EV Chargers tripping GFCI breakers

[Sierrasparky]

Neutral is not required for a GFCI to serve a purpose. I assume the concern is the potential wet environment and the fact that users are constantly plugging in and unplugging the cord set.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

That may be a concern , however do we protect from every concern?

Basically the same reason GFCI is now required for every receptacle outlet in a residential garage.

are you sure about every receptacle outlet in a a garage. I don't think a 240v welder outlet is required to be GFCI. I think this is another code to sell more expensive equipment.

 

[retirede]

That may be a concern , however do we protect from every concern?
are you sure about every receptacle outlet in a a garage. I don't think a 240v welder outlet is required to be GFCI. I think this is another code to sell more expensive equipment.

Can you tell if the 6-50 in my garage is there to serve my welder or my EVSE?

Pretty sure 2020 states all receptacle outlets less that 150V to ground or less than 60A. Don’t have it handy - somebody will correct me.

 

[jaggedben]

That may be a concern , however do we protect from every concern?
are you sure about every receptacle outlet in a a garage. I don't think a 240v welder outlet is required to be GFCI. I think this is another code to sell more expensive equipment.

The 2020 NEC requires it for the welding outlet, so it is at least being instituted consistently. It will become code in California in 2023.

 

[Chamuit]

Can you tell if the 6-50 in my garage is there to serve my welder or my EVSE?

Pretty sure 2020 states all receptacle outlets less that 150V to ground or less than 60A. Don’t have it handy - somebody will correct me.

2020 - 210.8(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt through 250-volt receptacles installed in the locations specified in 210.8(A)(1) through (A)(11) and supplied by the single-phase branch circuits rated 150 volts or less to ground shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.

 

[kwired]

2020 - 210.8(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt through 250-volt receptacles installed in the locations specified in 210.8(A)(1) through (A)(11) and supplied by the single-phase branch circuits rated 150 volts or less to ground shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.

Note there is no 50 amp cap to this, there is still some possible loopholes though not many applications that would be common to a dwelling would fit. How often do you see multiphase or over 150 to ground at a dwelling other than 208/120 at multifamily dwellings?

 

[Sierrasparky]

I did not see that 125 - 250v in the 2020. I suppose if it is Hardwired could that be an exception?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I did not see that 125 - 250v in the 2020. I suppose if it is Hardwired could that be an exception?

 

[rnatalie]

The EVSE is supposed to tell the car how much amperage is available. Of course, some of the manufacturers (Chevy notably) get this WRONG on some models. I don't know why an EVSE should trip a GFCI, it's a pretty mindless device. Other than telling the car what's available, it itself is a GFCI.

 

[retirede]

The EVSE is supposed to tell the car how much amperage is available. Of course, some of the manufacturers (Chevy notably) get this WRONG on some models. I don't know why an EVSE should trip a GFCI, it's a pretty mindless device. Other than telling the car what's available, it itself is a GFCI.

I suspect cheap surge protection circuitry with associated leakage to the ground terminal.

 

[kwired]

I did not see that 125 - 250v in the 2020. I suppose if it is Hardwired could that be an exception?

for 210.8 (A) purposes yes, 210.8(A) only applies to receptacles outlets.

210.8(F) would require it if 50 amp or less whether hardwired or cord connected and if outdoors.

I did not yet check the earlier mentioned 625 article that could apply, what I just mentioned is the general rules.

add

625.54 GFCI looks like GFCI required if supplied by receptacle regardless of volts or amps.

 

[marmathsen]

What year code is 625.54, I don't think we have that in Calif.

NEC 2020

Although I just realized that NFPA Link is messed up and shows it for NEC 2017 as well. I'll have to reach out to them on that one.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Finally figured out why NFPA Link shows 625.54 (GFCI requirement for EVSE receptacle) in the 2017 code. It came through on December 21st 2016 as a TIA. So technically part of the Code but long after physical books were printed.

