TIA on Emergency Disconnects for EVSE - 27 January 2026 Comment Deadline

[brycenesbitt]

This is unfortunately a messy requirement. It has already resulted in this attempt at a patch.
But at least there's now an alternative to the really unworkable manual reset requirement.

NFPA 70®-2026 Edition National Electrical Code®
TIA Log No.: 1874 Reference: 625.43(D)
Comment Closing Date: January 27, 2026
Submitter: Kris Dooley, Department of Homeland Security National Urban Security www.nfpa.org/70

1. Revise section 625.43(D) to read as follows:

(D) Emergency Shutoff.
(1) Emergency Disconnect Devices. For other than one- and two-family dwellings, all permanently connected EVSE and WPTE shall be provided with one or more clearly identified emergency disconnect shutoff devices or electrical disconnects in accordance...
(5) Be a manual reset type
Exception to (5): An alternative reset type shutoff shall be permitted if approved by the AHJ.

For full details see
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-70-standard-development/70

 

[Elect117]

Ahhh yes. Because shut off and disconnect are almost the same thing.

Your computer's power button is a shut off. It doesn't disconnect power. It just turns it off.

Example, your computer is smoking. Is the power button disconnecting power? no. it is just turning it off. The disconnection from power comes from the cord being removed from the receptacle.

I don't really care for the disconnect requirement. It seems like a pointless addition to the code. Because, only in non-residential it is important.... These things are silly. It is either important and should be treated like motors (or HVAC without exception) or it shouldn't be required.

They want shut off and visible because it is easier to make vague? And the justification is the rule is too restrictive and jurisdictions are going to ignore it. lol. They seem to be missing the damn point. Stop trying to add equipment. Instead, go after NEMA or testing standards to put in automatic disconnection or force them to put it on a transfer switch if you are worried about back feed.

And don't forget the silent addition of needing a "qualified person" and the AHJ to approve. Not just the AHJ. Who would be qualified to say whether or not the shut off was in a good location if not the code or the AHJ. Would it be the fire dept? Would it be an engineer? Would it be the electrician?

 

[brycenesbitt]

We have a local jurisdiction that adopted a local code to the same effect (disconnects).
That same jurisdiction came to my company asking for installs. We said "nope", there's lower hanging fruit elsewhere.
They seemed unclear that the actual problem with EVs is the battery, not the AC charger. But kind of like the person who searches for lost keys where the light is better, there's nothing they can do about the battery.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But at least there's now an alternative to the really unworkable manual reset requirement.

What type of shut-off would not require a manual action to restore power?
An actual disconnect, requires physical action to restore the power.
A button that trips a breaker with a shunt trip device, requires the breaker to be reset to restore power.

 

[brycenesbitt]

What type of shut-off would not require a manual action to restore power?

Unlike gas stations, which have an attendant during busy hours,
most public EV charging stations are completely unattended. A big red button to shut them down is fine.
But if based on video evidence and the station's computer reporting to the cloud the station is actually fine, we want the ability to send electronic reset signal and boot the station back to life.

Inadvertent or malicious e-Stop trips can create hazards beyond the electrical equipment . This is exacerbated when the motorist is unable or unwilling to reset the e-Stop device themselves. For example, resetting a e-Stop may require contacting building maintenance. Or, the motorist may be required to wait for road service to restore a remote highway charging system to operation. Motor vehicles are critical systems: a charging failure can leave the motorist with insufficient charge to commute, to safely escape, or could lead to risk taking as the motorist attempts without sufficient charge to reach the next charging station.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But if based on video evidence and the station's computer reporting to the cloud the station is actually fine, we want the ability to send electronic reset signal and boot the station back to life.

I would consider that a manual reset.

Inadvertent or malicious e-Stop trips can create hazards beyond the electrical equipment

We are working on an amendment for when we adopt the 2026 code later this year that will require a Knox®Remote Power Box. This will be keyed the same as all of the Knox key entry boxes in the city and only the fire department has a key. Our amendment will not permit any other type of shutdown device. We see no reason for the public to have access to the power shut down.

