Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
What if the AHJ says Class A protection is not required on EVSE based on the manufacturer's instructions?
NEC or UL?
- Thread starter Bill Snyder
- Start date
letgomywago
Senior Member
- Location
- Washington state and Oregon coast
- Occupation
- residential electrician
They need a written amendment
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
The AHJ would have to provide a written 90.4 special permission...something that is very very rare.
If the first draft stands as published the following will be added to 110.3(B) to address these types of issues.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
That is not true they would not have received a listing if it was an NEC violation and these instructions comply with 625.54
Attachments
Were on the 2017 code here thats what they are listed to a 2017 625.22
I learned from Mike's website here that thats what UL CCID20 or CCID5 is.
Those things are hard wired, I typically run a 6/2 MC cable or EMT, do they require a GFCI on a 60A hard wired outlet where you are in the newer code?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
A permission to eliminate a GFCI requirement in the code would always require a written 90.4 permission...nothing in UL or any other document can eliminate a code rule.
The listing has nothing to do with these code rules as the code specifies GFCI protection by location of the receptacle or outlet and the product listing standards do not look at that.
Also the code making panel accepted your Public Input #1440 which expands the GFCI protection to all chargers, both hardwired and cord and plug connected.
Last edited:
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
It didn't pass yet they rejected yours that was supposed to add clarity to the definition of outlet LOL
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Because they said it is 100% clear now...just not to you
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
It seems like this topic has been discussed before.
Bill Snyder
NEC expert
- Location
- Denver, Co
- Occupation
- Electrical Foreman
An outlet is not required to exist on an individual branch circuit funny how they rejected exactly what everyone was saying was true.Because they said it is 100% clear now...just not to you
Attachments
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
What is that attachment from, what is the full context? Pretty useless for making any point when it's cut off like that.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
PI # for this?????
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
That is not even close to what the panel statement actually said. Your PI would have said an individual branch circuit shall supply only a single outlet. The panel rejected it with a statement that says an individual branch circuit may supply more than one outlet.
They have not, in the action on any of the multiple PIs related to outlets, ever said that electrical equipment can operate without being connected to an outlet.
[quote[Public Input No. 1344-NFPA 70-2023
Branch Circuit, Individual. (Individual Branch Circuit)
A branch circuit that supplies only
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
I don't see why there are so many definitions of different branch circuits if they all are required to connect to outlets anyway. The enhanced content of NFPA says hardwired utilization equipment is connected to an appliance outlet. I feel clarification is needed.
Resolution
The proposed language does not add clarity. An individual branch circuit is a branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment, and it is not necessary that only one outlet exist as long as the individual branch circuit is serving only one utilization equipment. [/quote]