New Article 627 Electric Self-Propelled Vehicle Power Transfer Systems (ESVSEs)

[brycenesbitt]

I'm trying to learn the history and motivation behind Article 627 for ESVSEs.
The new article is mostly cut and pasted from Article 625, with some wording changes here and there compared to those for EVSE.
-
The committee statement on the matter describes what they are doing, but not the motivation. In particular what about
"electric forklifts, electric ground support equipment found at airports, and other similar construction equipment, golf carts" represents a problem that needs solving with a new section?
--

Committee: NEC-P12
Submittal Date: Wed Jan 24 21:58:56 EST 2024
Committee Statement
The revision provides requirements to address a gap in the standard and to address
new technology regarding electric vehicles that do not meet the definition of Electric
Vehicle in Article 100. These other vehicles include but are not limited to electric forklifts,
electric ground support equipment found at airports, electric tractor and other similar
construction equipment, golf carts, and electric boats and electric ferries. Article 625 is
limited only to automotive-type vehicles that are used on-road and does not recognize
the many other vehicles. These requirements provide needed guidance for the charging
of these vehicles and power export from these vehicles.
FR-9039-NFPA 70-2024 [New article 627 after existing article 626, see attached word document] (edited)

Will this apply to electric aircraft? To partially electric vehicles, or those that are not self-propelled? To stationary non-grid equipment?
To portable two-way energy storage devices that are not themselves propelled.
Will this lead to new connector types specific for non-vehicles, or will these still be permitted to use the J1772 or J3400 inlets?
Will article 627 be mandatory, or can we still use article 625 if the intended device is not a highway vehicle?
--
Is there anything electrically different about charging an electric airplane vs. a portable battery vs. a Tesla parked at a dock?
Was an alternative considered to define Article 625 to apply more broadly?
---
So many questions!

 

[Elect117]

It is a reach for the CMPs in the 600s. I think additional requirements other than load of the inverter/charger unit is going to conflate or confuse the installer.

I also do not understand why they keep pushing interactive equipment like people are going to use the forklifts to backfeed into their homes.

 

[brycenesbitt]

I also do not understand why they keep pushing interactive equipment like people are going to use the forklifts to backfeed into their homes.

I mean if the forklift has a listed bidirectional outlet, then why not? But that should hardly require a dedicated section.

 

[Elect117]

Those rules can exist in 702, 705, 706. If bidirectional flow is the goal, then you have to meet 702 or 705.

Why regulate the way the load gets installed other than the existing rules. Now you can not install 480V receptacles for forklift chargers that are not fixed in place. It is one of my biggest gripes with 625. Every single one will have to be fastened to the floor or wall and incapable of being moved without tool. Currently they are just fixed in place or portable.