EV charger Load Shedding device

[kwired]

And some of those TVs had internal fuses.

and still had high voltage capacitor that could hold a nasty charge that was probably good idea to not suggest non qualified open the thing up to do any sort of service.

Chances are if that fuse blows something else had a problem to cause the fuse to blow also.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Did he cite a code reference?

Yes,
Section 408.38 of the 2019 CEC 2017 NEC.
This device does not have a deadfront. The device would need to be in a area where only qualified persons can access.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Fuses would need to be readily accessible as well if they were the branch circuit overcurrent device. Behind a door that can't be opened until the switch is opened is still within readily accessible definition.

The device concerned with does not have a such a switch. The breaker is behind the cover . The cover is not just a faceplate. It has the top and bottom sides - u shaped.

 

[wwhitney]

Section 408.38 of the 2019 CEC 2017 NEC.
This device does not have a deadfront. The device would need to be in a area where only qualified persons can access.

While I agree that the device should have a dead front, and allow operation of the circuit breaker without exposing the innards or requiring the use of a screwdriver, I don't believe that 408.38 applies. The innards don't seem to me to meet the definition of panelboard.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

While I agree that the device should have a dead front, and allow operation of the circuit breaker without exposing the innards or requiring the use of a screwdriver, I don't believe that 408.38 applies. The innards don't seem to me to meet the definition of panelboard.

Cheers, Wayne

I agree, not a panelboard.

If listed I don't see justification to reject it. If a local disconnecting means is required this may not fulfil that purpose though.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I agree, not a panelboard.

If listed I don't see justification to reject it. If a local disconnecting means is required this may not fulfil that purpose though.

Why would a local disconnect be required?

 

[Terminator5047]

A guy could almost upgrade the service at the same cost as the time you would waste screwing with this to not charge your car(aka how you get to work)

 

[Sierrasparky]

A guy could almost upgrade the service at the same cost as the time you would waste screwing with this to not charge your car(aka how you get to work)

These are for Condo or multi unit metering. I don't think your solution is very cost effective. Please read the product info and what it is designed to solve.

 

[Terminator5047]

These are for Condo or multi unit metering. I don't think your solution is very cost effective. Please read the product info and what it is designed to solve.

I get that but eventually everyone will need to buy and install this is All I was saying

 

[Fred B]

Looks to me like that breaker is in there so that your branch circuit to the charger is not a tap requiring compliance with tap rules. That factory breaker is simply your branch circuit supply and you will need a local disconnect. According the their site it has a UL listing.

The EV charger unit can be simply directly wired utilization equipment no different that your electric stove. Not needing to meet the requirements of a feeder. This unit by including a breaker internally I think would make the circuit wiring between the panel and this device a feeder and need to meet the requirements of a feeder.
A load shedding device in of itself is mearly an automatic switching device that is monitoring frequency change that is a result of loss primary utility power and then turning of the load under specific criteria. And by itself would not need to be installed as a feeder, but by having the breaker integral it changes everything. I've used load shed devices the past that did not have breaker integral to the shedding device. They now have more than enough capacity for an EV charger. These ones also did include signage indicating no serviceable parts inside.
The unit pictured may have the intent to also be the local disconnect and if so would need to be placed in such a way to meet those requirements, and the feeder requirements. I think the OP has a point for the lack of isolation of live conductors in relationship to the internal breaker if the intent likely is for it to be the local disconnect as well as a load shedding device.

 

[Sierrasparky]

The EV charger unit can be simply directly wired utilization equipment no different that your electric stove. Not needing to meet the requirements of a feeder. This unit by including a breaker internally I think would make the circuit wiring between the panel and this device a feeder and need to meet the requirements of a feeder.
A load shedding device in of itself is mearly an automatic switching device that is monitoring frequency change that is a result of loss primary utility power and then turning of the load under specific criteria. And by itself would not need to be installed as a feeder, but by having the breaker integral it changes everything. I've used load shed devices the past that did not have breaker integral to the shedding device. They now have more than enough capacity for an EV charger. These ones also did include signage indicating no serviceable parts inside.
The unit pictured may have the intent to also be the local disconnect and if so would need to be placed in such a way to meet those requirements, and the feeder requirements. I think the OP has a point for the lack of isolation of live conductors in relationship to the internal breaker if the intent likely is for it to be the local disconnect as well as a load shedding device.

