2026 NEC Motions Commitee Report Released 🔥
- Thread starter brycenesbitt
- Start date
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
This appears to be a document still under construction.
But it probably won't help much as it says
4. Safety
4.1 General
Only qualified persons familiar with the construction and operation of EVSE should perform the technical work described in this Standard. See the definitions of the term Qualified Person as provided in Article 100 of the NEC and NFPA 70E.
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Of course it does, as NECA submitted the Public Comment.
It probably won't help much because that's inaccessible to the DIY'ers. Something more like EVITP lite, or a Mike Holt webinar would be better.
Well yeah I agree with the others its out of the scope of the NEC.
Personally I'd say most of article 625 could be deleted, as its just duplicate code.
Every piece of listed equipment does not need a code article.
A chapter 6 'special equipment' code article is only necessary for an assembly of components or equipment that a EC might install, like a pipe organ, sign, or pool.
Perhaps just keep the ventilation part and the wireless charging at most.
The rest is covered in other articles / product listing.
Or allow EVSE's to be an assembly of listed components then keep the article.
Personally I'd say most of article 625 could be deleted, as its just duplicate code.
Every piece of listed equipment does not need a code article.
A chapter 6 'special equipment' code article is only necessary for an assembly of components or equipment that a EC might install, like a pipe organ, sign, or pool.
Perhaps just keep the ventilation part and the wireless charging at most.
The rest is covered in other articles / product listing.
Or allow EVSE's to be an assembly of listed components then keep the article.
Last edited:
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Yeah, but the very start of the NEC 625.50 section on pipe organs specifies a 30 volt wiring maximum. So why do you need anything in the National Everything Code (NEC) other than to say you have to use a listed 30 volt power supply for your pipe organ?
And why should electricians write the code on chemical battery fumes for venting, instead of leaving that the vehicle and power drain standards groups?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There are lots of references to NECA standards which are ANSI standards but not have ever been adopted as legally enforceable standards. However you many find them referenced in the contract documents making them civilly enforceable as a part of a contract.
NTesla76
Senior Member
- Location
- IA -Driftless Region
- Occupation
- Electrics
Our building officials must have went to the same training.
I am no expert on pipe organs, but it seems they use a simple transformer AKA a 'class 1' power supply that is over the limit of class 2 (100VA or whatever it is)
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Where is there a voltage limit on the application of the NEC? Many of the Chapter 7 systems operate below 30 volts.
I helped a friend with a fire investigation where the cause was a high resistance connection in a 24 volt (non-power limited) lighting system. The watts of heat is the same, no matter what the voltage is: I²R
Because standards are no adopted as legally enforceable codes...they are just standards, and unless some code requires a product to be listed, there is nothing to require a manufacturer to comply with a standard in the design and construction of their products.
I think most all of us on the forum agree that an EVSE is sufficient ground fault protection for the cord to a EV and most of us are busy people so if there is something quick and easy we can do to encourage the CMP to do the right thing and delete the seciton on GFCI's let us know.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
At this point the only thing anyone can do is to speak on the Certified Amending Motion, that could delete those rules, at the NFPA June meeting in Las Vegas. The technical session where the CAMs will be debated with start on June 19th, but based on the time for discussion of the motions, it could extend to the 20th.
Is anyone from here planning to attend?
Willie Snyder
Co-Host High Voltage Live Podcast
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman / Certified NICET II Fire alarm technician
I'm glad the code professionals are starting to see that without technical merit for a change they are just wasting ink. Qualified person is strictly enforced in NFPA 72 and I think for good reason with life safety in my hands. Regardless of who is pushing this the end result will be non-compliance with unenforceable requirements AKA "Waste of Ink"
Willie Snyder
Co-Host High Voltage Live Podcast
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman / Certified NICET II Fire alarm technician
I'm going to be sitting back with my popcorn and enjoy the arguments
Willie Snyder
Co-Host High Voltage Live Podcast
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman / Certified NICET II Fire alarm technician
Argument: How Is an Outlet Installed on Hardwired Equipment?