Do they ever include TIAs in physical books?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

Finally figured out why NFPA Link shows 625.54 (GFCI requirement for EVSE receptacle) in the 2017 code. It came through on December 21st 2016 as a TIA. So technically part of the Code but long after physical books were printed.

Do they ever include TIAs in physical books?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Not sure but I'd guess no. There may be known TIA information printed in front matter of the newer book though?

I do know when there is known errata they will correct it in any future publication runs. You run into that the most if you purchased an early edition of new cycle code books, then compare it to one that was printed say six months or a year later. Newer versions have the known mistakes at time of publication fixed.

 

[rnatalie]

To my knowledge neither in the printed or the NFPA link. They aren't yet "official." They do appear on the NFPA70 page along with the other "in progress" stuff for each code version.

 

[marmathsen]

To my knowledge neither in the printed or the NFPA link. They aren't yet "official." They do appear on the NFPA70 page along with the other "in progress" stuff for each code version.

In NFPA Link it shows up just as any other part of the code for 2017. I'm surprised it doesn't have any sort of notation that it's a TIA.

My printed does not have it.

Here's a link to the actual TIA:

https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/TIA_70_17_2.pdf

And an excerpt:
"A Tentative Interim Amendment is tentative because it has not been processed through the entire standards-making procedures. It is interim because it is effective only between editions of the standard. A TIA automatically becomes a public input of the proponent for the next edition of the standard; as such, it then is subject to all of the procedures of the standards-making process."

The key term that I see is "it is *effective* only between editions of the standard" which sounds like it is to be followed.

In Washington State our electrical department (L&I) did not adopt any "subsequent Errata and Tentative Interim Amendments" from 2017.

But for 2020 our state code reads "[Adopted Standards] The 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70 - 2020) published August, 2019 including Annex A, B,
C, and subsequent Errata and Tentative Interim Amendments issued by the National Fire Protection Association..."

So I guess bottom line is, your local jurisdiction dictates whether any TIAs are to be followed as code.

Rob

 

[kwired]

In NFPA Link it shows up just as any other part of the code for 2017. I'm surprised it doesn't have any sort of notation that it's a TIA.

My printed does not have it.

Here's a link to the actual TIA:

https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/TIA_70_17_2.pdf

And an excerpt:
"A Tentative Interim Amendment is tentative because it has not been processed through the entire standards-making procedures. It is interim because it is effective only between editions of the standard. A TIA automatically becomes a public input of the proponent for the next edition of the standard; as such, it then is subject to all of the procedures of the standards-making process."

The key term that I see is "it is *effective* only between editions of the standard" which sounds like it is to be followed.

In Washington State our electrical department (L&I) did not adopt any "subsequent Errata and Tentative Interim Amendments" from 2017.

But for 2020 our state code reads "[Adopted Standards] The 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70 - 2020) published August, 2019 including Annex A, B,
C, and subsequent Errata and Tentative Interim Amendments issued by the National Fire Protection Association..."

So I guess bottom line is, your local jurisdiction dictates whether any TIAs are to be followed as code.

Rob

True with your bottom line. If they just state NFPA 70 (and year) is the code to be followed they sort of leave things open to interpretation if TIA's or errata for that edition do come up. If they have a specific edition (publication date) in the official law books, then they sort of have to follow that particular edition for enforcement

I could see NFPA changing their archive content after those TIA's officially become part of the next code if the TIA content does become part of the next code. I would imagine errata gets changed pretty much immediately on their archives - particularly the online access content. I'd think there should be no changes to older codes other than a one time inclusion of TIA's when they become part of the next code.

 

[ramsy]

To my knowledge California does not typically adopt TIAs. I found a bulletin online from the CA code commission advising localities of changes to 625 and that they need to either enact a local ordiance or permit alternative methods. These sections are also not in the supplement that goes into effect July 1st. So you basically have until 2023 in California.

Here is that CA bulletin