lack of charging adaptors?

[FlasherZ]

I suspect the real change would be that the "brick" portion of the UMC would end up eventually integrated in to the car, and the cable would become just a simple cord with different plugs on each end. Of course then anyone who could get their hands on an end can make their own cord....

That violates article 625 far more than making the EVSE "fastened in place" for a lot of reasons - ground-fault protection, safety interlock, etc.

Then it would break J1772 functionality as well, and the car wouldn't know what current to draw.

- - - Updated - - -

How's that different than this?

GFCI is required for garage receptacles at 120V/20A or less, but is not required for 240V receptacles.

GFCI breakers at 50A run about $100, compared to the $7 or so for a GFCI 120V receptacle.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, collectively, the NEC doesn't know what it is talking about regarding portable EVSEs. Until the nirvana day comes when we have ubiquitous wall mounted EVSEs in all apartments, houses, workplaces, etc., we will need portable EVSE equipment. It is ridiculous to think that when people have a car that needs a charge, and there are perfectly safe 240V and 120V plugs everywhere, that portable EVSEs aren't allowed? As one of the commentators said, people are going to bypass stupid rules like this.

The reason I post the affiliations of the code-making panel participants is that policy-making bodies always have a lot of self-interest. The manufacturers' associations want to make money selling new gear (the reason for AFCI breaker requirements in NEC 2014), the contractors' associations want to install the gear, the unions want to force installation to be technical so you demand unions install it for "safety", etc.

BTW, Flasher (and others) what do you think of Europe's EVSEs that do not have an output cable. They require EV owners to carry their own Type 2 to Type 2 cable. I see several advantages to this European approach as opposed to the American one where all EVSEs have a 20' or so cable attached to a J1772 or Tesla handle.

In Europe, the public charges are much less susceptible to vandalization or accidental damage since they don't have an output cable. And private EVSEs are cheaper to install since they don't need a $200 cable. The only issue I see is how do you handle beefier current outputs. I suspect Europe doesn't have this problem since they can get high power from a 32A cable since they can have 3 phase power.

You point out some positives of the approach in Europe with "bring your own cable". However, it's important to note that the IEC 62196 standard requires a UMC-style "control box" for anything more than Mode 1 (direct connection to mains without control circuits), which is limited to 16A maximum. Some countries prohibit mode 1 charging as well, so you still have to carry an EVSE for portable operation.

Bottom line for me is that the IEC 62196 type 2 (Mennekes) connector is less user friendly than the Tesla02 connector (although better than the J1772), but I do like "bring your own cable" for the problems of vandalism. A charger I frequent in Normal, IL (not the supercharger) has a very touchy cord that easily stops the charging session even under some wind load. My own cable might help with that (but then you might find idiots shoving gum into the socket pins, so I don't think you're going to stop stupid).

 

[gregincal]

There are several practical questions to ask - first, who is going to inspect and point out a failure? Can you consider the UMC part of the appliance (car) outside the scope of the NEC if push came to shove? You'd have less of an argument with fixed EVSE like the wall connector, but one could make the argument that the UMC isn't really EVSE but rather a part of the car.

In my opinion you could not only make that argument, it seems totally self evident to me. If I plug my UMC into a friend's dryer outlet have I suddenly converted it to being out of code? I don't see how that's possible. Wouldn't portable EVSEs be covered by UL specifications instead of NEC ones? The fact that the UMC isn't fixed in place is exactly what makes it an appliance rather than wiring infrastructure. Are there any other examples of NEC rules covering things that plug into standard outlets?

 

[FlasherZ]

In my opinion you could not only make that argument, it seems totally self evident to me. If I plug my UMC into a friend's dryer outlet have I suddenly converted it to being out of code? I don't see how that's possible. Wouldn't portable EVSEs be covered by UL specifications instead of NEC ones? The fact that the UMC isn't fixed in place is exactly what makes it an appliance rather than wiring infrastructure. Are there any other examples of NEC rules covering things that plug into standard outlets?

Yes. Welding equipment is one example, healthcare devices are another. There are a lot of examples.

The code panel believes that the appliance is the car, and that the EVSE represents supply equipment, just like a track used in track lighting, or a NEMA 5-15 receptacle.

The NEC tends to try to exercise jurisdiction over the connection of electrical loads that are "non-standard" in some way. The question remains as to how it can be enforced. The NEC is typically enforced only through inspection, or post-disaster investigation, and is only done locally. In most cases, you'll be installing your NEMA 14-50 in advance of receiving the car and/or UMC, so the inspector isn't going to be able to determine that you have secured your UMC. If he were told that an EV would be plugged in, he could delay/reject the inspection until the car was put in service and "installed", then check, but I doubt many inspectors would do that.

