What's everyone's thoughts on proposed 625.4?

infinity said:
Shouldn't all electrical work be installed by qualified persons so why single out just EV chargers? To many this is just more pointless language added to an already bloated electrical code.
Click to expand...
How many times have we seen comments here from probably very qualified commercial electricians that can do fantastic pipe work that fail basic residential installations requirement or visa versa. Qualified for some things are not qualified for others. Would you think just because someone can "plug-in" a level 1 or 2 EV charger, they are qualified to wire up a level 3 three phase charger system? Both are covered by 625. Just because a person can plug one in does such make a person qualified to know that load management might be needed for a specific unit or not or how to adjust a charger to accommodate varying conditions? How many discussions are happening here related to just EV chargers by "qualified" persons because of some specific nuances related to such supply equipment from 625, as well as a multitude of other questions by "qualified" persons on this forum?
 
This will be debated on the floor of the NFPA meeting this week...there were 12 CAMs asking for this rule to be deleted.
There are 33 CAMs related to Article 625, I believe the total number of CAMs is 59 so over half related to Article 615.
 
Fred B said:
Most state building codes include by reference the NEC. Thus if it's not in there, the requirement doesn't exist. An inspection is no substitute for a qualified person installing.

How many here, even as an electrician, will have the HO or even GC misdirect or redirect or outright lie about work they attempted or to avoid having a non related (their opinion) bad installation done by themselves or other hack looked at and questioned. Or how many times have you heard "the lights come on so what's the problem" related to a non-compliant installation, Zip cord in the wall will make the lights work. How many even here will complain "what were they thinking" related to a job they went to, filled with non-compliant work, Seen many many such comments on this forum. How many time have we seen or had made to us "can't you just" comments that would make an installation non-compliant. Just throw a penny under the fuse the power will come back on.
Many levels to being qualified.


Look at the definition of qualified person. Just because you own the home or business building, it DOES NOT make you qualified. I know how to strike an arc and weld my lawn mower deck but does that make me "qualified" to weld a stainless steel chemical storage tank that will be used in a high risk area that I may own and may impact others?

Even if it is in the manufacturers instructions the mere fact that a person take the company course doesn't make the person "qualified" under the code. How many times have ones here seen a plumber who took a Generac course try to do a generator installation and fail to install to NEC requirements. And then further think they can do "ANY" electrical work by virtue of the Generac course, I have many times.

If everyone (not pointing any fingers here) was doing safe, non risky, will not harm anyone, just by common sense and basic electrical theory compliant and safe, there would be no need for a "code" of code enforcement. But because these unsafe non-compliant installations ARE happening the "CODE" gets changed or added to to allow for more supervision and stricter control of such installation and to accommodate for changing conditions or equipment (no longer installing K&T as new installation, adding EGC for receptacle installation). At times requirements are added not for the person doing things correctly but for those who don't or can't because they don't know how to or has a "little knowledge". It wouldn't be a saying if it wasn't happening "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Also in part why this forum avoids advising non-electricians on how to for their lack of knowledge. Forum moderators have shut them down.
Click to expand...
I really liked your comment today about why we would concern ourselves with direct wired EVSE that have no record WORLD WIDE of death or injury because it's a relay with components to measure leakage and A GFCI is a relay with components to measure leakage current what makes it safer to have 2 of these devices and now there are Leviton devices that are melting when reverse fed.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
This will be debated on the floor of the NFPA meeting this week...there were 12 CAMs asking for this rule to be deleted.
There are 33 CAMs related to Article 625, I believe the total number of CAMs is 59 so over half related to Article 615.
Click to expand...
You spelled 625 wrong and I submitted them to show the CMPs don't know what they were talking about and I am right what happened to the PI calling out King James that the definition of outlet was going to change to make you right?
 
infinity said:
If it were part of the listing instructions it would be enforced by the state with or without the wording proposed in 625.4 wouldn't it? That would make this new wording added to the NEC redundant and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
True. It just gives entities an out. Just another way of complicating a perfectly good system. :)
 
Fred B said:
Look at the definition of qualified person. Just because you own the home or business building, it DOES NOT make you qualified. I know how to strike an arc and weld my lawn mower deck but does that make me "qualified" to weld a stainless steel chemical storage tank that will be used in a high risk area that I may own and may impact others?
Click to expand...
Sure it does. In my own home I am qualified to do anything because I have trained myself to do it. Now, look at the definition and tell me who has to provide the training. Don't rely on the IN, it's for the "workplace".

