Any benefit of Tesla home charger vs 220 outlet?

[Rocky_H]

he responded that he worked for a law firm that sued insurance companies when they refused to pay claims. I never forgot that.

Yeah, and I already covered that some insurance companies will deny claims for no reason or use that as their initial step until they see if people will appeal that before approving it. That has nothing to do with whether a denial is valid or not.

Two of you seem to be certain that I would prevail in court and I assume you have some legal knowledge to back that up.

Yes, because that is what an inspection IS. It is them signing onto the legal liability that they are responsible if a problem is found later.

Another thing that should be considered in this case is that every article in the NEC is in there for a reason. [...] Fortunately this did not lead to a dramatic failure but I imagine it is that sort of thing against which Article 625.43 is trying to protect.

The point is completely flying over your head. No one is disputing that a disconnect has a useful purpose and is necessary. The point is that the inspector has that legal liability. If an electrical inspector overlooked something, and that was always still the homeowner's fault, there wouldn't be any point to electrical inspections at all. The homeowner would have to be just as knowledgeable as the inspector and do redundant work to double check it all too, in which case, why would they be paying someone else? The inspector has the certifications and licenses, and they are the ones who tag their official stamp on it. That is as far as an insurance company can legitimately and legally challenge. But again, to address your paranoia, any insurance company could illegally deny any claim for no reason. That's just something that can rarely happen, but would have nothing to do with whether an inspection was done well or not. But that's nothing you can have control over anyway, other than trying to use insurance companies who have decent consumer ratings showing that they are generally not douchebags like that.

 

[ajdelange]

Yes, because that is what an inspection IS. It is them signing onto the legal liability that they are responsible if a problem is found later.

The inspector assumes no liability. His tort transfers to his employer and in general you can't sue the government. How this bears on the insurance company I do not know. I am not a lawyer. Clearly you are so perhaps you understand this. To be honest, I don't care.

The point is completely flying over your head.

No. You have made it manifestly clear that you have no concern beyond getting past inspection.

The point is that the inspector has that legal liability.

No, he doesn't.

If an electrical inspector overlooked something, and that was always still the homeowner's fault, there wouldn't be any point to electrical inspections at all.

Yes, there would. We hope that the inspector's errors are infrequent - that most of the time he is right - and that his errors are not serious ones. The home inspection system represents a best effort attempt to prevent electrical problem. It is often effective but it isn't infallible.

I
The homeowner would have to be just as knowledgeable as the inspector and do redundant work to double check it all too, in which case, why would they be paying someone else?

My experience in doing several home improvement projects over the past several years has been that one jolly well better know as much or more than the electrician, the HVAC guy, the plumber, the inspector.... I realize that this isn't always possible but I have found so many errors on all these peoples' parts that I worry about philosophers, poets, flower arrangers etc who undertake such projects.

The inspector has the certifications and licenses, and they are the ones who tag their official stamp on it. That is as far as an insurance company can legitimately and legally challenge.

Just curious: which branch of law do you practice?

But again, to address your paranoia, any insurance company could illegally deny any claim for no reason.

Clearly you have completely missed my point. My "paranoia" stems from 45 years as a practicing electrical engineer. In that time I learned to have great respect for high energy electrical circuits. I know enough about electricity to understand what it can do and the probable basis for the various articles in the code. My goal here is to help out where I can and to encourage people to think about things of which they might not be aware.

It started out when I noted that Ali'sMax was about to change breakers without increasing wire size and without installing a disconnect. Rather than go into insulation classes, continuous loads, thermal rise, voltage drop and terminal temperature limits I simply informed her that she might not pass inspection (though when she asked for further explanation I gave it). I don't think that saying that these requirements are relatively new, that many inspectors will probably miss the some of the requirements and that if there is a fire she needen't worry about it because the insurance company will have to pay would have been very responsible advise. Clearly you and several others have the attitude that there is no problem as the inspector didn't catch them.

Let me try again.
There are articles in the code that cover EV charging equipment.
There is a reason that each and every one of those articles is there
If you follow the code you are 5 or 6 nines safe
If you don't you aren't.
If you are the sort of person that likes things done properly you will want to follow the code
If you are, knowing that you have cut some corners, comfortable with the additional risk because the inspector didn't catch it, then by all means, do nothing. You will probably get away with it. Who need's 5 nines anyway?

 

[StealthP3D]

Shouldn't there be a disconnect at the base of every pole providing overhead power to a residence? Because if a tree or something falls on that overhead service it will "live" until it can be turned off. What if a disabled person is underneath it and you have no way to turn it off?

 

[ajdelange]

The disconnect is in the form of a fuse at the top of the pole (though it can be operated manually too). When the tree contacts the line the fault current will blow the fuse. If there is a disabled person under the tree and it hits them - well..

Now I have seen live lines lying on the ground on roads where someone hits a pole and brings it down. The fault detection clearly did not work in those cases. If you encounter this immediately turn to face the wire with the line between your feet parallel to the line. Then back away with tiny steps.

You are arguing that the code is stupid. That's you opinion and you are entitled to it. People who know infinitely more about this than you do don't agree. But you are free to send your thinking to NFPA. There is a form in the book that you can fill out and send in.

 

[Ali’sMax]

The disconnect is in the form of a fuse at the top of the pole (though it can be operated manually too). When the tree contacts the line the fault current will blow the fuse. If there is a disabled person under the tree and it hits them - well..

