Are you sure the HPWC counts as an "outlet"? It seems to be an appliance to me.
My interpretation is that the HPWC doesn't count as an outlet - the connection to it does.
Official definition:
Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.
Now, with that said, article 625 tries to make EVSE as part of the wiring system and so you could argue the "outlet" is the HPWC's cable. I suppose it all depends how you want to argue it.
All of this is left up to interpretation by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), which starts with your inspector or code enforcement officer. If you choose to escalate, then you can usually seek the decision of the chief inspector / chief code enforcement officer / chief engineer. If you want to fight something further, many/most jurisdictions allow for issues to be escalated to some type of review committee authorized by the municipal or county board -- some committees will generally go with the chief inspector's decision, but you have a right to make a case. Finally, you can always file suit against the municipality or the county if you feel strongly. It's distributed governance, and
the only person whose decision matters is your AHJ (and how far you want to try to take the appeals process). Very few cases end up in the courts, and since the Code is typically adopted at a local level and not nationally, finding precedent is difficult and costly. Unless you stand on principle, 99.99% of the time it will be easier and less costly (lawyer $$) just to do it the way the inspector wants.
It also means my interpretation or opinion isn't authoritative at all, and it plus $5 is worth a cup of coffee at Starbucks. And you - like others here - can always choose to ignore it and do whatever you want to do that makes you feel safe, as long as you accept the risks and liability that may come with it.
This distributed governance is why I generally poll a few different inspectors I've worked with as well as use some forums where they hang out to give me a consensus opinion. Some inspectors are very firm to the written word of the law, some are mostly focused on safety and will let stupid stuff slide, and some just collect a paycheck and sign it off if something isn't completely obvious.
In this particular case, most have told me that 210.17 seems a bit silly, and is mostly common sense - you don't charge a car on a general-purpose circuit with a freezer, some lights, and some other stuff. That said, the inspectors that typically go by the word of the code say they have to enforce it, which means a piece of equipment that charges a car needs a dedicated branch circuit and should not be shared. Others told me it wouldn't be a big deal.
...and most of the forums are, for the most part, saying "nice problem to have if you need multiple Tesla chargers... you can afford multiple cars near $100k and yet you don't want to invest $100 in a panelboard?"
(Another example is the Los Angeles city code enforcement. I've heard reports of LA inspectors refusing to green-tag HPWC's installed on breakers smaller than 100A. This is because they are sticking firmly to the code's wording that says you use the nameplate rating. Tesla's nameplate lists 80A charging, 100A circuit. They wouldn't budge even when offered the instruction manual that shows how it may be installed on smaller breakers. No amount of sending them my FAQ or pictures of other installations will change their position.)
