Does Powerwall have a UL 9450A test report?

[wattsup]

Back in September 2021, member @Vines posted a comment, which said in part:

Powerwalls have had a UL9540A Test Report for a while now

Can anybody verify this?

And, if so, does anybody where to obtain a copy of the test report?

I have a pending solar + PW order with Tesla and have been speaking to my Tesla advisor, and have asked him the same.

At first, the advisor thought I was asking about UL 9450 certification, but then I explained that UL 9450A is a testing methodology, not a certification, and that a test report would exist if Tesla has had the testing performed. And, with that, he said he didn't know.

 

[sunwarriors]

If you go to this data link, then click on the specific data sheet:
"Powerwall 2 Technical Specifications", it has a data sheet with the blurb:
"Fire Testing Meets the unit level performance criteria of UL 9540A"

Powerwall Owner Documents | Tesla Support

Download ownership documents on Powerwall specifications, warranty and supporting equipment.

www.tesla.com

There is a 2019 spec sheet without that blurb as well online.

 

[Vines]

Back in September 2021, member @Vines posted a comment, which said in part:



Can anybody verify this?

And, if so, does anybody where to obtain a copy of the test report?

I have a pending solar + PW order with Tesla and have been speaking to my Tesla advisor, and have asked him the same.

At first, the advisor thought I was asking about UL 9450 certification, but then I explained that UL 9450A is a testing methodology, not a certification, and that a test report would exist if Tesla has had the testing performed. And, with that, he said he didn't know.

The problem is not testing, it is the approval of the testing. The test report is not something that your AHJ is missing I can almost guarantee.

Many local AHJ are rejecting it, mostly over fears that are in my opinion inflated. These same Fire protection officers are approving LFP chemistry 9540A testing from other manufacturers and perhaps have been swayed by the LFP battery safety marketing.

What city do you live in? The answer as to whether the particular jurisdiction accepts the testing is location dependent. For instance, San Jose has no issues, while Santa Clara County has huge issues. Those issues have spilled over to many other smaller jurisdictions as time has gone on.

 

[wattsup]

What city do you live in? The answer as to whether the particular jurisdiction accepts the testing is location dependent. For instance, San Jose has no issues, while Santa Clara County has huge issues. Those issues have spilled over to many other smaller jurisdictions as time has gone on.

I am in Half Moon Bay, which is in San Mateo county.

I have spoken with a very nice deputy fire marshal with San Mateo County Fire (who was familiar battery installs, and performs inspections) but, turns out, only for unincorporated parts of Half Moon Bay. Where I live, within city limits, things are up to City Hall and the Coastside Fire Prevention District.

Tesla tells me, in Half Moon Bay, I need 3' of separation between between PW and must have either a heat alarm OR sprinkler system. There is no sprinkler requirement per the latest 2022 CFC (which city hall has confirmed HMB has adopted), so I'm not sure where Tesla is getting the sprinkler "option" from.

I've had a tough time corroborating with my AHJ anything Tesla is telling me about the requirements for my install. City hall is farming me out to some 3rd-party administrative contractor working for their building department (who literally just started last week) and the last time I contacted Coastside Fire, they put me in touch with San Mateo County Fire and the nice deputy fire marshal, who turned out to be the wrong authority to speak to.

For example, Tesla told me that HMB allows stacking, but HMB (well, the contractor) told me that stacking is not allowed. I took me a little while to get the contractor to do the legwork to confirm that HMB had adopted the 2022 CFC, and was not still subject to the 2019 CFC, which is what their (outdated) website said. (I had wondered if Tesla was simply getting their information from the outdated website rather than actually asking the city.)

That all said, assuming Tesla is correct about the heat alarm option (seems likely, because that matches the 2022 CFC), I would like to pursue it (seems way cheaper than sprinklers), but the other issue I've run across is that there is apparently "no acceptable product in the marketplace"? (Anybody know about that?)

Anyway, back to UL 9450A, I would also like to have my PW mounted in reasonably close proximity to each other if at all possible (I am getting four, and that is a lot of wall space with no stacking and 3' of separation), but I have no idea if city hall knows about the test report. Hence, me wanting to find it myself so I could at least attempt to point it out to them.

 

[Vines]

I am in Half Moon Bay, which is in San Mateo county.

SMC recently stopped allowing stacking, doubt you will get otherwise.

I have spoken with a very nice deputy fire marshal with San Mateo County Fire (who was familiar battery installs, and performs inspections) but, turns out, only for unincorporated parts of Half Moon Bay. Where I live, within city limits, things are up to City Hall and the Coastside Fire Prevention District.

