625.43 - EVSE Emergency Disconnect - 2026 NEC Changes

N

NTambo

Member
Location
Ohio
Occupation
Electrical Designer
625.43 has been expanded in the 2026 edition of the NEC to include a requirement for "one or more clearly identified emergency disconnect devices or electrical disconnects" to be installed not between 20ft and 100ft from the equipment for permanently connected EVSE and WPTE. I have heard some folks who are familiar with EVSE design say that adding a shunt trip to open the EVSE breaker would satisfy this requirement, but I am not 100% convinced. My understanding is that when the NEC says "disconnect" it means a device like a switch or circuit breaker that physically makes or breaks the connection, not a remote control device like a shunt trip. Does anyone have any input on how they interpret the modifications to this code section and why or why not a shunt trip would satisfy the requirements?

I am also having a hard time wrapping my head around how this requirement would apply to large EVSE sites (for example, the large Tesla station in Kettleman City, CA) where the EVSE rectifier cabinets are more than 200' from the EVSE dispensers. In that scenario, it would be nearly impossible to comply with the requirement because any disconnect installed would be more than 100' from either the rectifier cabinet or the dispensers. I suppose an additional disconnect could be installed in the DC run from rectifier cabinet to dispenser, but would installing a disconnect between two pieces of equipment that are frequently UL listed together be an issue?

Thanks in advance.
 
The code language requires "emergency disconnect devices" or "electrical disconnects" which would permit the use of an e-stop button that operates a shunt trip breaker.
 
Good to know, my understanding up until know was terms like "remote control device" were used in the code when talking about shunt trips. Are there other instances of the code that require disconnecting means where shunt trips are commonly used to satisfy the requirement?
 
NTambo said:
Good to know, my understanding up until know was terms like "remote control device" were used in the code when talking about shunt trips. Are there other instances of the code that require disconnecting means where shunt trips are commonly used to satisfy the requirement?
Click to expand...
This rule was modeled after the emergency stop for gas stations. I agree that when the code uses the term "disconnect" it almost always means that you must install a device that physically opens the circuits and would not permit remote operation.
While the language here is not really clear, the intent it to allow remote operation of the device that actually cuts off power to the EV charging equipment.
This rule is for the first responders as it provides a means for them to disconnect the source of external power when battling an EV fire at a charging station. Of course there is no way to eliminate the hazard from the battery voltage, but this does provide a method to eliminate the external power.
In the case of a line of EV chargers all next to each other, there will only be on emergency stop and the power to all of the charging stations will have to be disconnected by the single device.
 
After reading the gas station requirements (NFPA 30E 6.7) I now see the parallels in the language between the two sections. I'm surprised the authors didn't copy the language verbatim if the intent was the same though. I would be willing to bet that once the 2026 code is adopted there will be at least a few strict AHJs/inspectors that require a true disconnect/circuit breaker.

Greatly appreciate the input, always educational here.
 
NTambo said:
2026 code is adopted there will be at least a few strict AHJs/inspectors that require a true disconnect/circuit breaker.
Click to expand...
Those would need to be challenged as that would be very costly and not what the intent of the rule is.
 
PaulEd said:
Would this requirement also require the disconnect to be “within sight” of the load?

I would think the switch would require to be
Click to expand...
"Within sight" is included in the new code language, but only for the emergency disconnecting means. To me, this would mean that the E-stop button, not the circuit breaker/upstream disconnect, needs to be within sight of the EVSE.

That question brought my attention to something else that seems odd in this article. The definition of "within site" in 110 says not more than 50ft, but the new language in 625.43 states "not more than 100ft and within site". Those two requirements seem to be in conflict with each other.
 
PaulEd said:
Would this requirement also require the disconnect to be “within sight” of the load?

I would think the switch would require to be
Click to expand...
The code says this.
625.43(E)(1)(1) Be installed in a readily accessible location not less than 6.0 m (20 ft) nor more than 30.0 m (100 ft) from the equipment and in sight from the equipment
Click to expand...
 
NTambo said:
"Within sight" is included in the new code language, but only for the emergency disconnecting means. To me, this would mean that the E-stop button, not the circuit breaker/upstream disconnect, needs to be within sight of the EVSE.
Click to expand...
While the code section uses the language "in sight from" it really should not do that as that language would require the e-stop to be within 50' of the charging equipment. The code language specifies that the e-stop be not less than 20' or more than 100' from the equipment.
 
NTambo said:
Does anyone have any input on how they interpret the modifications to this code section and why or why not a shunt trip would satisfy the requirements?
I am also having a hard time wrapping my head around how this requirement would apply to large EVSE site
Click to expand...
We've had a local code that does the same thing.
Shunt trip satisfies them, but is a miserable solution we hate hate hate. It applies poorly to a large EVSE site, who wants to dump 4 mW of power all at once of what's probably some homeless due pressing buttons of hate ?
 
brycenesbitt said:
what's probably some homeless due pressing buttons of hate
Click to expand...
The intended use is for first responders, so I would be ok with the button being in "knoxbox" type enclosure with the fire department having the key to open the box like they do for keys in knoxboxes on many commercial buildings.

For sure if it is in the open, the button will be pushed.

The activation of the shut down does nothing to lessen the fire if there is an EV fire, so there is no need for anyone other than a first responder to activate the emergency stop. It is simply based on the idea that the charger may still be flowing current into the battery as the firefighters try to fight the battery fire. That is probably not likely, but all systems fail and this would remove any possible external voltage.
 
I would think that a
NTambo said:
"Within sight" is included in the new code language, but only for the emergency disconnecting means. To me, this would mean that the E-stop button, not the circuit breaker/upstream disconnect, needs to be within sight of the EVSE.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure I can agree even if it’s done like this for other installations.

Aren’t disconnect switches for equipment used to remove power from it for servicing? What’s stopping someone from turning the breaker on after you’ve tripped it? “In sight of” I was always taught was you can reasonable someone from energizing by having the disconnect insight. This isn’t possible with a remote switch imo.

don_resqcapt19 what do you think?
 
PaulEd said:
I would think that a


I’m not sure I can agree even if it’s done like this for other installations.

Aren’t disconnect switches for equipment used to remove power from it for servicing? What’s stopping someone from turning the breaker on after you’ve tripped it? “In sight of” I was always taught was you can reasonable someone from energizing by having the disconnect insight. This isn’t possible with a remote switch imo.

don_resqcapt19 what do you think?
Click to expand...
This is not a disconnect switch...it is an emergency stop system to permit first responders to remove power from the chargers. Typically, when there is an emergency stop switch, the power remains off until restored and the stop switch itself cannot restore power. I see the most common system to comply with rule as being a e-stop that operates a shunt trip breaker and you would have to physically reset the breaker to restore power.
For service work, that breaker would have a provisions for lockout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top