210.8(F) GFCI Protection

[kwired]

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.

When a manufacture says do not connect to GFCI protection, all they are doing is saying you cannot install their product in a location where the NEC requires GFCI protection.
This was added to 110.3(B) in the second revision of the 2023 code, but removed by the CC because informational notes cannot contain a requirement. It is very likely this will reappear in the 2026 as actual code text.

I guess I don't see it as containing a requirement as much as it is reminding you of a requirement? Still would make it kind of redundant though.

 

[Bill Snyder]

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.

When a manufacture says do not connect to GFCI protection, all they are doing is saying you cannot install their product in a location where the NEC requires GFCI protection.
This was added to 110.3(B) in the second revision of the 2023 code, but removed by the CC because informational notes cannot contain a requirement. It is very likely this will reappear in the 2026 as actual code text.

Thanks Don I am sure you will love my public comment to remove this stupid code change that was based on a false premise based on a tragic death due to lack of an EGC so using that logic we should have an exception when class A protection is provided no EGC is required for hardwired utilization equipment.

 

[infinity]

Thanks Don I am sure you will love my public comment to remove this stupid code change that was based on a false premise based on a tragic death due to lack of an EGC so using that logic we should have an exception when class A protection is provided no EGC is required for hardwired utilization equipment.

I hope that you're successful because this is a dumb code change by a dumb CMP. I have little hope that they will listen.

 

[kwired]

I hope that you're successful because this is a dumb code change by a dumb CMP. I have little hope that they will listen.

The initial justification of requiring certain receptacles beyond just 15/20 amp 125 volts rating to have GFCI protection was pretty much "because we can" and not based on any real world statistical information.

 

[Bill Snyder]

It

The initial justification of requiring certain receptacles beyond just 15/20 amp 125 volts rating to have GFCI protection was pretty much "because we can" and not based on any real world statistical information.

It has opened the door for an overall removal of the requirement for all equipment that is not compatible regardless of location as I have been saying for 3 years reducing electrical safety instead of increasing it like the members of CMP-2 seem to not understand.

 

[Bill Snyder]

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.

When a manufacture says do not connect to GFCI protection, all they are doing is saying you cannot install their product in a location where the NEC requires GFCI protection.
This was added to 110.3(B) in the second revision of the 2023 code, but removed by the CC because informational notes cannot contain a requirement. It is very likely this will reappear in the 2026 as actual code text.

Where does CMP-12 say that their equipment connects to an outlet? CMP-2 says that EVSE is governed by another code panel so IMO chapter 6 would modify chapter 2. CMP-12 says if EVSE is hardwired then GFCI protection is not required because personnel protection is provided internal to the utilization equipment.
.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Where does CMP-12 say that their equipment connects to an outlet? CMP-2 says that EVSE is governed by another code panel so IMO chapter 6 would modify chapter 2. CMP-12 says if EVSE is hardwired then GFCI protection is not required because personnel protection is provided internal to the utilization equipment.
.

You keep asking the same thing using different words. My answers are not going to change so I am done with this.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Of course you are done with this because you're wrong the manufacturer's instructions comply with the language of 625 and that modifies chapter 2 I just went through this with the inspector and 210.8(F) does not apply to EVSE and 110.3(B) over rules 210.8(F) inspector was correct. Personnel protection is provided integral to the equipment and not required when hardwired.

 

[kwired]

Of course you are done with this because you're wrong the manufacturer's instructions comply with the language of 625 and that modifies chapter 2 I just went through this with the inspector and 210.8(F) does not apply to EVSE and 110.3(B) over rules 210.8(F) inspector was correct. Personnel protection is provided integral to the equipment and not required when hardwired.

Their logic with 210.8(F) was based on a HVAC unit that had missing or compromised EGC.

Though I don't think one incident is enough justification here, a missing or compromised EGC won't necessarily prevent such incident either, particularly if the ground fault occurs on supply side of the integral protection device.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Of course you are done with this because you're wrong the manufacturer's instructions comply with the language of 625 and that modifies chapter 2 I just went through this with the inspector and 210.8(F) does not apply to EVSE and 110.3(B) over rules 210.8(F) inspector was correct. Personnel protection is provided integral to the equipment and not required when hardwired.

Brian House and Mike Holt both told you that you were incorrect on this when you were listening to Mike's UNEC2 recording.
But I am done because you will never change your view and I will never change mine...even though you are 100% wrong.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Their logic with 210.8(F) was based on a HVAC unit that had missing or compromised EGC.

Though I don't think one incident is enough justification here, a missing or compromised EGC won't necessarily prevent such incident either, particularly if the ground fault occurs on supply side of the integral protection device.

They went through the incident recently and it lacked technical merit by the standards council now it opens the door for widespread elimination of the requirement due to compatibility issues regardless of location CMP-2 shot themselves in the foot in the last cycle.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Brian House and Mike Holt both told you that you were incorrect on this when you were listening to Mike's UNEC2 recording.
But I am done because you will never change your view and I will never change mine...even though you are 100% wrong.