This device creates a branch circuit that is why it has a breaker. It's line in and line out are the main feeder for the individual condo 125 a max.
The load shedding cuts of power to the branch circuit to keep the load on the feeder below 80% of the rated capacity by way of current probe. This is done so that a condo owner can add a EV charger to a loaded up panel and also because there usually are no branch breakers in the parking garage attached to their meter. This enables condos complex not to have to upgrade their electrical infrastructure at great expense.

 

[petersonra]

I did not realize there is an exception. How does this relate if the building is not under constant supervision.

View attachment 2556983

what the heck is a "switch containing ... circuit breaker"?

 

[Sierrasparky]

what the heck is a "switch containing ... circuit breaker"?

is that a funny?

 

[jimmyglen]

We have used that and their other products. Everything works well and their support is fantastic. Has passed inspection and I see no issues with it.

 

[Sierrasparky]

We have used that and their other products. Everything works well and their support is fantastic. Has passed inspection and I see no issues with it.

Were the DC9 you have installed placed on the ceiling in a parking garage with access to all?

 

[Fred B]

This device creates a branch circuit that is why it has a breaker. It's line in and line out are the main feeder for the individual condo 125 a max.
The load shedding cuts of power to the branch circuit to keep the load on the feeder below 80% of the rated capacity by way of current probe. This is done so that a condo owner can add a EV charger to a loaded up panel and also because there usually are no branch breakers in the parking garage attached to their meter. This enables condos complex not to have to upgrade their electrical infrastructure at great expense.

So this is interrupting (or cutting into) the feeder to the apt unit? If that is the case it seems the 83% of load size reduction allowed for a feeder supplying the entire load of a dwelling unit per 310.15(B)(7)(2) would no longer be available as the feeder will no longer provide power only to the dwelling unit by having the added branch circuit within the load shedding device being utilized for the EV charger.

 

[Sierrasparky]

So this is interrupting (or cutting into) the feeder to the apt unit? If that is the case it seems the 83% of load size reduction allowed for a feeder supplying the entire load of a dwelling unit per 310.15(B)(7)(2) would no longer be available as the feeder will no longer provide power only to the dwelling unit by having the added branch circuit within the load shedding device being utilized for the EV charger.

The feeder is still only supplying all the power for the single dwelling unit. No common area. No other unit. If you are splitting hairs over a grage parking space then we would have to say the same to a outside deck, or a shed, or .........anything.
The code section you cited speaks of the entire load associated with.....

 

[kwired]

Why would a local disconnect be required?

I wasn't trying to state one is in this application, but most any application where one is required, a breaker inside a something similar doesn't qualify.

A door with deadfront behind it that still allows access to the handle or an external operator however does qualify.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I wasn't trying to state one is in this application, but most any application where one is required, a breaker inside a something similar doesn't qualify.

A door with deadfront behind it that still allows access to the handle or an external operator however does qualify.

Yeh, The sucky part is this device does not have a deadfront. If it did I think it would be a better product.

 

[Fred B]

The feedwe is still only supplying all the power for the single dwelling unit. No common area. No other unit. If you are splitting hairs over a grage parking space then we would have to say the same to a outside deck, or a shed, or .........anything.
The code section you cited speaks of the entire load associated with.....

The way it was explained to me was if the feeder split to feed another item not just to the singular related load ie the apt panel, it is a feeder tap, it also is provided a seperate overcurent protection.
As opposed the argument above for the outside shed or deck, which is a description is of a branch circuit not a feeder. If those items had a seperate panel or overcurrent protection remotely or seperate from that provided in the source panel it is then no longer a branch circuit but is a feeder circuit.
This item even though a rather complex one is a tap. The feeder once it is tapped it is no longer providing providing the entire load. The internal tap portion doesn't need to meet the feeder requirements but also the extended portion from that breaker to the EV charger is a branch circuit of the device, the continuation of the apt feed from that device is still a feeder and is required to meet the limitations of a feeder and is not carrying 100% of the load as part of it is distributed to the EV charger and the 83% allowance no longer applicable.
I could acquiesce to the idea that the feeder from the first overcurrent to the tap is providing 100% of load of a dwelling unit, but from that tap to the apt is no longer carrying 100% of the load but only a proportional portion relative to the total loads applied to the apt and EV charger combined.