Installing Wall Connector is better than NEMA 14-50

[jcanoe]

As discussed earlier in this thread (or maybe a different thread) the code requires GFCI for hard wired as well for outdoor installations

This is a point of much confusion as regards GFCI for EV charging.

Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) whether hard wired or provided with a plug has built-in GFCI protection designed to protect the user when plugging or unplugging the charging connector (J1772 or Tesla) into the vehicle's charge port.

The requirement for GFCI protection for the wall receptacle was added to the NEC starting in 2017. This second GFCI is there to protect the user when plugging or unplugging the EVSE from the power outlet. (If you read the user manuals for Level 2 EVSE from companies such as Clipper Creek the instructions have always stated that you should turn off the 240V power at the circuit breaker before plugging or unplugging the EVSE.) If people actually read the owner's manual then maybe this would never have become an issue to where the NEC now requires a separate GFCI for the receptacle (or at the circuit breaker.) Nothing in this update specifies that the GFCI is required for hard-wired EVSE installations.

RV motor home operators remain at risk when plugging or unplugging a 240V/50A plug to power the RV. The RV is considered to be a distribution panel, not electrical equipment. GFCI may not be not compatible with an RV motor home. RV users who would arguably benefit more than EV owners from GFCI protection for the receptacle are not currently protected by a GFCI.

 

[gt2690b]

This is a point of much confusion as regards GFCI for EV charging.

Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) whether hard wired or provided with a plug has built-in GFCI protection designed to protect the user when plugging or unplugging the charging connector (J1772 or Tesla) into the vehicle's charge port.

The requirement for GFCI protection for the wall receptacle was added to the NEC starting in 2017. This second GFCI is there to protect the user when plugging or unplugging the EVSE from the power outlet. (If you read the user manuals for Level 2 EVSE from companies such as Clipper Creek the instructions have always stated that you should turn off the 240V power at the circuit breaker before plugging or unplugging the EVSE.) If people actually read the owner's manual then maybe this would never have become an issue to where the NEC now requires a separate GFCI for the receptacle (or at the circuit breaker.) Nothing in this update specifies that the GFCI is required for hard-wired EVSE installations.

RV motor home operators remain at risk when plugging or unplugging a 240V/50A plug to power the RV. The RV is considered to be a distribution panel, not electrical equipment. GFCI may not be not compatible with an RV motor home. RV users who would arguably benefit more than EV owners from GFCI protection for the receptacle are not currently protected by a GFCI.

You're speaking of the 2017 code not the 2020 code

See post 122 in this thread

Installing Wall Connector is better than NEMA 14-50

I'll go with a 50 AMP breaker then. Do check on what wire it has then to make sure you're covered.

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[gt2690b]

Right but there isn't a standard that says EVSEs shall use a maximum of say 2 mA of current to do safety checks and GFCI breakers shall not trip unless more than 2.5 mA of current is flowing, which is why we are seeing issues like this. They need to resolve these issues ASAP.

GFCI does jack squat to prevent fires. GFCI is all about protecting you. What's really strange is that AFAIK the code requires a GFCI breaker for a receptacle that intended to be used for EV charging, but if you built the receptacle intending to use it for something else and then later decide to use it for EV charging, it's legal. And if it was that dangerous to not use a GFCI breaker, they should require ALL receptacles used for EV charging to have one regardless of when they were installed and not grandfather clause anything. It's not like a 14-50 outlet that was installed in 2013 and is used for EV charging is magically less dangerous than one installed in 2021. I still think that using GFCI is a good idea and I've upgraded multiple outlets in my house with the capability but they need to update the requirements so that you do not get nuisance tripping.

Insurance companies don't know or care WHY something is in the code.. just that if the property wasn't built to code they may not have to pay

Agree we should figure out the ground plug and unbalance thing.. maybe charge a cap or something to check for ground

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes it would be a waste to do that. I know JuiceBox/EnelX EVSE had a really bad problem with tripping GFCI breakers when using the 14-50 version. Their solution was to replace customer units with hard wired models and tell the customer to install without GFCI breaker.

Sometimes these GFCI breakers will trip for no reason at all and with no charge load (just the couple watts passive draw from charger). I have seen quite a bit over the years. I like to eliminate as many failure points from a setup as possible and reasonable. Plugs, receptacle, GFCI breakers in my mind are extras that just aren't needed for a permanent home charging setup. They add expense and additional failure points to the system.

