Language Review: 2029 Public Input: Field documentation for power limiting means

B

brycenesbitt

Senior Member
Location
United States
Have a look, let me know where I've gone wrong in writing the language?
Field inspectable adjustable ampacity

625.42 Rating.
The service, feeder, and branch circuit supplying EVSE shall have sufficient rating to supply the load served, unless the overall rating of the installation can be limited through controls as permitted by 625.42(A) or 625.42(B) as modified by 625.42(C). Settings means must comply with 625.42(C)(1)-(4) as applicable.

(C) All power limitation settings must be field verifiable by qualified persons using only information left on site, tools to access any covers, and a common smartphone.
  1. Technical documentation on settings must be durably affixed to the equipment.
  2. A smartphone connection to equipment is permissible, provided all information required to access view-only settings is durably affixed to the equipment.
  3. If a form of authentication is required to adjust settings, a label must be attached to the equipment with contact information for the responsible parties.
  4. Cloud based systems must report all changes to power control settings to the cloud based host.

Substantiation
Recently in the field I googled for the meaning of rotary limiting switch position 2 on a Cyberswitching EVSE. Turns out different production years of the same EVSE had different meanings of rotary switch position 2. I almost mis-set the EVSE for the incorrect ampacity. There was no local label on the rotary switch.

It’s hard enough figuring out old electrical systems where every wire, breaker and panel have well understood printed rating labels and colors.

Power control systems and adjustable devices are black boxes. Years or decades later we may be called to diagnose, extend or repair such equipment. Without visibility into the internal settings, and with equipment from a company that may be long out of business, we will be unable to do our jobs. These settings matter a lot.
 
This EVSE stuff is getting out of control. All the NEC should have is a generic requirement. Anything else is beyond the scope and a design issue. The last thing we need is junk with a short lifespan and limited use making the Code more confusing.

brycenesbitt said:
Recently in the field I googled for the meaning of rotary limiting switch position 2 on a Cyberswitching EVSE. Turns out different production years of the same EVSE had different meanings of rotary switch position 2. I almost mis-set the EVSE for the incorrect ampacity. There was no local label on the rotary switch.

Power control systems and adjustable devices are black boxes. Years or decades later we may be called to diagnose, extend or repair such equipment. Without visibility into the internal settings, and with equipment from a company that may be long out of business, we will be unable to do our jobs. These settings matter a lot.
Click to expand...
As if the customer will have the same vehicle years or decades later. Or the tech will have a "smart phone". By the time that Code is adopted that information will be obsolete.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
This EVSE stuff is getting out of control. All the NEC should have is a generic requirement. Anything else is beyond the scope and a design issue. The last thing we need is junk with a short lifespan and limited use making the Code more confusing.
Click to expand...
Most of, and probably all of, Article 625 is redundant with the product standards
and as far as I can tell adds no discernible safety improvement compared to no text at all.
It's a legacy section that could be deleted.

If you want to take up that fight, by all means do.


My PI draft above does represent a real hole that affects real installers. It would be better implemented by in the product standards not the NEC. But when all you have is a hammer, that's the tool. And it's very consistent with the NEC being used to lead the product standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top