2026 NEC draft - EV and GFCI problems incoming?

jaggedben said:
I can see why they rejected this definition since it would make "receptacle outlets" mutually exclusive of "outlets". (There is no place at a receptacle where branch circuit conductors connect to or will be connected to utilization equipment terminals or conductors.) So that would have led to massive

We'll probably end up rehashing previous discussions, but it remains baffling to me how many people seem hellbent on allowing only receptacles to provide GFCI protection at the load end of branch circuit conductors. It makes no practical sense whatsoever. Simply allow any type of listed hardwired equipment to provide GFCI. Then we can stop worrying about where the outlet is.
Click to expand...
If his submittal was accepted It would have been a deciding factor in proving the educator in question, to be the fraud we all know he is and that he should not be seen as one of the industries recognized educators. Please anybody feel free to correct me I’m wrong but I think part of the reason for don submitting a pi for that definition was to shed light on the actual credibility he should hold as a educator, which should be none at all because he should not be someone anybody should expect to provide them with any type of credible information in regards to any facet of the industry,
His PI literally says” I never thought there was any outlet Supplying a piece of hardwired utilization equipment it’s only a termination “ if that’s not considered fake news idk what is 😂😂
 
jaggedben said:
I can see why they rejected this definition since it would make "receptacle outlets" mutually exclusive of "outlets". (There is no place at a receptacle where branch circuit conductors connect to or will be connected to utilization equipment terminals or conductors.) So that would have led to massive additional confusion wherever the code might have a requirement that applied to 'outlets'.

We'll probably end up rehashing previous discussions, but it remains baffling to me how many people seem hellbent on allowing only receptacles to provide GFCI protection at the load end of branch circuit conductors. It makes no practical sense whatsoever. Simply allow any type of listed hardwired equipment to provide GFCI. Then we can stop worrying about where the outlet is.
Click to expand...
I did revise it in a Public Comment to my rejected Public Input.
Outlet.
A point on the wiring system where the branch circuit conductors are connected to a receptacle, a luminaire, a lampholder, or ultization equipment.
However the PC was also rejected.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The language accepted by CMP 12 in the final ballot for the second draft will very likely be subject to a NITMAN and resulting CAM, with extensive debate at the June 2025 NFPA meeting. Changes often result from the floor votes at the annual meeting.

NITMAN Notice of Intent to Make A Motion
CAM Certified Amending Motion.
Click to expand...

The NITMAM or NITMAM's will have some basis. CMP-12 had extensive public input objecting to the GFCI and e-Stop provisions. Despite that there was almost zero discussion at the voting meeting. All the work had been done in the working groups, and the main CMP-12 just endorsed that work.

There were a ton of PI's on this issue. Mike Holt and UL were among the in-person presenters who objected to the terms. My sides slides presented to CMP-12 follow. The key page is "Asks for CMP-12":
2024 Presentation to CMP-12 on impact of proposed EVSE regulation

And see also this presentation to CMP-2
2024 Presentation to CMP-2 on the inherent risks of discrete (non-integral) RCD protection. Why EVSE have such a good safety record.
 
jaggedben said:
Makes much more sense. But I still think that requirements should not be written around the location of the outlet because it makes no practical safety sense.
Click to expand...

brycenesbitt said:
The NITMAM or NITMAM's will have some basis. CMP-12 had extensive public input objecting to the GFCI and e-Stop provisions. Despite that there was almost zero discussion at the voting meeting. All the work had been done in the working groups, and the main CMP-12 just endorsed that work.

There were a ton of PI's on this issue. Mike Holt and UL were among the in-person presenters who objected to the terms. My sides slides presented to CMP-12 follow. The key page is "Asks for CMP-12":
2024 Presentation to CMP-12 on impact of proposed EVSE regulation

And see also this presentation to CMP-2
2024 Presentation to CMP-2 on the inherent risks of discrete (non-integral) RCD protection. Why EVSE have such a good safety record.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing this
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
My point is that the outlet only exists at the load end of the premises wiring conductors.
Click to expand...
And my point is that if you define it that way then a receptacle cannot provide GFCI protection for an outlet if one interprets the requirement for an outlet to 'have' such protection to require the protection to be on the supply side.

Ultimately I don't care how an outlet is defined; defining it one may or another may be more or less convenient for writing concise and clear requirements. Ultimately I do care whether requirements for GFCI protection have to be in certain locations. And I don't think that 'outlets' (as you want to define them) should be broadly required to be protected on the supply side if equipment on their load end - receptacle or otherwise - can provide that protection.
 
jaggedben said:
And my point is that if you define it that way then a receptacle cannot provide GFCI protection for an outlet if one interprets the requirement for an outlet to 'have' such protection to require the protection to be on the supply side.

Ultimately I don't care how an outlet is defined; defining it one may or another may be more or less convenient for writing concise and clear requirements. Ultimately I do care whether requirements for GFCI protection have to be in certain locations. And I don't think that 'outlets' (as you want to define them) should be broadly required to be protected on the supply side if equipment on their load end - receptacle or otherwise - can provide that protection.
Click to expand...
The receptacle is still and outlet. but the receptacle outlet is where the supply conductors are connected to the receptacle. The power to any utilization equipment is from the face of the receptacle.