I'm using a Tesla Mobile Connector with a Eaton BR 50A GFCI breaker (as per latest code) and haven't gotten nuisance trips. I don't think people should install without GFCI unless they have actually tried it and it really is an issue (in which case a cost/benefit analysis needs to be done: as others say, if your house burns down, the insurance company doesn't care about nuisance trips, only that your installation was not up to code).

That said, given NEC has required GFCI for a while now, it is really on the EVSE manufacturers to test their 14-50 ones are compatible with all the most common GFCI breakers out there (of which there aren't that many brands).

 

[jcanoe]

You're speaking of the 2017 code not the 2020 code

See post 122 in this thread

Installing Wall Connector is better than NEMA 14-50

I'll go with a 50 AMP breaker then. Do check on what wire it has then to make sure you're covered.

teslamotorsclub.com

The revised definition of a receptacle makes sense for the example of an outdoor HVAC evaporator unit.

This article states that the receptacle definition applies to:

A) Outdoor installations
B) 150V single phase to ground
C) Equipment rated 50 amps or less.

This definition of a receptacle would not apply when installing the Tesla Gen3 Wall Connector, outdoors, using a 240V/60 amp circuit.

The Tesla Gen3 Wall Connector is not like an HVAC unit, i.e. the Wall Connector has a non-conductive housing. The Tesla Wall Connector has built-in GFCI protection . (The HVAC unit otherwise does not have GFCI protection.)

I am not an electrician. I would defer to an electrician as regards the need for a GFCI circuit breaker.

 

[gt2690b]

The revised definition of a receptacle makes sense for the example of an outdoor HVAC evaporator unit.

This article states that the receptacle definition applies to:

A) Outdoor installations
B) 150V single phase to ground
C) Equipment rated 50 amps or less.

This definition of a receptacle would not apply when installing the Tesla Gen3 Wall Connector, outdoors, using a 240V/60 amp circuit.

The Tesla Gen3 Wall Connector is not like an HVAC unit, i.e. the Wall Connector has a non-conductive housing. The Tesla Wall Connector has built-in GFCI protection . (The HVAC unit otherwise does not have GFCI protection.)

I am not an electrician. I would defer to an electrician as regards the need for a GFCI circuit breaker.

The raceway is often metal in outdoor installations independent of the end device.. also 240V is phase to phase it's still less than 150V single phase to ground.. agree on the amps if that's what you're putting in most people don't go that high

 

[stopcrazypp]

Insurance companies don't know or care WHY something is in the code.. just that if the property wasn't built to code they may not have to pay

Agree we should figure out the ground plug and unbalance thing.. maybe charge a cap or something to check for ground

As per the discussion you linked, the 2020 change only extended the requirement to other outdoor outlets. It does not change the requirement for hardwired EVSEs (a GFCI breaker is not required for them). Hardwired EVSEs are not "outlets".

The GFCI requirement is there only for outlets because you can stick something in them and possibly get shocked. This concern does not exist for hardwired EVSEs because the pins that are exposed are not energized until the handshake is done (and they have one built in to handle the case while charging).

 

[STS-134]

Insurance companies don't know or care WHY something is in the code.. just that if the property wasn't built to code they may not have to pay

Sure, and if there was a fire, their attorneys would be making exactly that argument. My attorneys would be arguing that GFCI has absolutely nothing to do with preventing fires and I'd be calling experts, i.e. electricians, to testify to that fact. It would be a little bit messier than necessary but until we have a resolution on the nuisance tripping issue, it's still no more dangerous than any receptacle that was installed pre-2017. And they wouldn't deny a claim just because I had a pre-2017 receptacle.

I'm using a Tesla Mobile Connector with a Eaton BR 50A GFCI breaker (as per latest code) and haven't gotten nuisance trips. I don't think people should install without GFCI unless they have actually tried it and it really is an issue (in which case a cost/benefit analysis needs to be done: as others say, if your house burns down, the insurance company doesn't care about nuisance trips, only that your installation was not up to code).

The issue is that I can plug anything into a 14-50 wall receptacle. Most of the time, my ChargePoint Home is plugged into it. Occasionally (like maybe once or twice a year) I'll plug the UMC into it to make sure that the UMC is still working, especially before taking a road trip or going to the airport (airport garage has outlets I can plug into if the ChargePoint units are occupied/otherwise unavailable). If I got another portable EVSE for my PHEV, I could plug that into it too. We need a standard that sets limits on this stuff and makes sure everything works...then I'll upgrade my breaker.

