Some questions about 14-50 receptacles

[THEbuz]

It varies a little by state which version they are on, but since NEC 2017, yes, it's a bit new, that any outlet being installed for the purpose of EV charging must have a GFCI.

I’m in Idaho, so they allow much more than a place like CA or NY—for example. I am not an electrician, so I can’t personally speak to whether my install/setup violates the NEC or not. Waiting to hear back from my electrician.

 

[Sophias_dad]

Also, I don’t have to restrict my amperage in the TESLA app to 16A when “double-charging” but rather I must restrict my amperage in the TESLA app to 24A. I have a 60A circuit from which I can draw 48A, so splitting that capacity with the UMC with each drawing 24A will work just fine.

Sure, I was assuming the UMC would be drawing 32A. Any combination that adds up to 48A or less would be fine.

 

[Sophias_dad]

I’m in Idaho, so they allow much more than a place like CA or NY—for example. I am not an electrician, so I can’t personally speak to whether my install/setup violates the NEC or not. Waiting to hear back from my electrician.

Since I wasn't clear about the cabling needed to supply 60A for a 48 amp continuous draw, I figure I'll add that information here.

If its 6 gauge NMB (aka Romex), the cable is technically overloaded, as its only rated for 55 amps(44 amps continuous) because you are only allowed to use the 60C rating.

6 gauge individual conductors(THHN et al) in conduit would be okay, since that's rated for 65 amps(52 amps continuous).

 

[THEbuz]

Yes, your Tesla Mobile Connector(usually called a UMC, universal mobile connector) would be a Gen2.

Your UMC can only ever draw 32A, and there's also a thing called a Corded Mobile Connector(has a hardwired 14-50 plug!) that could draw 40A from a 14-50 .

There are tons of problems with your install. Connecting the 14-50 in parallel with the HPWC is a significant violation of the NEC. It will guaranteed trip the breaker if you try to use both at the same time. It will not damage either the UMC or the HPWC, but you won't be charging at all on either once the breaker trips. Violation 1: Supplying a 14-50 with cable/breaker good for 60A is not allowed. The receptacle itself isn't rated to handle that much power. Violation 2: EV charging circuits are supposed to be deficated to one device: Violation 3(similar to 2): 14-50's are required to be alone on the circuit. Violation 4: EV outlets are supposed to be GFCI breaker protected.

The circuit for your 14-50 should be dedicated, and at least rated to 40A(to get 32A out of it), and have a GFCI breaker feeding it. If its wired/breakered for 40 instead of 50A, it should be labeled(at the receptacle) as such.

Sadly, UMCs don't power share, so you can't just put a 60A subpanel in place of your HPWC and feed both devices from that. It'd be a major stretch, but you could still do that as long as you specifically decreased the draw of the HPWC to 16A by hand, in the car, whenever the UMC was in use.

Your electrician should go back to electrician school, unless they are really your 'relative that's good with elecricity' . I hesitate to ask what type of conductors are feeding your 60A HPWC. Maybe I shouldn't hesitate, since if they have to be replaced anyway you might as well go whole-hog and put a 100A subpanel in the garage.

DISCLAIMER: Not trying to foster any mud-slinging here, so take my electrician’s response for what it is. (NOTE: He is a licensed electrician here in Idaho with more than 20yrs experience. He previously worked as an electrician in Maui and may have been licensed there. I dunno.)

Unfortunately, [your forum buddy] is wrong on all accounts. Most people just take what they think they know and tell you why it’s wrong, but they [never] “reference” (the specific code violation). I’d be happy to entertain his thoughts on what the [NEC] 2017 [stipulates]. It’s always [people] in the [forums] that think they know what they’re doing, but have no clue.

I did [advise] you (me—THEbuz) about the potential of tripping the breaker if you use both at full capacity, but that’s your prerogative. If you want to overload the circuit, that’s what the breaker is for. It is to protect the wire in the wall, not you from using it.

It would be like saying you could only have one outlet on a circuit in your house because it could possibly pull 20A, if you happen to have 10 outlets on that same circuit, which is always common, could you pull 200A? Absolutely not. The breaker would trip prior to the wire being damaged.

 

[Rocky_H]

Nope. Both are drawing from the same circuit.

Ooookay. Then there is no question about it. It is definitely a violation of electric code.

I’m in Idaho, so they allow much more than a place like CA or NY—for example.