The whole thing driving the outlet definition change is the insistence that hardwired equipment is not supplied by an outlet.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The receptacle is still and outlet. but the receptacle outlet is where the supply conductors are connected to the receptacle. The power to any utilization equipment is from the face of the receptacle.

The whole thing driving the outlet definition change is the insistence that hardwired equipment is not supplied by an outlet.
Click to expand...
I’m hoping the committee’s response to the pi he submitted to revise the definition of a individual branch circuit puts an end to that nonsense on the outlet subject and those two finally stfu about it
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
They modified my PC and their accepted language at the in person meeting was rejected in the written ballot and it will stay the same as in the 2023.
Click to expand...
Makes sense I guess . Your reason for proposing the change in language was definitely valid, and his submittais during this process proved as much . On the other hand definitions are their for a reason and the existing definition that’s been the same for decades makes no mention of it only being defined as the outlet location if there’s a receptacle or box at said location
 
brycenesbitt said:
The problem with the 2023 language is that it keeps getting interpreted differently.
That's a non-solution, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
If interpretstions of the existing language can vary to the point of what this one person thinks and teaches to apprentices. There’s no clarification or revision to change his thought process, but the proposed change to the definition may have been able to keep some of the young minds who rely on him for their education to go another route because there’s no substantial proof of truth or credibility to any thing he teaches
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
RCD and GFCI are different technical concepts as far as people protection. RCD is intended to prevent ventricular fibrillation and GFCI is based on the let go current. SPGFCI is a bit of a cross between the two.
Click to expand...
Don next time you find yourself poolside in Italy with friends and family enjoying some sun and vacation, while your doing laps in the pool know that your protected by the best ground fault protection the IEC has to offer, a true Class A ground fault protection device an RCD.
Don't take my word for it ask the maintenance person to look at the pool electrical panel.
And while your there at the pool read up on the IEC and RCD's, they consider them the best in class for ground fault protection of people.
1737960629477.png
Perhaps the CMP needs to have its meeting in Milan and we can do some fact finding research.
 
Last edited:
Jaybone812 said:
The

The PI he submitted for 625.54 led to the rule being revised to require exactly what he was trying to have removed. In his substantiation he said the pi was to provide clarity for people who thought hardwired EVSE required gfci protection.
And it backfired because the proposed revision he wrote all receptacles and outlets . If you read both public inputs for the definition of a individual branch circuit you’ll see why he thought it was to his advantage to include outlets , because both of the public inputs for that definition are ridiculous and one of them says “he never believed a individual branch circuit for a hardwired piece of utilization equipment had a outlet , he said theres not outlet it’s simply a termination😂😂😂 obviously they were shut down by the committee and the committees response basically said they didht understand the definition of a outlet , but in a nicer way lol
If you look at those two public inputs as well as one that was put in for motor branch circuits you’ll see clear as day the submittal completely backfired on him
Click to expand...
And just to clarify, I simply say he when referring to seperate submittals but two different individuals because Snyder is not capable of providing.the correct code # for the ampacity table without the help of king James , and lacking the ability to provide correct answers to his own multiple choice questions that he posts is running proof they share the same brain, so I refer to them as one entity 😂. Perfect example of his comprehension of the code or I should say lack there of , is the the 625.54 input submittal and how he inserts outlet and what he thinks he’s accomplishing by doing it .once the committees response was to revise the rule inline with how the nec actually defines a outlet , . I think he started to realize that everything that is said about his partner could be true and maybe he should be seen for the fraud he is and not a credible educator . members of every electrical based group or forum on the internet Haven’t been able to convince him of that despite the fact there is factual documentation in the form of podcasts and online videos that support everyones claims, so maybe the committee’s response to their BS will finally open his eyes and he’ll realize they both should stop posing as educators of anything
 
wwhitney said:
I would say the receptacle is part of the premises wiring, so the outlet would be at the face of the receptacle. That way a receptacle can provide GFCI protection for its associated outlet.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
We have a defined term "receptacle outlet".
Receptacle Outlet.
An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed. (CMP-18)
Click to expand...
So the receptacle outlet is the point where the receptacle is connected to the premises wiring.
The code does not define the receptacle itself as an outlet.
Receptacle.
A contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug, or for the direct connection of electrical utilization equipment designed to mate with the corresponding contact device. A single receptacle is a single contact device with no other contact device on the same yoke or strap. A multiple receptacle is two or more contact devices on the same yoke or strap. (CMP-18)
Click to expand...
I expect that the 2026 will have the following definition of receptacle outlet.
Receptacle Outlet.
An outlet where the branch-circuit conductors are connected to one or more receptacles. (CMP-18)
Click to expand...
Either way, the receptacle outlet is the line side of the receptacle and the receptacle can provide GFCI protection for its contacts that mate with an attachment plug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top