Tesla tells me, in Half Moon Bay, I need 3' of separation between between PW and must have either a heat alarm OR sprinkler system. There is no sprinkler requirement per the latest 2022 CFC (which city hall has confirmed HMB has adopted), so I'm not sure where Tesla is getting the sprinkler "option" from.

There is currently an official clarification from the OSFM that states that heat alarms aren't widely available yet that satisfy all the code requirements. In the meantime the clarification directs the officials to accept alternative means of heat detection such as fire sprinklers, or heat alarms that may not be perfect for the unconditioned garage environment (HD6135FB)

I've had a tough time corroborating with my AHJ anything Tesla is telling me about the requirements for my install. City hall is farming me out to some 3rd-party administrative contractor working for their building department (who literally just started last week) and the last time I contacted Coastside Fire, they put me in touch with San Mateo County Fire and the nice deputy fire marshal, who turned out to be the wrong authority to speak to.

For example, Tesla told me that HMB allows stacking, but HMB (well, the contractor) told me that stacking is not allowed. I took me a little while to get the contractor to do the legwork to confirm that HMB had adopted the 2022 CFC, and was not still subject to the 2019 CFC, which is what their (outdated) website said. (I had wondered if Tesla was simply getting their information from the outdated website rather than actually asking the city.)

Welcome to my hell, many many cities are removing their permit teams and replacing or augmenting them with contract firms like CSG, Shums Coda or four leaf. THIS IS TERRIBLE BOTH FOR CONTRACTORS AND HOMEOWNERS.
Contract inspectors do not have the same link to the community they serve and do not have a vested interest in serving the community. They often require reinspections and cause delays for the most ridiculous of reasons (used 1 1/4 emt, plans called for 1" emt...fail. Plans called out for #6 wire, used #4 fail...) This is because I suspect they can charge the city for each additional re-inspection.

That all said, assuming Tesla is correct about the heat alarm option (seems likely, because that matches the 2022 CFC), I would like to pursue it (seems way cheaper than sprinklers), but the other issue I've run across is that there is apparently "no acceptable product in the marketplace"? (Anybody know about that?)

Not true, the acceptable products exist but are expensive. Our company is an installer for Omnishield, who make battery-powered very high quality and expensive heat and smoke alarms. We are only able to install them with our own Powerwall installations, however.

Anyway, back to UL 9450A, I would also like to have my PW mounted in reasonably close proximity to each other if at all possible (I am getting four, and that is a lot of wall space with no stacking and 3' of separation), but I have no idea if city hall knows about the test report. Hence, me wanting to find it myself so I could at least attempt to point it out to them.

It's the fire service that will likely tell city hall that this is not allowed. Your installer has a copy of the test report surely and can pass it along with the permit application. I would be pleasantly surprised if they allowed stacking. Honestly it's not digestible by the average city official.

 

[CrazyRabbit]

I installed a Honeywell heat detector, but requires vista alarm panel. Nice part is it is monitored.

 

[wattsup]

There is currently an official clarification from the OSFM that states that heat alarms aren't widely available yet that satisfy all the code requirements. In the meantime the clarification directs the officials to accept alternative means of heat detection such as fire sprinklers, or heat alarms that may not be perfect for the unconditioned garage environment (HD6135FB)

Thanks @Vines.

HD6135FB appears to be a First Alert model number? I read somewhere online that officials like to see Kidde-branded models (even though they are identical).

And, how exactly, does the heat alarm need to be interconnected? I've also seen the words "hard-wired" (which I take to mean permanently powered) and "integrated" (which I take to be synonymous with interconnected) used.

I believe interconnected means the heat alarm in the garage would be connected to (at least one of?) the alarms inside the living space of the house. Or, do then ALL of the alarms in the house need to be interconnected to satisfy code? My house currently just has off-the-shelf battery alarms everywhere.

A bit of a chicken-and-egg situation is where to install the heat detector in the garage. At this point, I am not sure where the PWs will actually end up, but I assume the alarm should be in pretty close proximity to them in order to pass inspection. But, Tesla is asking me, "Do you currently have a heat alarm?", before they will agree to install inside the garage.

How the heck does one coordinate this?

(Btw, can I install the heat detector myself, or better to have an electrician do it? I mean, does this involve conduit runs, etc.?)

 

[Vines]

Thanks @Vines.

HD6135FB appears to be a First Alert model number? I read somewhere online that officials like to see Kidde-branded models (even though they are identical).

