2023 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE - Section 210.8(F)

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't know what UL standards are. If you are correct apparently the CMP doesn't know or doesn't care either.

...

Sometimes the code is used to drive product standards in the direction that the CMP wants the standard to go, but the typical future date of 3 years after a code is published is not long enough for a standard to be changed and for products to be designed and listed to the new standard. That future date should be at least 6 years when the new code rule requires a product standard to be revised.

Then there is also the issue of the Standards Technical Panel for GFCIs ignoring data that shows GFCIs can trip below 5 mA where there is high frequency leakage current...such current often exists where power conversion equipment is used to drive motors in the appliance.

I don't see a need for GFCI protection for hard wired equipment expect in some rare cases, like for equipment associated with a pool.

 

[mtnelect]

There should be two NEC codes. (1) Traditional code wiring that we have all learned through our apprenticeships and in-service training. (2) Digital code wiring that we have not been taught through our apprenticeships and in-service training.
We are all are entering the "Digital Age" that deal with electronics.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Sometimes the code is used to drive product standards in the direction that the CMP wants the standard to go, but the typical future date of 3 years after a code is published is not long enough for a standard to be changed and for products to be designed and listed to the new standard. That future date should be at least 6 years when the new code rule requires a product standard to be revised.

Then there is also the issue of the Standards Technical Panel for GFCIs ignoring data that shows GFCIs can trip below 5 mA where there is high frequency leakage current...such current often exists where power conversion equipment is used to drive motors in the appliance.

I don't see a need for GFCI protection for hard wired equipment expect in some rare cases, like for equipment associated with a pool.

My problem is not the need for class A protection but the requirement based on false narratives and arrogance from the CMP that results in complete deletion of the reference #acsarenotoutlets

 

[don_resqcapt19]

My problem is not the need for class A protection but the requirement based on false narratives and arrogance from the CMP that results in complete deletion of the reference #acsarenotoutlets

No idea of what that means

 

[Bill Snyder]

No idea of what that means

#acsarenotoutlets

 

[kwired]

No idea of what that means

with the # in front of it is probably a Twitter address

reading the rest of it probably is a thread/site title meaning AC's are not outlets

He doesn't believe that a hard wired AC unit has an "outlet" is what I take out of it, I don't use Twitter so not sure what content is at this address.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

with the # in front of it is probably a Twitter address

reading the rest of it probably is a thread/site title meaning AC's are not outlets

He doesn't believe that a hard wired AC unit has an "outlet" is what I take out of it, I don't use Twitter so not sure what content is at this address.

Thanks, I don't use twitter either.

I fully understand that he has no idea of what the defined term "outlet" means. I will be submitting a PI to make it 100% clear that any equipment that is powered from an electrical system and is functional, is connected to an outlet.

 

[LarryFine]

If utilization equipment comes with a factory-installed whip, the outlet is the box or disconnect where we terminate the whip. If we field-install a whip, does that really make a difference, or can the outlet still be the end with the box or disconnect?

Now, if the branch circuit conductors extend directly into the equipment, the wiring compartment must be the outlet, unless we can say it's the point where the cable or conduit leaves the surface of the building. That would be an interesting take.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If utilization equipment comes with a factory-installed whip, the outlet is the box or disconnect where we terminate the whip. If we field-install a whip, does that really make a difference, or can the outlet still be the end with the box or disconnect?

Now, if the branch circuit conductors extend directly into the equipment, the wiring compartment must be the outlet, unless we can say it's the point where the cable or conduit leaves the surface of the building. That would be an interesting take.

It would depend on the conductors in the field installed whip being branch circuit conductors or not. About the only time a field installed whip would not have branch circuit conductors is where the contractor assembles fixture whips using fixture wire and not branch circuit wire.
It really doesn't make any difference as long as everyone understands that any equipment that is supplied from premises wiring and that functions is connected to an outlet. The exact location of the outlet does not make much difference.

 

[kwired]

It would depend on the conductors in the field installed whip being branch circuit conductors or not. About the only time a field installed whip would not have branch circuit conductors is where the contractor assembles fixture whips using fixture wire and not branch circuit wire.
It really doesn't make any difference as long as everyone understands that any equipment that is supplied from premises wiring and that functions is connected to an outlet. The exact location of the outlet does not make much difference.

I agree, anything that is a "load" has an outlet, sometimes the exact location of that outlet is a little confusing, a lot of the time that exact location doesn't matter to us either.

 

[Bill Snyder]

I agree, anything that is a "load" has an outlet, sometimes the exact location of that outlet is a little confusing, a lot of the time that exact location doesn't matter to us either.

The location of the outlet point is the part that makes problems because multiple compatibility issues will arise if the interpretation states all hardwired utilization equipment installed outdoors of a dwelling unit requires Class A protection

 

[kwired]

The location of the outlet point is the part that makes problems because multiple compatibility issues will arise if the interpretation states all hardwired utilization equipment installed outdoors of a dwelling unit requires Class A protection

I agree that compatibility issues will and have risen. The one item that seems to have the most issues is the one item that had an incident that supposedly triggered this whole thing in the first place though. And now is the item that they have temporarily put in a temporary exception for, that tells me that at least for now they intend to follow through with the original intent and GFCI protect those HVAC units, yet have included pretty much everything located outdoors along with the HVAC units. I won't be one bit surprised down the road when it expands to more than just at dwellings. Not saying I think it makes sense, just won't be surprised. Some method of detecting that there is a sufficient EGC would make more sense to me with most hard wired equipment.

