EVSE

[LarryFine]

An outlet, also known as a power outlet or electrical socket, is a device that is installed in a wall or surface and is used to connect electrical devices to a source of electricity. Outlets typically have two or three holes, depending on the country's electrical system, where plugs from electrical devices can be inserted.

A receptacle outlet is an outlet with a receptacle mounted in it. There are other types of outlets.

The box and the wires within make up the outlet. It's the receptacle within that has the "holes".

 

[jaggedben]

Sorry, you lost me here. Are you saying that an EVSE is both utilization equipment and an outlet?

I don't see a problem with that. I have been trying to point out this whole thread that in the case of EVSE it is kind of obvious.

And then would a receptacle be both premises wiring and outlet?

You've already pretty much said so yourself, at least for the actual wipers of the outlet.

I see premises wiring and utilization equipment as being disjoint,

Why?

and the outlet existing only at the interface of the two. But maybe you can explain the extent to which you see those 3 terms as potentially overlapping.

I think the burden is on you to explain why they don't overlap where the definitions overlap. And more importantly, why and where it would lead to a nonsensical enforcement of a particular code requirement(s).

Well, is a PV inverter utilization equipment because it contains electronics? If so, and it's installed outside at a dwelling unit, then 210.8(F) would often require that it have GFCI protection (assuming we can agree that all utilization equipment connects to an outlet). So are you putting your PV inverter supplies on GFCI breakers?

No, because until Jan 1st there was absolutely no code section that would have required it in my area, and it still hasn't come up since then. But at least in this case you've raised a genuine issue (as opposed, no offence, to philosophizing that in my opinion isn't in the spirit of the purpose of the code).

I imagine that with 210.8(F) in the book now, some AHJ will eventually raise exactly this question, especially with regard to items like Enphase Envoys and SolarEdge meters (which are undoubtedly outlets), but possibly also things like SolarEdge inverters. This is something that may need a PI, in part since 705.32 was explicitly narrowed to only include GFP and not GFCI. It's impractical to enforce 210.8 since suitable GFCI protection for backfed circuits doesn't exist. So if AHJs want to enforce 210.8(F) on these items that will have to be fixed.

It's fair to point out that the reason we've heard for the CMP adopting 210.8(F) (the kid killed at the air-conditioner with no EGC) is a danger that could apply just the same to PV equipment. Whether there's an 'outlet' at the connection of the PV inverter actually has nothing to do with the justification for the requirement. But it's not possible to fairly enforce it on power sources given current products and technology.

If the electronics in an AFCI breaker are utilization equipment, then the feeder supplying that AFCI breaker is now a branch circuit for that AFCI breaker. Which is not a problem in and of itself, just unexpected.

I'm really not following you here. The electronics, being inside the breaker, and on the load side of where the overcurrent device opens the circuit to boot, are part of the branch circuit not the feeder. Just another outlet in the circuit.. Lots of branch circuits have more than one outlet.

 

[wwhitney]

I'm really not following you here. The electronics, being inside the breaker, and on the load side of where the overcurrent device opens the circuit to boot, are part of the branch circuit not the feeder. Just another outlet in the circuit.. Lots of branch circuits have more than one outlet.

I'm applying your unitary approach, that is part of the receptacle is the outlet, the whole receptacle is an outlet (similarly for the EVSE). So if part of the AFCI circuit breaker is utilization equipment, the only thing is utilization equipment. So the feeder supplying it is a branch circuit for that utilization equipment.

Why?

Let me reiterate the definitions here, and continue in a subsequent post.

Device. A unit of an electrical system, other than a conductor, that carries or controls electric energy as its principal function.

Premises Wiring (System). Interior and exterior wiring, including power, lighting, control, and signal circuit wiring together with all their associated hardware, fittings, and wiring devices, both permanently and temporarily installed. This includes one of the following:
(1) wiring from the service point or power source to the outlets
(2) wiring from and including the power source to the outlets where there is no service point.
Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires, motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment. (CMP-1)

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

Utilization Equipment. Equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar purposes.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

I think the burden is on you to explain why they don't overlap where the definitions overlap.

I would say that the definitions hardly overlap and don't overlap as much as you are saying.

The outlet definition says it is a point "on the wiring system." Therefore I agree the outlet is part of the wiring system. It also says current is "taken" from the wiring system. Taken implies departure. So the outlet has to be on the boundary of the wiring system. If the wiring on both sides of the outlet are on the wiring system, then current isn't taken.

The premises wiring system says it extends "to the outlets." The implication is that it stops at the outlets, and an outlet is on the boundary of the premises wiring system. Which agrees with the wording of the definition of "outlet".

The utilization equipment, then, is on non-premises wiring system side of the outlet. So the utilization equipment is disjoint from the premises wiring system.