Your example of a "business building" you may own does not come into play in the states I lived in, I can only perform the tasks in my primary residence.

With that said I would be more concerned about the back yard mechanics that have bolted a front end on a POS pick up and is driving towards me at 70 + MPH than a Home Owner wiring a EV charger.
 
Willie Snyder said:
So far the electrical committee has kept everything except the word outlet in 625.44 saying provide a receptacle outlet which is not a device but a location
Click to expand...
What electrical committee? The CAMs are voted on by all of the NFPA members that are present at the technical session, as long as they have been a member for at least 6 months prior to the vote.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
What electrical committee? The CAMs are voted on by all of the NFPA members that are present at the technical session, as long as they have been a member for at least 6 months prior to the vote.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard any arguments from the portable fire extinguisher standard yet LOL
 
Willie Snyder said:
So if the language passes for 625.4 it would read all permanently installed EVSE shall be installed by a qualified person. Did they make some classes that I'm not aware of? Does my Colorado JW license make me qualified? TIA
Click to expand...
Here's what Motor Trend Magazine thinks of it:
Another Dumb Electrical Code Change Could Ban DIY EV Charger Installs

I submitted the primary NITMAM on this topic, and made the motion in Las Vegas this past Friday, to ask CMP-12 to reconsider on 625.4.
My grounds were that you can't ban a thing really. You can only pretend to ban it. The better move is to (1) have more DIY'ers get permits
with on-site professional inspection, and (2) encourage permanent wiring over receptacle outlets.

Unfortunately, the body saw it the other way. So now we get every AHJ's interpretation of what "qualified" means. And more "unqualified" persons will install receptacles which are harder to get right than permanent installs and have more connections and potential failure points. Looping a cable into a generous sized permanent EVSE is dead easy, and several come with spring terminals eliminating the torque issue at the EVSE end. Getting those wires to bend right to get a NEMA 14-50 to seat in a box is within the capabilities of many DIY'ers for sure, but it's got more ways to go wrong. But on the plus side, there's a shock hazard with a NEMA 14-50, so a GFCI is needed.

See more at NITMAM 128-NFPA 70-2025, leading to CAM 70-128.

------------------------------
Note: NECA submitted the public comment that became 625.4, and they primarily work on non-residential and non-DIY jobs.
What's unclear is how much of CMP-12's decision was based on a concern about unqualified persons for commercial EVSE, unqualified electricians working on multifamily and/or unqualified single-family owner-occupants. None of that analysis appeared in the substantiation.
 

Attachments

  • NFPA 70 2026 NITMAM Nesbitt.pdf
    155.6 KB · Views: 5
brycenesbitt said:
Here's what Motor Trend Magazine thinks of it:
Another Dumb Electrical Code Change Could Ban DIY EV Charger Installs

I submitted the primary NITMAM on this topic, and made the motion in Las Vegas this past Friday, to ask CMP-12 to reconsider on 625.4.
My grounds were that you can't ban a thing really. You can only pretend to ban it. The better move is to (1) have more DIY'ers get permits
with on-site professional inspection, and (2) encourage permanent wiring over receptacle outlets.

Unfortunately, the body saw it the other way. So now we get every AHJ's interpretation of what "qualified" means. And more "unqualified" persons will install receptacles which are harder to get right than permanent installs and have more connections and potential failure points. Looping a cable into a generous sized permanent EVSE is dead easy, and several come with spring terminals eliminating the torque issue at the EVSE end. Getting those wires to bend right to get a NEMA 14-50 to seat in a box is within the capabilities of many DIY'ers for sure, but it's got more ways to go wrong. But on the plus side, there's a shock hazard with a NEMA 14-50, so a GFCI is needed.

