I can agree that it isn't always clear where the "outlet" is located, but seems pretty clear that NEC says there is one somewhere and it is also pretty clear that it is at least near where premises wiring ends and wiring within the appliance or other load begins.
I find it interesting the can make a chilled water fountain, refrigerator and a frezzer work yet struggle with a condenser unit.
But irony is it was outdoor HVAC equipment was the primary target of the code change here.
I think units with variable speed drives are the ones with the most problems, and are a problem with many other appliances as well if they happen to end up on a GFCI protected circuit. I already mentioned washing machines. Another one I ran into more recently was when we were trying to temporarily connect a gas furnace with variable speed blower to a cord and plug until I could get a permanent circuit ran to said furnace. Blower would start but simply would not hold after reaching a certain speed.
Part of the issue is the hard wired equipment ...the product standards did (do) not have leakage current requirements for hard wired equipment as the assumption was that any leakage current would be rendered safe by the code required equipment grounding conductor.
And put all of it together and the installer is the "bad guy" just like for many AFCI issues over the years have been. We are simply doing what we are required to do by code, many don't want to just eliminate the GFCI and resolve the undesired tripping because that opens us up for liability should something happen, and he manufacturers won't do much of anything for us which leaves the customer mad at the installer as he is who they are expecting to fix the issues. Getting a little tired of this game and don't think is fair to play it at my own expense most the time either.
Especially when leakage current has not been attributed to any deaths that I am aware of and the UL standard will remain at 10ma well beyond the 2026 cycle so calling the manufacturers too cheap to fix their equipment is not an accurate statement made by some.
Thank you for providing more information about the issue you are facing with hard wired equipment and refrigeration units.
Not sure how much research and development is going on for this issue as the STP for 943 voted not even to look at the issue.
As with other code requirements, particularly AFCI related issues this puts all the problem on the EC's/installers. Code makes a requirement, we have to follow it or we don't pass inspections, manufacturers make products that don't play well with the code required item, user sees this as a problem - the EC should fix it, and at no cost to the user. No manufacturer will reimburse the EC for any his troubles trying to solve the problem. With the
It most certainly does. The STP for 943 was presented with information that shows the GFCI trips below 5 mA with high frequency leakage current...but that STP voted not to look at the issue.
Ok if the leakage is below 5 mA and there is still tripping I guess I agree to some extent.
Tesla chargers have leakage of 20MA and still provide personnel protection.
It says that is has integral GFCI protection.
I don't see how that complies with 210.8(F) which contains the wording: "...the outlet shall be supplied with GFCI protection."
110.3(B) would override 210.8(F) CMP-12 says EVSE doesn't connect to an outlet or those instructions would mention 210.8(F)
IMO art 100 definition of "outlet" would override 110.3(B). The logic here which maybe you were using to some degree as well is that everything at the beginning of the document is pretty general and always applies until something that appears later in the document says otherwise.
Nothing written by a manufacture ever eliminates a code requirement. The manufacturer can require additional protections that require more that what the NEC requires, but they cannot eliminate a protection required by the NEC.