There's a bit more to be said, including how the definitions imply that a power source can't be utilization equipment, but that depends on the above analysis, so let's see if it is agreeable or not.

Cheers, Wayne

PS I'm going to agree with you that an outlet in reality can't be an infinitesimal point. On a one line diagram, it can be and is a single point. But in reality, that point represents a connection between the wiring system and the utilization equipment. So it is at least a contact surface, and I don't think it matters if you want to expand that to a small volume of equal diameter. And as there are multiple circuit conductors, it is multiple contact surfaces, typically 2, 3, or 4.

 

[jap]

Geez,,, if only someone would have wrote, "at point of connection" instead of "where current is taken" ....

Jap>

 

[jap]

I would say that the definitions hardly overlap and don't overlap as much as you are saying.

The outlet definition says it is a point "on the wiring system." Therefore I agree the outlet is part of the wiring system. It also says current is "taken" from the wiring system. Taken implies departure. So the outlet has to be on the boundary of the wiring system. If the wiring on both sides of the outlet are on the wiring system, then current isn't taken.

The premises wiring system says it extends "to the outlets." The implication is that it stops at the outlets, and an outlet is on the boundary of the premises wiring system. Which agrees with the wording of the definition of "outlet".

The utilization equipment, then, is on non-premises wiring system side of the outlet. So the utilization equipment is disjoint from the premises wiring system.

There's a bit more to be said, including how the definitions imply that a power source can't be utilization equipment, but that depends on the above analysis, so let's see if it is agreeable or not.

Cheers, Wayne

PS I'm going to agree with you that an outlet in reality can't be an infinitesimal point. On a one line diagram, it can be and is a single point. But in reality, that point represents a connection between the wiring system and the utilization equipment. So it is at least a contact surface, and I don't think it matters if you want to expand that to a small volume of equal diameter. And as there are multiple circuit conductors, it is multiple contact surfaces, typically 2, 3, or 4.

I agree with everything you are saying.

My problem with all this is that once the utilization equipment is connected to the wiring system, that still doesn't mean that current is flowing.

It simply means that the utilization equipment is "connected" to the wiring system.

Current will only flow or be "taken" or "departed" from the system once the unit it turned on and current is flowing, but, at that point everything is already connected together.

Once it's all connected together, it would be hard to defend the statement that the current was taken at the single point at the end of the line.

There's not "current" in a receptacle, AC disconnect, J-box or etc... at idle,,, only voltage.

JMHO.

JAP>

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree with everything you are saying.

My problem with all this is that once the utilization equipment is connected to the wiring system, that still doesn't mean that current is flowing.

It simply means that the utilization equipment is "connected" to the wiring system.

Current will only flow or be "taken" or "departed" from the system once the unit it turned on and current is flowing, but, at that point everything is already connected together.

Once it's all connected together, it would be hard to defend the statement that the current was taken at the single point at the end of the line.

There's not "current" in a receptacle, AC disconnect, J-box or etc... at idle,,, only voltage.

JMHO.

JAP>

Possible PI
"Outlet:
A point where the branch circuit conductors connect to, or will be connected to, a receptacle(s), fixture whip conductors, or utilization equipment. [/quote]

 

[jap]

Possible PI
"Outlet:
A point where the branch circuit conductors connect to, or will be connected to, a receptacle(s), fixture whip conductors, or utilization equipment.

[/QUOTE]

Would that be so bad?

I could even see it stopping at "connected to" without having to describe different types of connection examples.

Oh well,

JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

Possible PI
"Outlet:
A point where the branch circuit conductors connect to, or will be connected to, a receptacle(s), fixture whip conductors, or utilization equipment.

I think you said you were going to submit that PI?

A narrower change addressing jap's concerns would be: "Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is with provisions for current to be taken to supply utilization equipment."

A related question: is every receptacle really an outlet, or is there a way to use a receptacle to continue the premises wiring without taking current for / connecting utilization equipment?

For example, I haven't studied the rules on pendant receptacles--can I put a single receptacle in the ceiling, hang a suitable cord from a strain relief at the ceiling, with one end plugged into the ceiling receptacle, and the other end supporting a suitable box with receptacle(s)? And consider the cord and hanging box to be part of the premises wiring system?

In which case the receptacle at the ceiling would not be an outlet under the current definition. It would just be a convenient way to transition from concealed premises wiring to exposed premises wiring.

So if the use of a receptacle like that is allowed, then in adjusting the definition of outlet you need to consider the case of that ceiling receptacle and whether you want it to count as an outlet.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jap]

To me the word "current" is what's confusing the whole issue.

Why does the word "current" have to be in the definition of an outlet?

JAP>

 

[tortuga]

For example, I haven't studied the rules on pendant receptacles--can I put a single receptacle in the ceiling, hang a suitable cord from a strain relief at the ceiling, with one end plugged into the ceiling receptacle, and the other end supporting a suitable box with receptacle(s)? And consider the cord and hanging box to be part of the premises wiring system?