I never got a chance to hear them saying that because the video was taken down but Mike read the 625 reference and protection is required for the receptacle not the outlet and the Rock shut up after he saw that integral personnel protection was provided so there are cases where a listed a labeled product over rides the NEC when the product complies with the code.

 

[ActionDave]

I never got a chance to hear them saying that because the video was taken down but Mike read the 625 reference and protection is required for the receptacle not the outlet and the Rock shut up after he saw that integral personnel protection was provided so there are cases where a listed a labeled product over rides the NEC when the product complies with the code.

First, a little punctuation goes a long way helping readers understand what you are trying to communicate.
Second, punctuation or not, I have no idea what "the Rock shut up after he saw that integral personnel protection was provided" means.

 

[Bill Snyder]

First, a little punctuation goes a long way helping readers understand what you are trying to communicate.
Second, punctuation or not, I have no idea what "the Rock shut up after he saw that integral personnel protection was provided" means.

My bad I thought everyone knew who Brian Rock was alternate on CMP-2 for Tommy D!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I never got a chance to hear them saying that because the video was taken down but Mike read the 625 reference and protection is required for the receptacle not the outlet and the Rock shut up after he saw that integral personnel protection was provided so there are cases where a listed a labeled product over rides the NEC when the product complies with the code.

There is no such case. All the manufacturer is doing when they tell you not to connect to a GFCI is to tell you that their product cannot be installed in a location where the code requires GFCI protection.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I never got a chance to hear them saying that because the video was taken down but Mike read the 625 reference and protection is required for the receptacle not the outlet and the Rock shut up after he saw that integral personnel protection was provided so there are cases where a listed a labeled product over rides the NEC when the product complies with the code.

Of course it was taken down...his business is selling the books and videos, not giving that stuff away for free.

Yes, the rule in 625 only requires a receptacle that supplies an EV charger to be GFCI protected. However that does not have anything to do with the rule in 210.8(F). If CMP wanted to modify the rule in 210.8(F), they would have to say something like, hardwired EV equipment shall not have GFCI protection. They could do that under the provisions of 90.3, but they have not done that. Saying only that receptacles supplying the EV equipment must have GFCI protection is not even close to saying hardwired EV equipment shall not have GFCI protection.
If you want to change this, you need to submit a PI for such a rule in 625.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Of course it was taken down...his business is selling the books and videos, not giving that stuff away for free.

Yes, the rule in 625 only requires a receptacle that supplies an EV charger to be GFCI protected. However that does not have anything to do with the rule in 210.8(F). If CMP wanted to modify the rule in 210.8(F), they would have to say something like, hardwired EV equipment shall not have GFCI protection. They could do that under the provisions of 90.3, but they have not done that. Saying only that receptacles supplying the EV equipment must have GFCI protection is not even close to saying hardwired EV equipment shall not have GFCI protection.
If you want to change this, you need to submit a PI for such a rule in 625.

The only change that needs to happen is for 210.8(F) to be deleted this is constantly being misinterpreted and it's actually laughable at this point. Hardwired utilization equipment is not defined as "outdoor outlets". I think the really funny thing is this has opened the door for a widespread removal class A devices for all incompatible equipment regardless of location. The standards council ruled the tragic death of the child lacked technical merit and it will be hard for CMP-2 to continue the arrogance over a listed and labeled product. 110.3(B) over rides the NEC 70% of the time or they would not be permitted to have the listing. I can't wait for this madness to end with the commie CMPs trying to push their weight on a false safety narrative.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The only change that needs to happen is for 210.8(F) to be deleted this is constantly being misinterpreted and it's actually laughable at this point. Hardwired utilization equipment is not defined as "outdoor outlets". I think the really funny thing is this has opened the door for a widespread removal class A devices for all incompatible equipment regardless of location. The standards council ruled the tragic death of the child lacked technical merit and it will be hard for CMP-2 to continue the arrogance over a listed and labeled product. 110.3(B) over rides the NEC 70% of the time or they would not be permitted to have the listing. I can't wait for this madness to end with the commie CMPs trying to push their weight on a false safety narrative.

It NEVER over rides the NEC. Not ever.
The equipment is not an outdoor outlet, but the connection to the equipment is.

 

[Bill Snyder]

It NEVER over rides the NEC. Not ever.
The equipment is not an outdoor outlet, but the connection to the equipment is.

Wow that is interesting in NFPA 72 the manufacturer's instructions over ride the code almost 100% of the time with few exceptions

 

[EeeeVeee]

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
AFCI's maybe they have replaced units with updated ones in some instances but still don't reimburse the EC for any his troubles.

This is an issue that I am putting a lot of thought into right now. I specialize in residential EVSE installations and in a few days we’re going to have to start GFCI protecting most of those installations, even though the manufacturer recommends not to.

I guess it’s time to speak to a lawyer about adding legalese to my estimate in order to relieve myself of liability when the customer complains that the GFCI breaker keeps tripping and their car isn’t charged in the morning when they need to go to work. Of course the customer is going to blame me, but what can I do.