Well, on some things. Like Idaho does have a lot of things that are based on "homesteader" provisions, such as a homeowner is allowed to do various construction projects on their own house without being required to get a permit or hire a licensed professional. But the homeowner doing these projects is still required to follow proper electric code for it.

I am not an electrician, so I can’t personally speak to whether my install/setup violates the NEC or not.

It does.

https://www.iaei.org/page/idaho-electrical-ceus

Idaho is on the 2017 version of NEC, and that is iron-clad that these things must each be on dedicated circuits and CANNOT be shared.

You have options to correct this reasonably, but they may not be what you prefer. There are several options, but they will involve splitting these to separate breakers somehow.

 

[THEbuz]

Since I wasn't clear about the cabling needed to supply 60A for a 48 amp continuous draw, I figure I'll add that information here.

If its 6 gauge NMB (aka Romex), the cable is technically overloaded, as its only rated for 55 amps(44 amps continuous) because you are only allowed to use the 60C rating.

6 gauge individual conductors(THHN et al) in conduit would be okay, since that's rated for 65 amps(52 amps continuous).

I wasn’t home when they installed it, but I’m confident they did not use Romex. My garage walls are finished and painted white, so I was adamant about minimizing holes in my walls. They did run PVC conduit through a hole in the ceiling Sheetrock, straight down the wall into my TESLA Wall Connector. That is the only exposed conduit. Goes up into the attic space above the ceiling there and over into my third garage bay and down the exterior wall into my main panel.
(FYI: My home was constructed in 2021.)

 

[Rocky_H]

WOWWW! That guy is arrogant as f#%& and wrong.

Unfortunately, [your forum buddy] is wrong on all accounts.

That is the opposite of correct. I would report this guy to the county inspector.

Most people just take what they think they know and tell you why it’s wrong, but they [never] “reference” (the specific code violation). I’d be happy to entertain his thoughts on what the [NEC] 2017 [stipulates]. It’s always [people] in the [forums] that think they know what they’re doing, but have no clue.

Oh, really?! I can easily cite the code references, and will, but I didn't right off the bat because these are so obvious that I didn't think it would be necessary. This installation is incorrect on at least two counts:

210.17 Electric Vehicle Branch Circuit.

Outlet(s) installed for the purpose of charging electric vehicles shall be supplied by a separate branch circuit. This circuit shall have no other outlets.

www.electricallicenserenewal.com

210.17 is the requirement that the outlet must be dedicated and cannot be shared.

625 Electric Vehicle Charging System.

Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) uses induction to transfer electrical energy from the power source to the vehicle.

www.electricallicenserenewal.com

And 625.54 is the requirement that EV outlets must use GFCI breakers, which yours I'm pretty certain doesn't have. The wall connector says to NOT use one, so I would think that's the case.

 

[davewill]

One thing I will add is that your electrician may know general electrical code well, but there are rules that are specific to EV charging which he may not be as familiar with. The one question I have is: Was this install permitted and inspected? If so, then you are at least safe from a legal perspective, insurance and future buyers won't be getting on your case, and perhaps force you to bring it up to some future code.

 

[THEbuz]

One thing I will add is that your electrician may know general electrical code well, but there are rules that are specific to EV charging which he may not be as familiar with. The one question I have is: Was this install permitted and inspected? If so, then you are at least safe from a legal perspective, insurance and future buyers won't be getting on your case, and perhaps force you to bring it up to some future code.

Dave, appreciate you weighing in, but you're thinking like a Californian! LOL
(Which I can appreciate having hit the EJECT button on CA many years ago.)

Idaho is nothing like California when it comes to stuff like that. If a home is being sold (I am a licensed real estate agent, so I can speak to this) and there is something that is NOT up to code but is NOT flagged in the home inspection or a home inspection is waived (we can do that here), then it won't be addressed by the seller (the one who had all of that electrical work done). If it is flagged, then it typically would need to be brought up to code, BUT the buyer could still allow the sale to go through with those code violations as-is. As to liability, as long as the seller disclosed the items that were not up to code (provided he knew about them), then he is off the hook. Barring that, that is what the E&O (errors and omissions) insurance policy is for. Not saying there is no scenario where the seller would be liable, but the E&O insurance is in place for precisely these reasons. If a code violation was not flagged in the home inspection (or a home inspection was not done) and the sale went through, then it would become the responsibility of the buyer (i.e. new owner) to correct the code violation, unless it is major and he wants to pursue legal action against the seller for non-disclosure, but the burden of proof would be on him to show that the seller knew about it and failed to disclose it (as the work could have possibly been done prior to the seller purchasing the property, in which case he may not have known about it). Again, the E&O insurance policy would kick in for that reason. If the code violation was major and someone was harmed or killed, then it almost certainly would go to court and could get pretty harry and could exceed the policy limits of the E&O policy, making the seller personally liable (and possibly the realtor and designated broker, too)!

