Appeal on ban for DIY permits for EV charger install or repair

hillbilly1 said:
You’ve never installed an Eaton commercial charger. They did at one time, don’t know if they still do, but the contactor inside has a 120 volt coil. Eaton engineers said they (Eaton) did not make a contactor with a 208/240 coil. Only straight 208 or 240 volt coils. They may have changed it by now.
Click to expand...
I used to use Cutler Hammer definite purpose contactors almost exclusively several years ago. All the 240 volt versions I used then were rated 208-240, I still had one on the shelf that I just installed on something a few days ago. Is on my mind because of the reason why I used it. I fixed a problem of the existing contactor in that piece of equipment not wanting to pull in while a coincidental load was starting up causing significant voltage drop during that starting period. The original coil was an Allen Bradley contactor but only rated straight 240 volts. Contactor worked fine when you tried testing it , just wouldn't pull in when needed during that starting period because voltage was temporarily too low.

The application was a rotary phase converter, 30 HP (largest motor rating, idler motor was more like a 50 HP motor) The contactor was needed during starting only as it closed circuit for starting capacitors but that is also the time when voltage drop is the worst.

I'm sure Eaton likely has rebranded these contactors by now and may or may not have changed the design some.
 
electrofelon said:
I don't understand the NEC putting in "must be qualified" for some electrical stuff but not others.
Click to expand...
YES! but its one of the Subjected terms that should not be a rule its like Exposed to "Physical damage" I can't run SER exposed on side of building over here yet you can. Just because of some vague term. It's suppose to be a rule book- Rules are not suppose to be vague.

Supreme Court’s “void-for-vagueness” doctrine. In Kolender v. Lawson (1983) the Court held:

“A penal statute must define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited
Click to expand...
 
AC\DC said:
Like everything in a resi home is DYI and there suppose to get permit but they don't...
Just more useless stuff in the code
Click to expand...
In my jurisdiction, a homeowner can walk in, get an express EV permit after signing
an "owner builder" agreement. And get a professional inspection.
That will end if 625.4 passes the CAM stage.
 
AC\DC said:
no they just say the watched a video or took a class and back to the same thing
Click to expand...
EVITP is a proctored exam.
There are ways of forcing people to take given exam. And if they get a permit, there's ways to check the work.
"Qualified person" is an insanely subjective test.

Home Depot now offers EVSE installs. If they're anything like their free installation of electric ranges, I don't want to be
anywhere near. Perhaps most DIY'ers are more qualified than what you're likely to get through HD.
 
paullmullen said:
I'm not sure if the proposed rule solves a problem because I don't yet know what uncovered risk is being discussed.
Click to expand...
Ah, there is a risk that's EVSE specific: Heat.

An EVSE will run for many more hours than most appliances, and at higher amperage than other continuous loads.
Just a little bit of excess V=IR adds up over the minutes and hours.

Thus small flaws in torque or wire size that could pass for a range, won't cut it for EVSE.
And there are cheap outlets out there, and an Amazon River full of fake-NRTL listed chargers.

---
That's the problem.
The proposed rule, in my view makes the problem worse. It was likely well meaning, but not a good way.

To me the solution is more of the DIY'ers getting a permit, not less.
Youtube does not really cut it.

Of course my own training course is fine, and all you need, eh?
Electric Vehicle Charging at Home - Inspecting Complex Dynamic Loads
 
I wonder if the dealerships are pushing this, I suspect the dealer certified EV installer is the one pulling 6/2 to a 14-50 receptacle and floating the neutral or tying it to the bare 'to be safe' so perhaps I'll have to start doing that to be 'qualified' LOL.
 
Well, anyone who wants to support or oppose this.
NFPA has acknowledged my notice of intent (in the first posting) and let me know there were others on the same topic.

Thus, the protest may become a Certified Amending Motion (CAM).
If so, the vote is June 19th in Las Vegas.
 
pipe_bender said:
I wonder if the dealerships are pushing this, I suspect the dealer certified EV installer is the one pulling 6/2 to a 14-50 receptacle and floating the neutral or tying it to the bare 'to be safe' so perhaps I'll have to start doing that to be 'qualified' LOL.
Click to expand...
This amendment states that it concerns “permanently installed” equipment. While I couldn’t find a definition in the NEC of “permanently installed”, to me, it means hard-wired. This thread kind of went on a tangent when receptacles got brought up.
 
brycenesbitt said:
Well, anyone who wants to support or oppose this.
NFPA has acknowledged my notice of intent (in the first posting) and let me know there were others on the same topic.

Thus, the protest may become a Certified Amending Motion (CAM).
If so, the vote is June 19th in Las Vegas.
Click to expand...
You can attend and participate in the floor debate, but you can only vote if you have been a member of the NFPA for at least 180 days prior to the vote.

Have they posted the actual schedule for the NFPA 70 vote as the conference website shows the 19th and 20th for the technical sessions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top