See more at NITMAM 128-NFPA 70-2025, leading to CAM 70-128.

------------------------------
Note: NECA submitted the public comment that became 625.4, and they primarily work on non-residential and non-DIY jobs.
What's unclear is how much of CMP-12's decision was based on a concern about unqualified persons for commercial EVSE, unqualified electricians working on multifamily and/or unqualified single-family owner-occupants. None of that analysis appeared in the substantiation.
Click to expand...
My argument has become once I am a qualified EVSE technician am I allowed to remove Class A protection due to my training with incompatibility and no body count for loss of life world wide?
 
brycenesbitt said:
Here's what Motor Trend Magazine thinks of it:
Another Dumb Electrical Code Change Could Ban DIY EV Charger Installs

I submitted the primary NITMAM on this topic, and made the motion in Las Vegas this past Friday, to ask CMP-12 to reconsider on 625.4.
My grounds were that you can't ban a thing really. You can only pretend to ban it. The better move is to (1) have more DIY'ers get permits
with on-site professional inspection, and (2) encourage permanent wiring over receptacle outlets.

Unfortunately, the body saw it the other way. So now we get every AHJ's interpretation of what "qualified" means. And more "unqualified" persons will install receptacles which are harder to get right than permanent installs and have more connections and potential failure points. Looping a cable into a generous sized permanent EVSE is dead easy, and several come with spring terminals eliminating the torque issue at the EVSE end. Getting those wires to bend right to get a NEMA 14-50 to seat in a box is within the capabilities of many DIY'ers for sure, but it's got more ways to go wrong. But on the plus side, there's a shock hazard with a NEMA 14-50, so a GFCI is needed.

See more at NITMAM 128-NFPA 70-2025, leading to CAM 70-128.

------------------------------
Note: NECA submitted the public comment that became 625.4, and they primarily work on non-residential and non-DIY jobs.
What's unclear is how much of CMP-12's decision was based on a concern about unqualified persons for commercial EVSE, unqualified electricians working on multifamily and/or unqualified single-family owner-occupants. None of that analysis appeared in the substantiation.
Click to expand...
What as the vote?
 
brycenesbitt said:
Unfortunately, the body saw it the other way. So now we get every AHJ's interpretation of what "qualified" means.
Click to expand...
Thats unfortunate. I'd suggest using all your expertise and time spent on this get a boiler plate petition document ready for anyone to use to petition a state or town (or who ever adopts the NEC in your area) to delete article 625 at the adoption level say 'for the purposes of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens' thats all the buzz right now, just look at the 'Delete Delete Delete' directive going on at the FCC.
All the AHJ needs to follow when inspecting a EVSE is covered in extremely basic code concepts covered in Articles 110, 210, 220 etc.
If its listed equipment -> all thats needed is to follow the instructions <-
A EVSE is not 'special equipment' and not complex assembly of components like a swimming pool or elevator, its a UL listed product.
 
Last edited:
tortuga said:
Thats unfortunate. I'd suggest using all your expertise and time spent on this get a boiler plate petition document ready for anyone to use to petition a state or town (or who ever adopts the NEC in your area) to delete article 625 at the adoption level say 'for the purposes of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens' thats all the buzz right now, just look at the 'Delete Delete Delete' directive going on at the FCC.
All the AHJ needs to follow when inspecting a EVSE is covered in extremely basic code concepts covered in Articles 110, 210, 220 etc.
If its listed equipment -> all thats needed is to follow the instructions <-
A EVSE is not 'special equipment' and not complex assembly of components like a swimming pool or elevator, its a UL listed product.
Click to expand...
It's going to be interesting how the AHJ reacts to this on a State level I am keeping people informed and that makes it harder for the CMPs to have blind conformity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top