And, how exactly, does the heat alarm need to be interconnected? I've also seen the words "hard-wired" (which I take to mean permanently powered) and "integrated" (which I take to be synonymous with interconnected) used.

Interconnected is usually enforced to the level of the current installed requirement. If your house was built with battery powered alarms and you never had any large permitted addition, then its likely that just a local alarm in the garage would satisfy the code official.

If your home has an existing multi station smoke alarm system then its your responsibility to install a heat detector that is interconnected when you are done. If the Kidde/First Alert wont satisfy the fire official then the list of what you can use is pretty short. Typically these alarms have a signal wire and a power wire, so whatever you install needs to be compatible with the rest of the alarms that are installed.

I believe interconnected means the heat alarm in the garage would be connected to (at least one of?) the alarms inside the living space of the house. Or, do then ALL of the alarms in the house need to be interconnected to satisfy code? My house currently just has off-the-shelf battery alarms everywhere.

Then you will likely just need to install a single location worth of Kidde HD6135FB (in the garage), but the final determination is by the fire official.

A bit of a chicken-and-egg situation is where to install the heat detector in the garage. At this point, I am not sure where the PWs will actually end up, but I assume the alarm should be in pretty close proximity to them in order to pass inspection. But, Tesla is asking me, "Do you currently have a heat alarm?", before they will agree to install inside the garage.

Heat alarms are supposed to be installed centrally in the space or if the space is larger than about 35' x 35' then multiple need to be installed.

How the heck does one coordinate this?

(Btw, can I install the heat detector myself, or better to have an electrician do it? I mean, does this involve conduit runs, etc.?)

You "probably" just need 1-2 HD6135FB depending on garage size, and since you arent interconnected you probably don't have to interconnect anything.

 

[wattsup]

Then you will likely just need to install a single location worth of Kidde HD6135FB (in the garage), but the final determination is by the fire official.

So the fire marshal and city are recommending the System Sensor 5602 (or 5622) and requiring an auxilary horn be installed within the home (audible from bedrooms).

Looking at the System Sensor 5602, it seems to only have two connectors (I assume for 120V power, hot and neutral), so I'm not sure how it gets wired to a horn. (Wouldn't there need to be more than just two connectors?)

The 5622 model has four connectors, which seems more promising, but I am still not clear about the horn. I assume something like the System Sensor MHW SpectrAlert Mini Horn would work, but is the horn powered by the detector?

The manual and installation instructions for these System Sensor models don't seem to specify what they connectors are. There are some wiring diagrams, but I am not sure if the connections illustrated are power or signals. I am guessing they are relying on "common knowledge" about how hard-wired alarms work?

 

[wattsup]

SMC recently stopped allowing stacking, doubt you will get otherwise.

Yeah, a deputy fire marshal for my jurisdiction says that stacking is not allowed and multiple Powerwalls cannot be closer than 3', though he does say that exceptions are possible "in theory" with UL 9450A documentation.

Regarding Tesla, he says that, although Tesla claims the Powerwall 2 meets the 9450A module-level test criteria (on their spec sheet), Tesla has not provided documentation, nor are any test results for the Powerwall 2 found on the UL website (the last part seems true, I couldn't find them).

He says that Enphase batteries are allowed to be closer than 3', apparently because they have provided all the necessary UL 9450A documentation.

 

[holeydonut]

I still want to see the test where @Vines shoots a Powerwall with a 9mm or .30-06 round.

 

[Vines]

Yeah, a deputy fire marshal for my jurisdiction says that stacking is not allowed and multiple Powerwalls cannot be closer than 3', though he does say that exceptions are possible "in theory" with UL 9450A documentation.

Regarding Tesla, he says that, although Tesla claims the Powerwall 2 meets the 9450A module-level test criteria (on their spec sheet), Tesla has not provided documentation, nor are any test results for the Powerwall 2 found on the UL website (the last part seems true, I couldn't find them).

He says that Enphase batteries are allowed to be closer than 3', apparently because they have provided all the necessary UL 9450A documentation.

Since nobody is stripping out a battery module from the Powerwall, it isnt appropriate to review the module level testing, same with the cell level testing.

The unit level UL 9540A testing shows it to be safe enough to put 6" apart side to side and 1" apart when stacked.

I don't know what the guy you talked to saw but I am 100% sure that your installer could send the test report to the city and fire officials. I have personally sent many of them.

Usually they say "Where is the module-level testing and the cell-level testing?"

I reply, "I am, installing Powerwall units and not modules or cells. Here is the unit testing." Then the fire officials come back and tell me the same.