However there would be no remote way to turn the power back on as the KnoxBox would be used along with shunt trip breakers. Given that the fire department is the only one that can operate the shutdown, there should be no issues with a power shut down initiated when it shouldn't be.

An unprotected button will just be pushed by random people for the fun of it or because they don't like EVs

 

[brycenesbitt]

An unprotected button will just be pushed by random people for the fun of it or because they don't like EVs

We tried to make that argument, but it fell flat.
In fact stories were told of liquid fuel emergency situations where a bystander pressed the e-Stop button, and that was a powerful theme in the argument for the rule as it stands.

I'd agree that FD initiated shutdown should be FD released.
But once released it should be possible to remote restart. We tried again to get permission for the security cameras and LTE/WiFi networking equipment to remain energized during an e-Stop shutoff, but again we got shut down.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We tried to make that argument, but it fell flat.
In fact stories were told of liquid fuel emergency situations where a bystander pressed the e-Stop button, and that was a powerful theme in the argument for the rule as it stands.

I'd agree that FD initiated shutdown should be FD released.
But once released it should be possible to remote restart. We tried again to get permission for the security cameras and LTE/WiFi networking equipment to remain energized during an e-Stop shutoff, but again we got shut down.

Gasoline dispensing has nothing to do with electrical vehicle charging. This should not have be modeled on NFPA 30A as the types of facilities are so much different.

There would almost never be a reason for a member of the general public to initiate an emergency shut down of an EV charger as it does nothing to protect the public. Unlike a gas station where the shut down stops the flow of fuel.

If the fire department initiates the shutdown it is extremely unlikely that the system is in any condition to be reset without a physical response to the site.

 

[Elect117]

I agree with Don.

If a battery is cooking then there is nothing that is going to stop it.

All the disconnect is doing is turning power off to the chargers so the firemen can approach without fear of live wires.

AND NOBODY should be remote viewing to turn it back on. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. It is just a way to outsource responsibility. Some third party company that "trained" their overseas "technicians" in viewing a 15 frame per second feed with a dirty 480p camera. They are definitely not going to screw that up...

All I am saying is, why even require a disconnect other than the main / breaker. Firemen should just shut the building down or the parking lot's main down and then fight it.

Like, I don't get the purpose. Do the firemen need to see the disconnect in order for it to exist?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

All I am saying is, why even require a disconnect other than the main / breaker. Firemen should just shut the building down or the parking lot's main down and then fight it.

Often those will not be accessible to first responders, so our proposed code change will let the Knox® Remote Power Box. switch open a shunt trip breaker or breakers killing all of the power to all of the chargers that are within 100' of the Knox® Remote Power Box.

 

[brycenesbitt]

I agree with Don.
If a battery is cooking then there is nothing that is going to stop it.

If a battery is cooking, the charger long ago disconnected.
Or to be precise: the BMS said of f*k, dropped the control pilot signal, and the EVSE responded by shutting off power.
All that long before the fire truck even arrived.

Firemen should just shut the building down or the parking lot's main down and then fight it.

The vast majority of public stations have a dedicated meter for the EV.
I've heard that "badly labeled breakers" are the reason for e-Stop. Nonsense. Let's just switch that for badly labeled disconnects.
If you wanted to solve the disconnect labeling issue, then make it an annual fire inspection requirement to have proper labels.

 

[brycenesbitt]

If the fire department initiates the shutdown it is extremely unlikely that the system is in any condition to be reset without a physical response to the site.

Agreed, on the FD initiated shutdown. Even more importantly if they do shut a site down because someone's having a baby or whatever, there's some chance they'll turn it back on before leaving.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Agreed, on the FD initiated shutdown. Even more importantly if they do shut a site down because someone's having a baby or whatever, there's some chance they'll turn it back on before leaving.

I think it would be a rare case where the first responders would have physical access to the breaker with the shunt trip that the button activates.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If a battery is cooking, the charger long ago disconnected.

Disconnected from the battery, but not from the power source. The chargers are often physically close to the vehicle and I would want the power supply to the charger to be disconnected if I was fighting that fire.

The vast majority of public stations have a dedicated meter for the EV.
I've heard that "badly labeled breakers" are the reason for e-Stop. Nonsense. Let's just switch that for badly labeled disconnects.
If you wanted to solve the disconnect labeling issue, then make it an annual fire inspection requirement to have proper labels.

