625.43 Disconnecting Means for EVSE

B

brycenesbitt

Senior Member
Location
United States
Under 625.43 in the new edition, is it possible to have a disconnect remote from the equipment?
625.43(A) says yes, but 625(B) says that even if (A) applies that (B) applies also, which prohibits it.
 
You must be referring to the 2026? The proposed next version wording is giving 2 separate conditions. 1 is an equipment disconnect that can be remotely located that is lockable, but there is an added requirement #2 that requires an emergency disconnect that must be within sight but no mention of lockable, and must include signage of an "emergency disconnect".
It seems it would allow a primary disconnecting means but still require an emergency disconnect in sight of EVSE, so option is there for an installer but why bother with a remote disconnect and just supply a disconnect in sight and have it marked as emergency disconnect.
 
Yes, 2026.
The older code we could put a label on the EVSE saying where the disconnect was (in the electrical room in my usual case).
--
The 2026 code has 625.43(A) which still allows that. But 625.43(B) appears to override (A). Do I read that right? Or am I missing the distinction between disconnect and emergency disconnect?
---
For multifamily apartments that means putting disconnects scattered through the parking garage, which is undesirable on several operational grounds. That's hundreds of disconnects, for hundreds of EVSE (depending on the line of sight in the garage). It may lead to the installation of more cord and plug EVSE, which create their own hazards with kids pulling plugs out, or bent pins or the like. We'd rather just keep the breakers and electrical room as the single point for all the switches.
 
The text under discussion (new version of 625.43 in the 2026 NEC First Draft Report) is below.

Cheers, Wayne


625.43 Disconnecting Means.

EVSE and WPTE, shall be provided with one or more disconnecting means in accordance with 625.43(A) and 625.43(B).

(A) Equipment Disconnects.
For permanently connected EVSE and WPTE, a disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accessible location. If the disconnecting means is installed remote from the equipment, a plaque or directory shall be installed on the equipment denoting the location of the disconnecting means. For cord- and plug-connected EVSE and WPTE, with a rating not exceeding 60 amperes or not exceeding 150 volts to ground, the cord and plug shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means. The disconnecting means shall be lockable open in accordance with 110.25.

(B) Emergency Shutoff.
For permanently connected EVSE and WPTE, one or more clearly identified emergency disconnect devices or electrical disconnects shall be provided and shall meet all of the following:
Be installed in a readily accessible location in sight from the equipment
Disconnect power to all EVSE and WPTE within sight of emergency shutoff
Be marked “EVSE EMERGENCY DISCONNECT” in accordance with 110.22(A)
Be a manual reset type
Disconnect all ungrounded conductors of the circuits simultaneously from the source of supply
The disconnecting means required in accordance with 625.43(A) shall be permitted to serve as the emergency disconnect if it complies with all the requirements of 625.43(B).
 
Seems like the 625.43(B) disconnect will always satisfy the requirements of 625.43(A), so 625.43(A) is effectively moot.

Cheers, Wayne
 
It seems like you could have a remote disconnect such as a shunt trip breaker with an emergency shutoff button by the EVSE. But I don't know what the point of that would be. I put in a comment. This will be a very annoying requirement in residential.
 
brycenesbitt said:


So does that mean EVSE breakers in a panel within sight of an EVSE have to be labeled "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT"? It's going to start looking like the array of any red stickers on solar equipment....
Click to expand...
Well I'd much rather stick a label on the panel that's already there than install a 60A knife disconnect and put a label on that. Less ugly, less expensive.

And I completely agree, the proliferation of 'emergency disconnects' is getting very annoying and will only be more and more confusing to first responders. I mean, if it's an emergency at a smaller building just find the service disconnect. And if there's an alternative backup source (solar+battery, or generator) okay, we need signage for those. But if then if there's an 'emergency disconnect' for the EVSE (and why not also the water heater, the dryer, and the microwave), and the first responders are going around turning off things that are already off.... You get my point.
 
jaggedben said:
Well I'd much rather stick a label on the panel that's already there than install a 60A knife disconnect and put a label on that. Less ugly, less expensive.

And I completely agree, the proliferation of 'emergency disconnects' is getting very annoying and will only be more and more confusing to first responders. I mean, if it's an emergency at a smaller building just find the service disconnect. And if there's an alternative backup source (solar+battery, or generator) okay, we need signage for those. But if then if there's an 'emergency disconnect' for the EVSE (and why not also the water heater, the dryer, and the microwave), and the first responders are going around turning off things that are already off.... You get my point.
Click to expand...
I believe the emergency disconnect is not technically first responder other than for maybe an EV fire. Some EVSE is not even inside the building so to shut off entire building to respond to an incident at an EV charger can be disproportional to event, so just require a disconnect and signage. Or would you rather add 10 pages of IF THIS THEN THIS to the code? I think in some ways hear complaint that the code is already to page bulky.
 
Fred B said:
I believe the emergency disconnect is not technically first responder other than for maybe an EV fire. Some EVSE is not even inside the building so to shut off entire building to respond to an incident at an EV charger can be disproportional to event, so just require a disconnect and signage.
Click to expand...
First off an EV fire is a very significant event, and needs a proportional reaction.
---
Second as the lone negative comment from the CMP on this issue covered: once EV catches fire the EVSE has long since turned itself off.
---
Third: who needs 10 pages of IF THEN THIS THIS to the code?
---
Fourth: EMS have a job to do. Simple, clear, centralized is the way to go. They're trained to cut the security tag and pull the meter, and will do that in many many cases because it's so much simpler sure and easy. Or hit the breakers THEN pull the meter. The BIG danger is island mode and automatic start generators, and potentially island mode from a bidirectional EV.
 
Fred B said:
I believe the emergency disconnect is not technically first responder other than for maybe an EV fire. Some EVSE is not even inside the building so to shut off entire building to respond to an incident at an EV charger can be disproportional to event, so just require a disconnect and signage. Or would you rather add 10 pages of IF THIS THEN THIS to the code? I think in some ways hear complaint that the code is already to page bulky.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would rather requirements be limited to the circumstances where there's justification for them to be required. This is not for a few installations here and there, there are literally going to be tens of millions of EVSEs installed in single family homes in the coming years, and they don't need dedicated emergency disconnects. I submitted a comment proposing an exception. I would rather requirements be applied appropriately on this if it takes a few more words in the code. If we want to cut fat from the code there's certainly other less consequential places to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top