 

[wattsup]

Since nobody is stripping out a battery module from the Powerwall, it isnt appropriate to review the module level testing, same with the cell level testing.

The unit level UL 9540A testing shows it to be safe enough to put 6" apart side to side and 1" apart when stacked.

I agree with you, and apologies, I miswrote "module-level" instead of "unit-level".

I meant to write, "Tesla claims the Powerwall 2 meets the 9450A unit-level test criteria (on their spec sheet)".

I actually had a conference call with the city building official and a deputy fire marshal today, and I raised the (apparent) availability of unit-level test results for Powerwall 2. The fire marshal said something about Tesla not providing the results to show the distances the units could be mounted at, or "not detailed enough" information, or something like that. He also pointed out that no results for the Powerwall 2 could be found at the UL website.

But, it sounds like you are saying that Tesla has provided such results.

The unit level UL 9540A testing shows it to be safe enough to put 6" apart side to side and 1" apart when stacked.

I don't know what the guy you talked to saw but I am 100% sure that your installer could send the test report to the city and fire officials. I have personally sent many of them.

Usually they say "Where is the module-level testing and the cell-level testing?"

I reply, "I am, installing Powerwall units and not modules or cells. Here is the unit testing." Then the fire officials come back and tell me the same.

Are you saying that Tesla's information does not include cell-level and module-level test results? -- only the unit-level?

And, this is why some fire jurisdictions are refusing to accept the unit-level results? Because they want to see the (non-applicable) cell- and module-level results?

 

[Vines]

I agree with you, and apologies, I miswrote "module-level" instead of "unit-level".

I meant to write, "Tesla claims the Powerwall 2 meets the 9450A unit-level test criteria (on their spec sheet)".

Ok, then we are on the same page still.

I actually had a conference call with the city building official and a deputy fire marshal today, and I raised the (apparent) availability of unit-level test results for Powerwall 2. The fire marshal said something about Tesla not providing the results to show the distances the units could be mounted at, or "not detailed enough" information, or something like that. He also pointed out that no results for the Powerwall 2 could be found at the UL website.

But, it sounds like you are saying that Tesla has provided such results.



Are you saying that Tesla's information does not include cell-level and module-level test results? -- only the unit-level?

And, this is why some fire jurisdictions are refusing to accept the unit-level results? Because they want to see the (non-applicable) cell- and module-level results?

Correct, Tesla has said that the cell and module level tests aren't relevant to unit performance. Those tests on modules and cells were performed and the test lab that did the unit level testing used those cell and module results to generate the report for the units. I have heard that perhaps there is secret Tesla sauce in the report for the cells and modules. I cannot say for sure.

I believe but am not sure, that only those units tested by UL are on the UL 9540A website. Please send me the link and I'll look at it.

What you said about why Tesla results and only the unit level is right but I feel this is a problem with many parts:
1. Other manufacturers are selling against NMC chemistry, since they are all using/switching to LFP chemistry. LG Chem already had fires with NMC tech in the residential market, even if Tesla hasn't with Powerwall.
2. Lots of other lithium fires otherwise mostly with micro-mobility make the fire service sensitive to this issue
3. Tesla tested to an older version of the standard, which was current at the time but since then changes have been made. Typically the manufacturers are allowed 1-2 years from when the new standard is written to re-certify to the new version. At least 1 jurisdiction is requiring Tesla to retest to UL9540A edition 2, while Tesla Powerwall 2 is still on the CRD I believe.

 

[clukas]

Piling on here... new to forum but have 9.5kW Solar City PV on my roof and one Gen2 Powerwall since 2020. Live in Milpitas, so Santa Clara County but Milpitas FD.

I've purchased two more PWs from a local Tesla integrator which have been installed but not activated pending inspection. Last week I am informed that due to the 3' requirement one of the units has to move. Reading up on this issue, it seems to me that I do not have 3' clearance between either of the two new units (which are indoors) and the existing unit (other side of the garage wall outdoors).

Trying to locate the 9540A test report based on this and other threads dealing with this issue, and also requested Tesla's installation docs as 9540A alone doesn't get one there since the install must demonstrate compliance with manufacturer guidelines.

Installer says that cities all over Bay Area handle this differently. My questions are:

- Does anybody have either/both of these two documents they could unicast in case my installer cannot obtain for some reason?
- Can anybody provide a list of Bay Area cities that do permit sub-3 foot.
- Has anybody succeeded at this in Milpitas?