 

[ActionDave]

Some method of detecting that there is a sufficient EGC would make more sense to me with most hard wired equipment.

How about something that makes sense and is available now - GFPE level protection would be safer and superior to GFCI because it would sniff out problems without being as likely to nuisance trip and they still cost more than regular breakers. Win Win.

 

[kwired]

How about something that makes sense and is available now - GFPE level protection would be safer and superior to GFCI because it would sniff out problems without being as likely to nuisance trip and they still cost more than regular breakers. Win Win.

I agree though not completely sure how GFPE would respond to the high frequency issues that are becoming more and more of a problem for GFCI's. Both have very similar operation concepts just with different trip setting. Some but not all GFCI's also have added features to detect neutral to ground faults even if no load is being served, which I doubt any GFPE has this feature.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

How about something that makes sense and is available now - GFPE level protection would be safer and superior to GFCI because it would sniff out problems without being as likely to nuisance trip and they still cost more than regular breakers. Win Win.

If we want to go to a higher trip level, GFPE is not the answer as there are not a lot of rules covering how they function. The trip level and trip time are both left up to the manufacturer and not set by a product standard like the trip levels and trip times are for GFCI.

We could go to Special Purpose GFCIs as they have a maximum permitted trip level of 20 mA and use the same trip time formula as does the Class A GFCI. However, SPGFCIs are not available in the form of breakers or receptacles. They are all stand alone devices, and not real practical at this time. They do show up in Article 680 in the 2023 code as SPGFCIs are not limited to circuits that do not exceed 150 volts to ground. They also require an additional "ground check" conductor from the SPGFCI to the protected equipment. If either the fault clearing EGC or the ground check conductor becomes open the device trips.

 

[kwired]

If we want to go to a higher trip level, GFPE is not the answer as there are not a lot of rules covering how they function. The trip level and trip time are both left up to the manufacturer and not set by a product standard like the trip levels and trip times are for GFCI.

We could go to Special Purpose GFCIs as they have a maximum permitted trip level of 20 mA and use the same trip time formula as does the Class A GFCI. However, SPGFCIs are not available in the form of breakers or receptacles. They are all stand alone devices, and not real practical at this time. They do show up in Article 680 in the 2023 code as SPGFCIs are not limited to circuits that do not exceed 150 volts to ground. They also require an additional "ground check" conductor from the SPGFCI to the protected equipment. If either the fault clearing EGC or the ground check conductor becomes open the device trips.

Sounds kind of like they will be playing with different methods in the coming years, making new listing standards and/or code requirements and the installer still will be the one that takes on the most losses in the entire process trying to comply with codes yet keep the users happy when the next attempt still has bugs that need worked out.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Sounds kind of like they will be playing with different methods in the coming years, making new listing standards and/or code requirements and the installer still will be the one that takes on the most losses in the entire process trying to comply with codes yet keep the users happy when the next attempt still has bugs that need worked out.

The SPGFCI has been around for about 13 years now...not a lot of usage as the code did not require them in the past. They were developed for industrial users that wanted GFCI type protection for equipment that is connected to systems that have more than 150 volts to ground. They are covered by an Outline of Investigation, UL943C, and not a product standard. UL 943C was first published in 2009.

Products can be listed to Outlines of Investigation just like they can be to product standards. The difference is that the outline is developed by the standards writing organization without a Standards Technical Panel, STP (now known as a Technical Committee, TC). The TC brings in the consensus process just like what is used for the NEC Code Making Panels. I would expect that as these products become more common, that they will have a product standard and not just an outline of investigation.

The real differences are:
1) 20 mA trip in place of the Class A ~5 mA trip
2) can operate on voltage systems over 150 volts to ground Class C SPGFICs for circuits up to 300 volts to ground, and Class D SPGFCI for circuits over 300 volts to ground.
3) require a ground check conductor.
4) they are stand alone devices and not built into a breaker or receptacle.

The time to trip uses the same formula as a Class A GFCI. That is (20/I) raise to the 1.43 power where I = fault current in mA.

 

[mtnelect]

"Be sure to install a ground fault circuit interrupter. One that can handle higher harmonics.
This unit uses an inverter. Therefore, a ground fault circuit interrupter capable of handling higher harmonics must be used in
order to prevent the ground fault circuit interrupter malfunctioning."

The GFCI's that they have now can't handle the higher harmonics that the new inverter units cause.

The manufactures will have to come up with a specialized GFCI designed for HVAC only.

 

[Bill Snyder]

"Be sure to install a ground fault circuit interrupter. One that can handle higher harmonics.
This unit uses an inverter. Therefore, a ground fault circuit interrupter capable of handling higher harmonics must be used in
order to prevent the ground fault circuit interrupter malfunctioning."

The GFCI's that they have now can't handle the higher harmonics that the new inverter units cause.

The manufactures will have to come up with a specialized GFCI designed for HVAC only.

It won't be required in 2026

 

[Bill Snyder]

I agree that compatibility issues will and have risen. The one item that seems to have the most issues is the one item that had an incident that supposedly triggered this whole thing in the first place though. And now is the item that they have temporarily put in a temporary exception for, that tells me that at least for now they intend to follow through with the original intent and GFCI protect those HVAC units, yet have included pretty much everything located outdoors along with the HVAC units. I won't be one bit surprised down the road when it expands to more than just at dwellings. Not saying I think it makes sense, just won't be surprised. Some method of detecting that there is a sufficient EGC would make more sense to me with most hard wired equipment.

I agree with you if CMP-2 doesn't come off their class A high horse it will not be required on any hardwired utilization equipment starting with EVSE.