Allot of jurisdictions use the 'outlet' as a point where you no longer need a fully licensed JW electrician. So that pendant, in your example, is just like a glorified extension cord and university maintenance mechanic can fabricate the pendant drop cord, but if you need to move the hard piped ceiling outlet you need a full blown JW to work on the 'branch circuit'.

The real issue in this thread was manufacturers trying to pave over the code with a UL carpet. Reminds me of the epic saga of LED wafer lights that mfr instructions used to say "junction box mounting optional", now that we complained it says "follow local codes".

 

[jap]

Allot of jurisdictions use the 'outlet' as a point where you no longer need a fully licensed JW electrician. So that pendant, in your example, is just like a glorified extension cord and university maintenance mechanic can fabricate the pendant drop cord, but if you need to move the hard piped ceiling outlet you need a full blown JW to work on the 'branch circuit'.

The real issue in this thread was manufacturers trying to pave over the code with a UL carpet. Reminds me of the epic saga of LED wafer lights that mfr instructions used to say "junction box mounting optional", now that we complained it says "follow local codes".

I differ in the fact that I do feel that cord drop would be part of the premises wiring.

If I was an owner, and I changed vendors for a piece of utilization equipment, and they took my pendant cord drop that wasn't part of the equipment to begin with in the change out , I'd be pissed.

JAP>

 

[Bill Snyder]

Possible PI
"Outlet:
A point where the branch circuit conductors connect to, or will be connected to, a receptacle(s), fixture whip conductors, or utilization equipment.

[/QUOTE]
Possible PI delete 210.8(F) without substitution

 

[Bill Snyder]

Allot of jurisdictions use the 'outlet' as a point where you no longer need a fully licensed JW electrician. So that pendant, in your example, is just like a glorified extension cord and university maintenance mechanic can fabricate the pendant drop cord, but if you need to move the hard piped ceiling outlet you need a full blown JW to work on the 'branch circuit'.

The real issue in this thread was manufacturers trying to pave over the code with a UL carpet. Reminds me of the epic saga of LED wafer lights that mfr instructions used to say "junction box mounting optional", now that we complained it says "follow local codes".

The issue I see is the manufacturers say their equipment is safe and compliant for personnel protection when hardwired, and now CMP-2 is saying you have to purchase an additional device to be code compliant I don't agree with that interpretation that there is an outdoor outlet present.

 

[wwhitney]

I don't agree with that interpretation that there is an outdoor outlet present.

The definitions are clear that every piece of utilization equipment is attached to an outlet. And the use of the word "outlet" in 210.8(F) instead of "receptacle" as in the rest of 210.8 is clearly a contrasting choice so as to cover hardwired equipment. That's the reality, you just need to deal with it, e.g. if you don't like 210.8(F), submit the PI you just proposed.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

The issue I see is the manufacturers say their equipment is safe and compliant for personnel protection when hardwired, and now CMP-2 is saying you have to purchase an additional device to be code compliant I don't agree with that interpretation that there is an outdoor outlet present.

I'd toss the issue back to Tesla, its probably just firmware update to go from 15ma to 5ma.

 

[Bill Snyder]

I'd toss the issue back to Tesla, its probably just firmware update to go from 15ma to 5ma.

Tesla listed equipment has personnel protection that complies with 210.8 but there's a certain group of people who say it connects to an outlet that also requires protection most ridiculous thing ever.

 

[wwhitney]

Tesla listed equipment has personnel protection that complies with 210.8

No, we confirmed that the Tesla Gen 3 Wall Connector does not have personnel protection that complies with 210.8. It has a CCID20 listing, which is Charge Current Interrupting Device with a 15-20 ma trip threshold. 210.8 requires a Class A GFCI, which has a 4-6 ma trip threshold.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Bill Snyder]

The definitions are clear that every piece of utilization equipment is attached to an outlet. And the use of the word "outlet" in 210.8(F) instead of "receptacle" as in the rest of 210.8 is clearly a contrasting choice so as to cover hardwired equipment. That's the reality, you just need to deal with it, e.g. if you don't like 210.8(F), submit the PI you just proposed.

Cheers, Wayne

Funny how no one can say where the appliance outlet is located.

 

[Bill Snyder]

No, we confirmed that the Tesla Gen 3 Wall Connector does not have personnel protection that complies with 210.8. It has a CCID20 listing, which is Charge Current Interrupting Device with a 15-20 ma trip threshold. 210.8 requires a Class A GFCI, which has a 4-6 ma trip threshold.

Cheers, Wayne

Manufacturer instructions say their equipment does not connect to an outlet when hardwired the human interaction has been removed and there is no technical merit that any hazard exists on hardwired utilization equipment.