I imagine that somewhere there is a case precedent, but I am not a lawyer and don't have enough time to try and search the various legal databases. Perhaps some of our legal-oriented friends might indulge.

 

[green1]

That violates article 625 far more than making the EVSE "fastened in place" for a lot of reasons - ground-fault protection, safety interlock, etc.

It works for stoves, dryers, welders, etc. I don't for a minute believe it would be any different for an EV, except possibly by letter of broken law.

Then it would break J1772 functionality as well, and the car wouldn't know what current to draw.

I don't see how having the box in the middle of the cable instead of at the end inside the car makes this any different.

 

[davewill]

It works for stoves, dryers, welders, etc. I don't for a minute believe it would be any different for an EV, except possibly by letter of broken law.


I don't see how having the box in the middle of the cable instead of at the end inside the car makes this any different.

I guess that's why you aren't making the rules. Stoves, and dryers are indoors, and generally only plugged in during installation, often by a professional installer even then. As for the welder...well the plug is pretty much the least hazardous thing about it, you just have to assume the user is savvy. The car on the other hand is intended to be plugged in multiple times a day by every fumble-fingered idiot who is allowed to drive a car. It needs to be as fool-proof as we can make it...not to mention that EVSEs sit out in public where any wandering 8yo could start playing with the cord (or outlet).

As far as the current goes, if you put the EVSE in the car, how will it know how much current can be drawn from the outlet? Also how would it know that you're going to pull the plug out? You'd have to set the car manually to the correct current (and how will YOU know on some random outlet?) and you'd have to manually shut the charge down before unplugging or face arcing at the plug. Also, you'd have no safety features to avoid shock from wet conditions or just clumsy handling.

 

[Cottonwood]

Yes. Welding equipment is one example, healthcare devices are another. There are a lot of examples.

The code panel believes that the appliance is the car, and that the EVSE represents supply equipment, just like a track used in track lighting, or a NEMA 5-15 receptacle.

The NEC tends to try to exercise jurisdiction over the connection of electrical loads that are "non-standard" in some way. The question remains as to how it can be enforced. The NEC is typically enforced only through inspection, or post-disaster investigation, and is only done locally. In most cases, you'll be installing your NEMA 14-50 in advance of receiving the car and/or UMC, so the inspector isn't going to be able to determine that you have secured your UMC. If he were told that an EV would be plugged in, he could delay/reject the inspection until the car was put in service and "installed", then check, but I doubt many inspectors would do that.

I imagine that somewhere there is a case precedent, but I am not a lawyer and don't have enough time to try and search the various legal databases. Perhaps some of our legal-oriented friends might indulge.

So all you need to do is tell the inspector that you are planning on buying an RV, and want a place to plug it in occasionally near your garage. This is silly.

 

[FlasherZ]

So all you need to do is tell the inspector that you are planning on buying an RV, and want a place to plug it in occasionally near your garage. This is silly.

I agree with the sentiment. Willfully lying to an inspector probably violates something, somewhere though.

 

[Cosmacelf]

No lies. "Someday I plan to have an RV". Plans can always change...

 

[FlasherZ]

It works for stoves, dryers, welders, etc. I don't for a minute believe it would be any different for an EV, except possibly by letter of broken law.

It's considerably different. Your car is a continuous charging load, quite a bit different than the welder (roughly 10-20% duty cycle) or the dryer (also an intermittent cycler) or the stove (yup, intermittent cycler). Dryers and stoves don't require interlock protection because it's impossible to drive off in your stove or dryer without thinking if the cord is still attached, and it rarely happens.

However, it's very simple - the NFPA has determined that EV loads require special supply equipment specifications in the NEC, and the overwhelming majority of governments have adopted the NEC as law. They haven't determined that dryers nor stoves require special treatment, and welders have their own section of the NEC.

I don't see how having the box in the middle of the cable instead of at the end inside the car makes this any different.

J1772 requires a current demand signal, which a standard power cord doesn't supply. You have less of an argument once you begin to supply anything else than mains voltage that the entire package is an appliance.

- - - Updated - - -

No lies. "Someday I plan to have an RV". Plans can always change...

And when asked, under oath, if your real intention was to supply the Tesla EV that you had on order?

(Look, I get it... but I somehow think that if you had a Tesla EV on order, did NOT have an RV on order, and told the inspector it was for an RV, that the weight of the evidence would likely be against you substantially...)

I doubt anyone will have the need to test this, and the code panel will fix this for 2017/2020.

 

[FLDarren]

With props to all those that came before me, and wrote so much about charging options and methods... I am proud to announce that I have one of the most extensive 240V FrankenPlug collections in the community. (13 different outlets, if anyone is counting).

