don't know anything about the partnership agreement Nissan has with AV that might interfere with this strategy.
 
Wayne - I saw the item on the lower left of page 453 (70-440):
12-28 Log #2121 NEC-P12 Final Action: Reject
(625.13)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Michael A. Anthony, University of Michigan / Rep. APPA.ORG -
Association of Education Facility Executives
Comment on Proposal No: 12-54
Recommendation: Accept in Principle. Modify 625.13 as written by the
submitter, Mr. Lambert, as shown below:
Electric vehicle supply equipment rated at 125 volts, single phase, 15 or 20
amperes shall be permitted to be cord-and-plug-connected. EVSE rated greater
than 20 amperes and not more than 250 volts and or a part of a system 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.
Substantiation: This is an important proposal and I would not like to see
its core concept lost because of a technicality. Equipment run at 250V and
20A is very common and concern over voltage and current charging platform
should not impede development of this technology in households, schools, or
elsewhere.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel reaffirms its action on this proposal. An EVSE
meeting the requirements of 625.18, 625.19, and 625.29 can be cord-and-plug
connected even when the voltage is greater than 120 VAC.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14

when I found the items that I originally quoted in the 'marine plug' thread.

So... If this is definitive then I have to agree that we can use a cordset.

If that's the case, then why in the world have J1772, the DoE-sponsored eTEC briefings to various US regions and Canada, and the current batch of EVSE manufacturers chosen to only support/promote/specifiy a hard connection for J1772 Jan 10-compliant EVSE?

Did they misunderstand the NEC? Is there something else in play?

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=10902#p10902
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=10911#p10911
http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib...arging Infrastructure Guidelines-BC-Aug09.pdf
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=10893#p10893
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=10500#p10500
Clipper Creek LCS-20 Datasheet says the device must be hardwired:
http://www.absoluteefficiency.com/LEAF/EVSE/ClipperCreek_LCS-20.pdf

Or could it be that the PREVIOUS NEC - the one in effect when all this stuff was in 'gestation mode' - was the limiting factor?

http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib...arging Infrastructure Guidelines-BC-Aug09.pdf
Page 63 references applicable NEC articles. This version of 625.14 clearly prohibits L2 w/plugs. The current NEC doesn't include this text, but the entire EVSE industry and standards bodies are acting as if it's still in place.

Section 625.14 Rating:
Level 1. 125vac. This method, which allows broad access to charge an EV, permits plugging into a common, grounded 125-volt electrical receptacle (NEMA 5-15R or 5-20R) when cord-and-plug is approved. Level 2. 240 VAC, 40 amp. electric vehicle supply equipment shall be permanently connected and fastened in place.
 
garygid said:
I think that there is NOT any "clear statement" in the J1772 standard that Level 2 EVSE's be hardwired.

Table 1 says "Per NEC 625"

Figure 4 (described as "The primary method ...", not the ONLY method) labels the two hot wires simply as the "Electric Supply", without any requirement for plugin or hardwired.

Yes, Gary, it is described as the 'primary method'. Sigh. it's not saying the Primary Method refers to how the EVSE is connected to the AC supply - it's saying:
4.3 AC Level 2 Charging
The primary method of EV/PHEV charging that extends AC power from the electric supply to an on-board charger from a dedicated EVSE as shown in Figure 4.

DEFINITIONS
3.1 AC Level 1 Charging
A method that allows an EV/PHEV to be connected to the most common grounded electrical receptacles (NEMA 5-15R and NEMA 5-20R. THe vehicle shall be fitted with an on-board charger capable of accepting energy from the existing single phase alternating current (AC) supply network. The maximum power supplied for AC Level 1 charging shall conform to the values in Table 1. A cord and plug EVSE with a NEMA 5-15P plug may be used with a NEMA 5-1=20R receptacle. A cord and plug EVSE with a NEMA 5-20P plug is not compatible with a NEMA 5-15R receptacle.

3.2 AC Level 2 Charging
A methos that uses dedicated AC EV/PHEV supply equipment in either private or public locations. The vehicle shall be fitted with an on-board charger capable of accepting energy from a single phase alternating current (AC) electric vehicle supply equipment. The maximum power supplied for AC level 2 charging shall conform to the values in Table 1.

Notice that the definition of L1 DID include 1. that fact that it COULD be connected with a plug, and 2. the exact combination of plugs that can be used. Now notice what is NOT included in the L2 definition - no mention of plug what so ever.

This is also reflected throughout the balance of the document. All the diagrams for a L1 EVSE show a plug and define that plug like this: NEMA 5-15 or 5-20 Plug -- while the diagrams for L2 devices say 'electric supply'.

They don't specify a plug for L2 devices because they have already stated in the beginning of the document that OTHER standards also apply - and one of those standards is the NEC - and the NEC in place when the standard was being worked SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED hard-wiring the EVSE to the mains supply.

IF a plug was allowed, they are required to tell us what plug to use because their definition of the scope of the standard is (page 4):
1. SCOPE
This SAE Recommended Practice covers the general physical, electrical, functional and performance requirements to facilitate conductive charging of EV/PHEV vehicles in North America. This document defines a common EV/PHEV and supply equipment vehicle conductive charging method including operational requirements and the functional dimensional requirements for the vehicle inlet and mating connector.

The DID define the range of connectors allowed for connecting a L1 device to mains, but did NOT define the range of connectors allowed for a L2 device because their spec is limited by the NEC and the NEC in place at the time forbids connectors for L2.

garygid said:
Perhaps, because a plug is not shown explicitly in Figure 4, some interpret that as "plugin forbidden"?

So, nothing I can find in J1772 specificly requires "hard-wired" (or specifically prohibits plugin) for Level 2 EVSE.

So, what part of J1772 is AndyH referring to?

Some states have not yet adopted the 2008 NEC, and an earlier version of NEC 625 apparently did not provide for plugin Level 2 EVSEs. Perhaps that is where the confusion arises?

I've already quoted you page and section and copied the blasted definition of a L1 and L2 device per J1772 that clearly shows the difference. No organization is going to say in paragraph 3.12: Gary - what this means is that we don't want you to connect a potentially 90A device to your 40A dryer plug in a garage where you might store gasoline or have a gas-fueled water heater. So sorry." :evil:

While the CURRENT NEC - the 2008 with changes voted later - might allow a plug - that very very clearly was not the case when the DoE sent eTEC to tell the entire country how to do it. If it was already legal to connect the EVSE with a plug, why is Nissan spending so much money to streamline the permitting and inspection process for hard-wired EVSE? Why do the EVSE manufacturers state specifically that the devices must be hard-wired? Why are EV advocacy organizations suggesting that 100% hardwired might be too restrictive? I listened to the last J1772 meeting - JUNE 2010 - and there were a lot of organizations represented - including auto companies and EVSE manufacturers - and they seem to be under the impression that the devices need to be hard wired.

So no. It might be allowed NOW per the 2008 NEC as amended - and that's GREAT! But it was not allowed when all these specs and briefings and plans and other now-overcome-by-events documents were created.
 
Back
Top