 

[davewill]

Dave, appreciate you weighing in, but you're thinking like a Californian! LOL
(Which I can appreciate having hit the EJECT button on CA many years ago.)

Idaho is nothing like California when it comes to stuff like that. If a home is being sold (I am a licensed real estate agent, so I can speak to this) and there is something that is NOT up to code but is NOT flagged in the home inspection or a home inspection is waived (we can do that here), then it won't be addressed by the seller (the one who had all of that electrical work done). If it is flagged, then it typically would need to be brought up to code, BUT the buyer could still allow the sale to go through with those code violations as-is. As to liability, as long as the seller disclosed the items that were not up to code (provided he knew about them), then he is off the hook. Barring that, that is what the E&O (errors and omissions) insurance policy is for. Not saying there is no scenario where the seller would be liable, but the E&O insurance is in place for precisely these reasons. If a code violation was not flagged in the home inspection (or a home inspection was not done) and the sale went through, then it would become the responsibility of the buyer (i.e. new owner) to correct the code violation, unless it is major and he wants to pursue legal action against the seller for non-disclosure, but the burden of proof would be on him to show that the seller knew about it and failed to disclose it. Again, the E&O insurance policy would kick in for that reason. If the code violation was major and someone was harmed or killed, then it almost certainly would go to court and could get pretty harry and could exceed the policy limits of the E&O policy, making the seller personally liable (and possibly the realtor and designated broker, too)!

I'll take that as a, "No."

 

[STS-134]

If a code violation was not flagged in the home inspection (or a home inspection was not done) and the sale went through, then it would become the responsibility of the buyer (i.e. new owner) to correct the code violation, unless it is major and he wants to pursue legal action against the seller for non-disclosure, but the burden of proof would be on him to show that the seller knew about it and failed to disclose it (as the work could have possibly been done prior to the seller purchasing the property, in which case he may not have known about it).

The seller need not know about it; if a contractor the seller hired did the work, the seller is presumed to know and the knowledge is imputed to the seller regardless of whether the contractor actually told the seller or not (Massei v. Lettunich, 248 Cal. App. 2d 68, 74, 56 Cal. Rptr. 232 (1st Dist. 1967)). The seller has the same legal responsibility if he or she hires a contractor to do the work as if he or she had done the work him/herself. I once sued the sellers of a property over substandard work/code violations and the seller claimed in court to not have known what the contractor did. It didn't matter because legally, they are still liable and they are allowed to in turn take legal action against and recover money from the contractor whose action caused the code violation. Judge also scolded the sellers for doing an entire repiping of the home without pulling a permit from the city because if they had pulled a permit, the problems would likely have been caught at inspection and if they weren't caught, the sellers could have probably gone after the city for damages in addition to the contractor who did the substandard work.

As for what would happen if the work was done prior to the seller purchasing the property, this did not apply, as the sellers were the original owners in this case, but I imagine that the sellers would still be liable and could in turn take legal action against the people who sold them the property as long as there aren't issues with passage of time/statute of limitations.

 

[THEbuz]

The seller need not know about it; if a contractor the seller hired did the work, the seller is presumed to know and the knowledge is imputed to the seller regardless of whether the contractor actually told the seller or not (Massei v. Lettunich, 248 Cal. App. 2d 68, 74, 56 Cal. Rptr. 232 (1st Dist. 1967)). The seller has the same legal responsibility if he or she hires a contractor to do the work as if he or she had done the work him/herself. I once sued the sellers of a property over substandard work/code violations and the seller claimed in court to not have known what the contractor did. It didn't matter because legally, they are still liable and they are allowed to in turn take legal action against and recover money from the contractor whose action caused the code violation. Judge also scolded the sellers for doing an entire repiping of the home without pulling a permit from the city because if they had pulled a permit, the problems would likely have been caught at inspection and if they weren't caught, the sellers could have probably gone after the city for damages in addition to the contractor who did the substandard work.

As for what would happen if the work was done prior to the seller purchasing the property, this did not apply, as the sellers were the original owners in this case, but I imagine that the sellers would still be liable and could in turn take legal action against the people who sold them the property as long as there aren't issues with passage of time/statute of limitations.