If there physical power disconnect within the 20' to 100', nothing more needs to be done as that disconnect is also the emergency shutdown. However with smaller installations, that physical power disconnect is adjacent to the charging equipment. Again, I am going to want the power supply to the charger shut down. In a lot of cases, fire damage to supply conductors results in a fault that has enough impedance that the supply OCPD will not open.

 

[brycenesbitt]

Disconnected from the battery, but not from the power source. The chargers are often physically close to the vehicle and I would want the power supply to the charger to be disconnected if I was fighting that fire.

There are so many other receptacles, lights, ticket machines, vending machines in a parking garage.
At that point you might as well be cutting power to the entire facility or at least floor.

 

[brycenesbitt]

National Fire Protection Association
Secretary, Standards Council NFPA
1 Batterymarch Park
Quincy, Massachusetts U.S. 02169

RE: NFPA 70, TIA 1874: Support with changes

Sent via email to TIAs_Errata_FIs@nfpa.org

Dear National Fire Protection Association,

The Acterra EV Charging for All Coalition conditionally supports of TIA 1874 as it improves a problematic section of new code. However, there is much still to be done.

Section 625.43(D) suffers from an obvious lack of practitioner input. Experienced EV charging installers and electricians, particularly those involved in multifamily buildings, would approach this issue in a much different and elegant manner, addressing safety concerns for first responders, property safety and liability while providing less unintended safety consequences.

Simply put, 625.43(D) mandates manual shutoffs for equipment that already automatically shuts itself off. It is not needed.
We call on the NFPA to create a focused and balanced 625.43(D) task group (with emphasis on installation experience) to help explore the potential impacts of this regulation, and e-Stop tradeoffs. The use cases for Level 1, Level 2 public, Level 2 private and Level 3 public fast charging are very different. Right now 625.43(D) applies a broad brush. The task group should consider what it can do to minimize overall risk, for both consumers as well as for first responders.

Dennis Murphy, for EV Charging For All

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There are so many other receptacles, lights, ticket machines, vending machines in a parking garage.
At that point you might as well be cutting power to the entire facility or at least floor.

if the fire involves those other things, the FD would request the utility to kill the power.

The issue is the close proximity of the power supply conductors to the charger and the vehicle that is on fire. In addition, the EV equipment is often supplied completely independent from the building power.

 

[brycenesbitt]

if the fire involves those other things, the FD would request the utility to kill the power.
The issue is the close proximity of the power supply conductors to the charger and the vehicle that is on fire. In addition, the EV equipment is often supplied completely independent from the building power.

My installs never use independent power.
My installs will soon remote mount the EVSE from the parking.
Even in a regular install the freaking lights in the building are as close or closer to the vehicle that's on fire, than the EVSE.
One size does not fit all.

I'm told that FD's have moved away from pulling meters to cut power, preferring disconnects outside. The issue is what to do if it's a rule of six panel that's older: is that six meter pulls?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Even in a regular install the freaking lights in the building are as close or closer to the vehicle that's on fire, than the EVSE.

We are not spraying water on the lights or other electrical equipment...maybe not even on the charger, but because of the proximity of the vehicle to the charging equipment, the energized power feeder presents an unacceptable risk.

My installs never use independent power.

The ones around here are not connected to building power, and in almost every case the utility has had to install a new transformer to support the chargers.

I'm told that FD's have moved away from pulling meters to cut power, preferring disconnects outside. The issue is what to do if it's a rule of six panel that's older: is that six meter pulls?

While that has happened, it never should have...it is not safe to pull a meter to shut off the power to a building. There is also the issue of the firefighter not understanding the difference between self-contained meters and CT meters.
With smart meters, one of the utilities in my area will remotely shut off the contactor in the smart meter when dispatch requests an electric utility response to a fire. However, just like pulling a meter, that only works with self contained meters.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Do the firemen need to see the disconnect in order for it to exist?

For most cases where the code requires an equipment disconnect, its location must comply with 110.29, so yes, the disconnect needs to be seen.