Now I have seen live lines lying on the ground on roads where someone hits a pole and brings it down. The fault detection clearly did not work in those cases. If you encounter this immediately turn to face the wire with the line between your feet parallel to the line. Then back away with tiny steps.

You are arguing that the code is stupid. That's you opinion and you are entitled to it. People who know infinitely more about this than you do don't agree. But you are free to send your thinking to NFPA. There is a form in the book that you can fill out and send in.

I just got 80amp swap out for 100amp
My car now gets 47-48mph charge
Now I know what to do if I ever encounter live wire on ground and how to back away from it. I’m going to tell my kids too since it’s a good knowledge to know what to do in such situation.

I found this from SCE

Safety Switch: For EVSE rated at more than 60 amps or more than 150 volts to ground, a means of disconnect must be installed in a readily accessible location and within sight of the electric charging connector. If the disconnect is not in sight of the equipment, it must be ca- pable of being locked in the open position (CEC §625.23). Depending on local code require- ments, a fused switch may be needed if the switch is not readily accessible, or is not visible from the main panel.

My main breaker panel has a switch and HPWC is hard wired to the panel.
Do I need a disconnect?

 

[MorrisonHiker]

It met the inspectors requirements even though it technically doesn't meet the code. You can buy auxilary devices to attach to circuit breakers to lock them open if you want to but I don't see the need. The reasons for the lockout requirement are obvious in an industrial setting but I can't see myself padlocking my disconnect open if I need to work on the HPWC in my residential garage. The switch will be a convenient way to deenergize for any such work but I am not fearful that my wife will come along and start fiddling in the innards thinking that it is deenergized when it's live.

Safety Switch: For EVSE rated at more than 60 amps or more than 150 volts to ground, a means of disconnect must be installed in a readily accessible location and within sight of the electric charging connector. If the disconnect is not in sight of the equipment, it must be ca- pable of being locked in the open position (CEC §625.23). Depending on local code require- ments, a fused switch may be needed if the switch is not readily accessible, or is not visible from the main panel.

@ajdelange , I think that the above indicates why Tesla didn't need to "lock out" my breakers. They are in a subpanel without a door right next to the main garage panel and are visible from anywhere in the garage.

I remember now that originally they thought they could place the breakers in an upgraded panel in the garage...but that panel would've had a door on it, blocking the view of the breakers. They ended up adding the subpanel without a door that only contains breakers for the EVSEs and they are always visible.

 

[ajdelange]

I'd say your best bet would be to consult a good electrician conversant with the appropriate sections of the NEC and CEC. You have to be compliant with NEC and CEC and perhaps even local requirements (not only a disconnect but a fused one). There is an apparent conflict. The NEC says the disconnect must be lockable open. Period. The CEC says that it must be lockable open if it is not visible from the charging port. The NEC doesn't give you that out if the switch is visible from the charging point.

When you say the panel has a switch do you mean one of the breakers or a separate switch? The NEC seems to imply that the switch should be separate but you could argue that a circuit breaker is a means of disconnect, even if it is out of site, if it is fitted with a locking device and satisfy both NEC and CEC. Let's face it. "Readily accessible" can be interpreted several ways. The electrician I suggested in the first paragraph will be familiar with how the local inspector interprets these articles and is, therefore, probably the best source of information. A good qualification to ask for is experience in installing HPWC's.

Clearly the safest approach is the belt and suspenders one: install a separate disconnect close to the vehicle but not as close as I have it in the picture I posted. The things most likely to burst into flames are the charging port, the wiring or the HPWC itself. Going for the disconnect as it is located in the picture would bring the operator closer to the hazard. If I see a fire I'll go for the panel.

 

[doghousePVD]

I just got 80amp swap out for 100amp
My car now gets 47-48mph charge
Now I know what to do if I ever encounter live wire on ground and how to back away from it. I’m going to tell my kids too since it’s a good knowledge to know what to do in such situation.

I found this from SCE

Safety Switch: For EVSE rated at more than 60 amps or more than 150 volts to ground, a means of disconnect must be installed in a readily accessible location and within sight of the electric charging connector. If the disconnect is not in sight of the equipment, it must be ca- pable of being locked in the open position (CEC §625.23). Depending on local code require- ments, a fused switch may be needed if the switch is not readily accessible, or is not visible from the main panel.

My main breaker panel has a switch and HPWC is hard wired to the panel.
Do I need a disconnect?

Following code, you are supposed to have a disconnect near the charger, not just a breaker at the panel. At one house, the electrician did not install a switch (not following code). At my other house, a lockable circuit breaker was installed at the charger (in addition to the CB on the main panel), and therefore is code compliant.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Following code, you are supposed to have a disconnect near the charger, not just a breaker at the panel. At one house, the electrician did not install a switch (not following code). At my other house, a lockable circuit breaker was installed at the charger (in addition to the CB on the main panel), and therefore is code compliant.

It doesn't necessarily have to be right next to the charger. The breaker just has to be readily accessible and visible from the EVSE.

 

[ajdelange]

It doesn't necessarily have to be right next to the charger. The breaker just has to be readily accessible and visible from the EVSE.

I argued in No. 107 that perhaps you don't want it right next to the charger. I also pointed out that "readily accessible" gives you a lot of flexibility.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I argued in No. 107 that perhaps you don't want it right next to the charger. I also pointed out that "readily accessible" gives you a lot of flexibility.

Yeah, I saw your post. I was replying to @doghousePVD