1. NEC Definition Conflict
Per NEC Article 100:
This includes receptacles and hardwired connections, but:
- A receptacle outlet has a physical point of user interaction (plug).
- A hardwired connection does not—there’s no “accessible” or user-facing outlet once the equipment is connected.
So, saying “install an outlet on hardwired equipment” is like saying “attach a handle to a vault door that’s welded shut.”
My Point: The outlet exists during installation, but once the hardwired EVSE is connected, the outlet ceases to be a distinct or functional point—it becomes part of the equipment.2. Code Language Becomes Self-Contradictory
In 625.54, the proposed requirement reads:
By this logic, even a junction box or splice point upstream of the EVSE would need to be GFCI protected—because technically, that’s where “current is taken to supply utilization equipment.”
Thought Exercise:If someone runs a feeder to a subpanel that exclusively serves EVSE loads, is that panel an “outlet”? Should it be GFCI protected? Where’s the line?
My Point: If the word “outlet” is used imprecisely, it pulls the GFCI requirement into absurd territory—applying it upstream of intended safety boundaries.3. Practicality: GFCI for Hardwired Circuits?
Hardwired EVSE is often installed on:
- 40A, 50A, or even higher branch circuits
- 2-pole breakers with no neutral
- Circuits using CCID-20 built-in ground-fault protection
Yet:
- 2-pole GFCI breakers are expensive, harder to find, and can false-trip with existing EVSE’s internal GF detection.
- Adding upstream GFCI protection may cause double-GFCI layering, leading to nuisance trips and angry homeowners.
My Point: The spirit of 625.54 is safety—but the language could backfire by introducing instability, extra cost, and code misinterpretation for installations that are already protected by design.4. Intent vs. Implementation
My "joke" public input exposed an underlying confusion:
- If hardwired EVSE is factory-listed with GFCI protection, should it also require upstream GFCI for a junction box connection?
- The moment the EVSE is connected, the “outlet” disappears from sight and function.
My Point: A code requirement that applies to a temporary installation step (the outlet before it’s hardwired) is poor policy. We don’t write code for ghosts.People will invent adapters for anything they can plug stuff into.
The 'outlet' to me and my old school brain is the cord cap or whatever you call it at the very the end of the branch circuit that people plug stuff into.
Just like a pendant drop with SJOW cord in a workshop, an EV cord cap is just a new form of a 240V pendant, just most people only use them on their car.
The EVSE is a safety device in the branch circuit that provides some ground fault protection better than a inverse time breaker but not as good as a RCD. (As far as I know a Level 2 EVSE can be run off a pure 240 system not just a split phase 120/240 and if so I don't even see how a UL 943 GFCI would work on a pure '240' system ?)
Becides people are already using 'EV outlets' to power other equipment in their garages, there are more than a few examples on youtube;
like this guy;
And there are all these very odd adapters all over the internet that I don't even know how they work without a neutral, perhaps its just for welders? Either way seems like the J1772 is the 'outlet'
The 'outlet' to me and my old school brain is the cord cap or whatever you call it at the very the end of the branch circuit that people plug stuff into.
Just like a pendant drop with SJOW cord in a workshop, an EV cord cap is just a new form of a 240V pendant, just most people only use them on their car.
The EVSE is a safety device in the branch circuit that provides some ground fault protection better than a inverse time breaker but not as good as a RCD. (As far as I know a Level 2 EVSE can be run off a pure 240 system not just a split phase 120/240 and if so I don't even see how a UL 943 GFCI would work on a pure '240' system ?)
Becides people are already using 'EV outlets' to power other equipment in their garages, there are more than a few examples on youtube;
like this guy;
And there are all these very odd adapters all over the internet that I don't even know how they work without a neutral, perhaps its just for welders? Either way seems like the J1772 is the 'outlet'
Last edited:
Willie Snyder
Co-Host High Voltage Live Podcast
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman / Certified NICET II Fire alarm technician
I actually don't believe EVSE needs any additional protection beyond itself