 

[gt2690b]

As per the discussion you linked, the 2020 change only extended the requirement to other outdoor outlets. It does not change the requirement for hardwired EVSEs (a GFCI breaker is not required for them). Hardwired EVSEs are not "outlets".

The GFCI requirement is there only for outlets because you can stick something in them and possibly get shocked. This concern does not exist for hardwired EVSEs because the pins that are exposed are not energized until the handshake is done (and they have one built in to handle the case while charging).

According to the definition above they are in fact outlets

 

[exxxviii]

As per the discussion you linked, the 2020 change only extended the requirement to other outdoor outlets. It does not change the requirement for hardwired EVSEs (a GFCI breaker is not required for them). Hardwired EVSEs are not "outlets".

According to the definition above they are in fact outlets

If hardwire EVSEs have internal GFI protection, would this distinction be moot?

 

[240vPlug]

As discussed earlier in this thread (or maybe a different thread) the code requires GFCI for hard wired as well for outdoor installations

The revised code states for "pumps and compressors" that are hard wired. Maybe I'm reading it wrong then? Also, the EVSE had built-in GFCI protection. The only reason it's required for the plug is because the EVSE can't provide protection at that level. So the wall connector as designed already meets the 2020 NEC out of the box when hard wired.

 

[gt2690b]

If hardwire EVSEs have internal GFI protection, would this distinction be moot?

UMC also has internal GFI it's basically irrelevant

 

[dohmahmigh]

I bought the HPWC and took advantage of the Federal Tax credit that was available last year. That covered 30% of parts and labor.

do you know if the Federal Tax credit can be applied towards the installation of a 14-50 240v outlet and the purchase of the mobile connector?

 

[AC Traction]

UMC also has internal GFI it's basically irrelevant

The code requirement is there to protect the plug/receptacle interface, which an upstream GFCI device cannot protect. 14-50's can have nearly an inch of live plug blade exposed before the electrical connection breaks. One can still have an unprotected ground fault if the UMC's plug is not inserted all the way into the receptacle and a GFCI breaker isn't installed.

 

[240vPlug]

UMC also has internal GFI it's basically irrelevant

No it's not. The UMC plugs into a 14-50. The built-in GFCI only protects the user at the plug head ( Tesla ior J1772) where it plugs into the car. There is no way for the UMC to protect the 14-50 outlet.

Any hard wired EVSE with built in GFCI is code compliant out of the box. A 14-50 plugged EVSE needs to have GFCI breaker because there is an additional connection point (the 14-50 outlet) that is not protected!

 

[gt2690b]

No it's not. The UMC plugs into a 14-50. The built-in GFCI only protects the user at the plug head ( Tesla ior J1772) where it plugs into the car. There is no way for the UMC to protect the 14-50 outlet.

Any hard wired EVSE with built in GFCI is code compliant out of the box. A 14-50 plugged EVSE needs to have GFCI because there is an additional connection point (the 14-50 outlet) that is not protected!

that's not what the 2020 code says.. it's considered an outlet per the above definition..

 

[240vPlug]

that's not what the 2020 code says.. it's considered an outlet per the above definition..

It's protected out of the box. This is not helpful as it causes confusion. If it's built-in and hard wired it is protected and meets code. A 14-50 is not protected and needs a GFCI breaker

Stop trolling

 

[gt2690b]

It's protected out of the box. This is not helpful as it causes confusion. If it's built-in and hard wired it is protected and meets code. A 14-50 is not protected and needs a GFCI breaker

Stop trolling

Please re-read the code I don't make the definitions do not get mad at me

The code says it needs GFCI if it meets these criteria:

A) Outdoor installations
B) 150V single phase to ground
C) Equipment rated 50 amps or less.

It explicitly is talking about hard wired installations not receptacles

 

[240vPlug]

Please re-read the code I don't make the definitions do not get mad at me

The code says it needs GFCI if it meets these criteria:

A) Outdoor installations
B) 150V single phase to ground
C) Equipment rated 50 amps or less.

It explicitly is talking about hard wired installations not receptacles

I'm not mad at all. Several folks have tried to explain that it meets code. I have said it at least twice.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? It meets code because it has built-in GFCI protection. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

 

[gt2690b]

I'm not mad at all. Several folks have tried to explain that it meets code. I have said it at least twice.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? It meets code because it has built-in GFCI protection. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

The code most definitely does not say that it isn't required if your equipment has built in GFCI protection.. that does not protect you from mounting and raceways or dripping water inside your hardwired connection .. it only protects you downstream of the equipment very similar to the UMC