I'm picturing you as Inspector Gadget in his trench coat with all these adapters hanging from the inside of the trench coat. :tongue:

 

[Cottonwood]

(Look, I get it... but I somehow think that if you had a Tesla EV on order, did NOT have an RV on order, and told the inspector it was for an RV, that the weight of the evidence would likely be against you substantially...)

I doubt anyone will have the need to test this, and the code panel will fix this for 2017/2020.

My preferred solution these days, even for 50 Amp breaker, 40 Amp charging, is to just buy an HPWC. It is only $100 more than a second UMC, is more reliable, has a longer charging cable, and lets you leave the UMC in the car in case you might need it on the road.

With a permanent install of an HPWC, all of these questions go away...which is probably all around.

Now, does this new NEC mean that if I stop at an RV park that was built under this code, stop to get a charge, and plug in my UMC, that I am in violation of the new code?

 

[Cosmacelf]

Now, does this new NEC mean that if I stop at an RV park that was built under this code, stop to get a charge, and plug in my UMC, that I am in violation of the new code?

Yes, that's the whole point. The NEC is essentially proposing to outlaw portable EVSEs.

 

[gregincal]

It is only $100 more than a second UMC, is more reliable, has a longer charging cable, and lets you leave the UMC in the car in case you might need it on the road.

I've never gotten this. In two years of ownership I have never once used my UMC outside of my garage, and the likelihood of my ever doing so drops every day. Unless you are charging at campgrounds there just isn't any point. I don't care what the emergency, I'd rather have my car towed than charge at a standard outlet. Therefore I never bother to put the UMC in the car except in a few rare cases (and even then have never used it, as I said).

 

[Benjamin Brooks]

I've never gotten this. In two years of ownership I have never once used my UMC outside of my garage, and the likelihood of my ever doing so drops every day. Unless you are charging at campgrounds there just isn't any point. I don't care what the emergency, I'd rather have my car towed than charge at a standard outlet. Therefore I never bother to put the UMC in the car except in a few rare cases (and even then have never used it, as I said).

Whereas I have had quite good luck charging at friends and family's garages with the UMC using NEMA 10-30 and 14-30 adapters, which gets about 17mph or a full charge over night...
UMC in the car (i.e. the 'M' in UMC). HPWC in garage at home

 

[Cosmacelf]

It depends how you use your car - I take overnight trips in it where I want to charge at my destination, so the UMC is a must.

 

[green1]

It's simple. You make ridiculous regulations with no good purpose, and people will ignore them. It's a well known phenomenon in every area of life.

If you want to make things safer, you can't always make them the "safest" because you get to a point where people just give up and completely ignore the regulations, which makes things less safe than they were before you "improved" them.

I won't feel bad in the least if I do something that I know is safe just because some pencil pusher is trying to protect their own gravy train.

 

[Dbitter1]

I've never gotten this. In two years of ownership I have never once used my UMC outside of my garage, and the likelihood of my ever doing so drops every day. Unless you are charging at campgrounds there just isn't any point. I don't care what the emergency, I'd rather have my car towed than charge at a standard outlet.

For me, it is simple. We VRBO all the time, and until the supercharger network is a little better built out, I know I *WILL* need to charge. The difference for us is we don't know until we've stayed at a house what it will be like... I could leave my car for a day and a half charging on a 15A 120V outlet, or we could leave the house and enjoy the beach, local shops, etc if we can find a 240V outlet somewhere on the property. That's what the Frankenplugs are for... if the owner isn't an electrician or possibly a trade that uses portable adapters (Carnie?) they have no idea the difference between a NEMA 14-50 and a CEE 7/16 plug ("they're both 240V right?"). To me, it's worth having the collection if I know I'm staying overnight.

 

[FlasherZ]

It's simple. You make ridiculous regulations with no good purpose, and people will ignore them. It's a well known phenomenon in every area of life.

If you want to make things safer, you can't always make them the "safest" because you get to a point where people just give up and completely ignore the regulations, which makes things less safe than they were before you "improved" them.

I won't feel bad in the least if I do something that I know is safe just because some pencil pusher is trying to protect their own gravy train.

The problem is that things some people think are safe are actually pretty dangerous.

There are very few things in the NEC that I disagree with, there are plenty of checks and balances on the code making panels with wide representation.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Afci. Has there been a single documented case of it helping in the field?

 

[brianman]

In two years of ownership I have never once used my UMC outside of my garage, and the likelihood of my ever doing so drops every day. Unless you are charging at campgrounds there just isn't any point. I don't care what the emergency, I'd rather have my car towed than charge at a standard outlet. Therefore I never bother to put the UMC in the car except in a few rare cases (and even then have never used it, as I said).

I use a 14-50 several times a month. I don't limit my travels and adventures to the supercharger highway, the CHAdeMO dealerships, or the J1772 outlet malls.