First, I will concede that I am a licensed real estate agent, NOT an attorney, AND you may be correct. BUT, I will point out that you are in, arguably, THE MOST litigious state in the Union (CA). I do not believe that what you are saying would apply in such cases here in Idaho. (I was referring to real estate transactions in Idaho, because that is where I am licensed.) I was not referring to real estate transactions more broadly, and I do have experience with real estate transactions in CA and totally get what you are saying (about laws in CA). Either way, whether you are correct (even about transactions in Idaho) or whether I am correct (about transactions in Idaho), then the E&O insurances covers that up to the policy limits.

 

[h2ofun]

Since I wasn't clear about the cabling needed to supply 60A for a 48 amp continuous draw, I figure I'll add that information here.

If its 6 gauge NMB (aka Romex), the cable is technically overloaded, as its only rated for 55 amps(44 amps continuous) because you are only allowed to use the 60C rating.

6 gauge individual conductors(THHN et al) in conduit would be okay, since that's rated for 65 amps(52 amps continuous).

IF you use 90C, it is speced to 75 amps

 

[Sophias_dad]

IF you use 90C, it is speced to 75 amps

Not allowed to use 90C if the termination points don't support 90C. Residential circuit breakers seldom support 90C, and the terminals of an HPWC are only rated to 75C(although I'm having trouble finding that in the Gen3 installation manual I have)

What is the temperature rating of the lugs on circuit breakers? | Schneider Electric USA

 

[MN-MS100D]

DISCLAIMER: Not trying to foster any mud-slinging here, so take my electrician’s response for what it is. (NOTE: He is a licensed electrician here in Idaho with more than 20yrs experience. He previously worked as an electrician in Maui and may have been licensed there. I dunno.)

Unfortunately, [your forum buddy] is wrong on all accounts. Most people just take what they think they know and tell you why it’s wrong, but they [never] “reference” (the specific code violation). I’d be happy to entertain his thoughts on what the [NEC] 2017 [stipulates]. It’s always [people] in the [forums] that think they know what they’re doing, but have no clue.

I did [advise] you (me—THEbuz) about the potential of tripping the breaker if you use both at full capacity, but that’s your prerogative. If you want to overload the circuit, that’s what the breaker is for. It is to protect the wire in the wall, not you from using it.

It would be like saying you could only have one outlet on a circuit in your house because it could possibly pull 20A, if you happen to have 10 outlets on that same circuit, which is always common, could you pull 200A? Absolutely not. The breaker would trip prior to the wire being damaged.

This is the definition of someone with 20 x ("1 year's experience")

 

[Rocky_H]

In thinking more about this, I would be inclined to report these violations to the inspector, and let him tear this electrician a new one.

 

[h2ofun]

Not allowed to use 90C if the termination points don't support 90C. Residential circuit breakers seldom support 90C, and the terminals of an HPWC are only rated to 75C(although I'm having trouble finding that in the Gen3 installation manual I have)

What is the temperature rating of the lugs on circuit breakers? | Schneider Electric USA

I always put in better wiring than what I think I will ever be needeing. The cost usually is trivial. Why not? What if I get a different wall connector in the future?

 

[ucmndd]

I wonder if we’ll ever hear what this trash-talking blue beard electrician thinks now that the forum blowhards have cited actual code.

This is why we permit and inspect work. Even in the great bastion of freedom* that is Idaho.

*your rights may vary. Offer null and void for uteruses and brown people. Vaginas subject to inspection. Firearms identifying as female exempted.

 

[mspohr]

I wonder if we’ll ever hear what this trash-talking blue beard electrician thinks now that the forum blowhards have cited actual code.

This is why we permit and inspect work. Even in the great bastion of freedom* that is Idaho.

*your rights may vary. Offer null and void for uteruses and brown people. Vaginas subject to inspection. Firearms identifying as female exempted.

Even Idaho follows the NEC

 

[Sophias_dad]

I always put in better wiring than what I think I will ever be needeing. The cost usually is trivial. Why not? What if I get a different wall connector in the future?

Sure, upon a reread I guess my response wasn't clear. You are certainly allowed to use wiring with a 90C rating, but you aren't allowed to use the 90C rating's ampacity and are instead required to limit the circuit to the 75C rating, or 65A.

Even getting a different wall connector won't override the 75C rating of the circuit breaker causing the 75C rating of the circuit.