My home is recent construction (2008) with sprinklers and smoke detection in garage so that part is done.

Am an engineer myself and completely understand the fire mitigation need in the code(s), but since Tesla explicitly designed this system to operate safely stacked I have to believe there is a way to get this done. Besides, I don't think 3 feet will make a whit of a difference if one of these units goes up. They might as well write a rule saying only one battery per household. Oh, and I park my PHEV with its own 13.8 kWH battery next to the existing Powerwall. Makes no sense.

Thx for any help.

-cl

 

[clukas]

Piling on here... new to forum but have 9.5kW Solar City PV on my roof and one Gen2 Powerwall since 2020. Live in Milpitas, so Santa Clara County but Milpitas FD.

I've purchased two more PWs from a local Tesla integrator which have been installed but not activated pending inspection. Last week I am informed that due to the 3' requirement one of the units has to move. Reading up on this issue, it seems to me that I do not have 3' clearance between either of the two new units (which are indoors) and the existing unit (other side of the garage wall outdoors).

Trying to locate the 9540A test report based on this and other threads dealing with this issue, and also requested Tesla's installation docs as 9540A alone doesn't get one there since the install must demonstrate compliance with manufacturer guidelines.

Installer says that cities all over Bay Area handle this differently. My questions are:

- Does anybody have either/both of these two documents they could unicast in case my installer cannot obtain for some reason?
- Can anybody provide a list of Bay Area cities that do permit sub-3 foot.
- Has anybody succeeded at this in Milpitas?

My home is recent construction (2008) with sprinklers and smoke detection in garage so that part is done.

Am an engineer myself and completely understand the fire mitigation need in the code(s), but since Tesla explicitly designed this system to operate safely stacked I have to believe there is a way to get this done. Besides, I don't think 3 feet will make a whit of a difference if one of these units goes up. They might as well write a rule saying only one battery per household. Oh, and I park my PHEV with its own 13.8 kWH battery next to the existing Powerwall. Makes no sense.

Thx for any help.

-cl

One more thing.... it looks like Tesla has the PW installers guide online, and it explicitly deals with both side-to-side and stacked situations with clearances.

Appendix I is called "Multi-Powerwall Installations". See this page for Tesla requirements for side-to-side. Looks like 12" is adequate per Tesla, which would be fine for my garage if Milpitas FD would recognize it.

Telsa Powerwall Clearance Requirements

Minimum clearance from left side (air intake)	2 in (50 mm)1
Minimum clearance from right side (air exhaust)	6 in (150 mm)
Minimum clearance above single Powerwall	2 in (50 mm)
Minimum clearance above side-by-side Powerwalls	12 in (300 mm)
Minimum clearance between side-by-side Powerwalls	10 in (250 mm)
Maximum height above ground	39.5 in (1 m) to bottom of unit

And here is a link to the stacking chapter and stack kit installation.

Tesla Powerwall Stacking

I wonder if I'm going to have to get an attorney involved with the city.

-cl

 

[jhn_]

One more thing.... it looks like Tesla has the PW installers guide online, and it explicitly deals with both side-to-side and stacked situations with clearances.

Appendix I is called "Multi-Powerwall Installations". See this page for Tesla requirements for side-to-side. Looks like 12" is adequate per Tesla, which would be fine for my garage if Milpitas FD would recognize it.

Telsa Powerwall Clearance Requirements

Minimum clearance from left side (air intake)	2 in (50 mm)1
Minimum clearance from right side (air exhaust)	6 in (150 mm)
Minimum clearance above single Powerwall	2 in (50 mm)
Minimum clearance above side-by-side Powerwalls	12 in (300 mm)
Minimum clearance between side-by-side Powerwalls	10 in (250 mm)
Maximum height above ground	39.5 in (1 m) to bottom of unit

And here is a link to the stacking chapter and stack kit installation.

Tesla Powerwall Stacking

I wonder if I'm going to have to get an attorney involved with the city.

-cl

Realize not completely relevant since I’m not in CA. But the docs you reference here with mounting specs have been online since at least my PWs were installed in 2020, 36” above grade and 10” apart.

 

[Wyrelogic]

If you go to this data link, then click on the specific data sheet:
"Powerwall 2 Technical Specifications", it has a data sheet with the blurb:
"Fire Testing Meets the unit level performance criteria of UL 9540A"

Powerwall Owner Documents | Tesla Support

Download ownership documents on Powerwall specifications, warranty and supporting equipment.

www.tesla.com

There is a 2019 spec sheet without that blurb as well online.

Here's the test report