Dumb New Electrical Code Could Doom Most Common EV Charging (motortrend.com) 185
Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from MotorTrend: A coming ground-fault circuit-interrupter revision could make slow-charging your car nearly impossible. The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) publishes a new National Electric Code every three years, and we almost never notice or care. But the next one, NFPA 70 2026, has the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) electric-vehicle charging subcommittee, OEMs, and companies in the EV Supply Equipment (EVSE, or charger) biz mightily concerned. That's because it proposes to require the same exact ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection that makes you push that little button on your bathroom outlet every time the curling iron won't heat up. Only now, that reset button will often be down in an electric panel, maybe locked in a room where you can't reset it. If EV drivers can't reliably plug in and expect their cars to charge overnight at home or while at work, those cars will become far less practical. [...]
The national code doesn't care what you're plugging in, but vehicle chargers deserve their own carve-out. That's because no current ever flows until the charger has verified a solid ground connection from car to charger and from charger to electrical panel. They also include their own GFPE (Ground Fault Protection of Equipment), which is intended to protect equipment and is permitted to trip at values larger than 5mA, often in the 15-20mA range. That's why this new code REALLY needs to set a higher supply-side cutout (like what is allowed for marine vehicle shore power, which is up to 30mA). Because even if the Special Purpose GFCI with its 15-20mA trip level were allowed, it would be a 50/50 chance that any fault would trip the electrical-supply breaker or the device's internal breaker. But while the device is programmed to automatically reset and try again, the panel requires a manual reset. There is one EV-charger carve-out: Bi-directional chargers are exempt.
This problematic application of 5 mA trip to most 240-volt equipment was added into this regulation late, during a second draft, and now the only way to head it off is for interested parties (SAE, OEMs, and EVSE manufacturers) to register their notice of motion in February for consideration in March. This isn't a government regulation, so it's utterly unaffected by the change in federal administration. These are functionary folks with minimal experience of EV charging, so the arguments must aim to convince the NFPA that implementing this code as is could grossly embarrass the Agency. (Understanding that any such embarrassment will only arise after buildings and projects are completed under the new code.)
The national code doesn't care what you're plugging in, but vehicle chargers deserve their own carve-out. That's because no current ever flows until the charger has verified a solid ground connection from car to charger and from charger to electrical panel. They also include their own GFPE (Ground Fault Protection of Equipment), which is intended to protect equipment and is permitted to trip at values larger than 5mA, often in the 15-20mA range. That's why this new code REALLY needs to set a higher supply-side cutout (like what is allowed for marine vehicle shore power, which is up to 30mA). Because even if the Special Purpose GFCI with its 15-20mA trip level were allowed, it would be a 50/50 chance that any fault would trip the electrical-supply breaker or the device's internal breaker. But while the device is programmed to automatically reset and try again, the panel requires a manual reset. There is one EV-charger carve-out: Bi-directional chargers are exempt.
This problematic application of 5 mA trip to most 240-volt equipment was added into this regulation late, during a second draft, and now the only way to head it off is for interested parties (SAE, OEMs, and EVSE manufacturers) to register their notice of motion in February for consideration in March. This isn't a government regulation, so it's utterly unaffected by the change in federal administration. These are functionary folks with minimal experience of EV charging, so the arguments must aim to convince the NFPA that implementing this code as is could grossly embarrass the Agency. (Understanding that any such embarrassment will only arise after buildings and projects are completed under the new code.)
Clarifying the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
If I understand the problem correctly, the charger is considered the "equipment", so there would need to be a GFCI between it and the panel (or as part of the panel breaker itself). Assuming the charger is hardwired to the building, does code allow it to have its own integral GFCI rather than somewhere in the homerun before it? Having GFCI in the locked basement is not specific to chargers, or to anything really...just a poor usability design, and that's not The Code's problem.
On the other hand, if the new code mandates tripping at a leakage level below what the code for the charger itself is allowed to leak, that sounds like a technical mistake.
Re:Clarifying the problem (Score:5, Informative)
I think the problem is more along the lines that outside of the lab, GFCI breakers tend to be a bit squirrely and trip when they shouldn't.
I don't have my EV chargers on a GFCI circuit, electrical code be damned. Both the vehicles and the EVSEs have their own monitoring circuitry to make sure everything is kosher before allowing power to flow, and there is literally no conductive surface on the EVSEs to present any sort of a shock hazard. This is just the code people being overly cautious.
Re:Clarifying the problem (Score:5, Informative)
does code allow it to have its own integral GFCI rather than somewhere in the homerun before it?
The EV chargers have their own integral GFCI. The code doesn't care that they have an integral protector and is adding the requirement of an additional GFCI on the 240 V outlet being provided for a charger.
Any additional GFCI on the circuit is subject to frequent nuisance tripping when connected to a charger. Among other things an EV Charger performs a number of tests that ground is functioning between the car to the charger and the charger to the building before charging can begin.
One of those tests is going to involve testing its own GFCI function, and the self-test of the charger's GFCI would also likely trip any upstream GFCI.
Re:Clarifying the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that this electrical design both a) senseless overtests a device, and b) only covers a ground fault on part of the electrical circuit past fixed equipment the problem is not the electrical code, the problem is the dumb things chargers are doing.
There's no reason you should be tripping a GFCI (the comment about bathrooms make this entire submission look like a troll). If you are leaking 5mA to ground in your house you have a wiring problem, or an equipment problem. If your equipment is leaking it on purpose then you have a design problem.
In any case the correct answer is if you need ground fault protection (which ... let me trigger some Americans here: You should have on 100% of outlets in your house, across all duties), do it in a place where your entire circuit is protected and design everything so it doesn't trip under normal operation.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are leaking 5mA to ground in your house you have a wiring problem, or an equipment problem.
Plugging your car into an outlet will "leak" 15mA to the ground just to check it works before charging. That's normal operation.
Re:Clarifying the problem (Score:4)
Plugging your car into an outlet will "leak" 15mA to the ground just to check it works before charging. That's normal operation.
Sounds like your charger is a hazard if it's energizing a potentially floating ground on purpose. Now we understand why this level of protection is necessary, thanks for explaining it to us.
Re: (Score:2)
You can leak that current from neutral. Will still trip a GFCI.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't be able to, since they are tied at the panel. If you can, you have a fault somewhere else.
Re:Clarifying the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
No, actually. They are tied _behind_ (i.e. on the power-delivery side) the GFCI. And the must be tied behind or the GFCI stops working. The thing is, a GFCI works by measuring the difference in current on neutral and phase. It does this (for AC) by having both wires go through a magnetic core (typically a ring-core) in opposite directions. If the currents are equal, the magnetic fields cancel each other out. You use a third winding to detect whether there is a magnetic field left or not and that trips the breaker part if it delivers current. This only works if all current going through phase also goes though neutral. If you tie neutral and ground before the GFCI (consumer side) the currents are not equal anymore because some flows back via ground instead of via neutral.
Now, if you short ground to neutral consumer-side, you usually get a current, because neutral is not at exactly zero volts if any load is on the circuit. That is caused by the resistance of the neutral wire. That then causes a current imbalance and trips the GFCI. It is not reliable, especially with less sensitive GFCIs, but from my experience, it usually works. It will usually not work for a high-resistance connection between neutral and ground, such as water.
But the point is, a) you do not need to use any current from phase to test your neutral and ground connections and b) that can still trip a sufficiently sensitive GFCI.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like your charger is a hazard if it's energizing a potentially floating ground on purpose.
The NEC electric code does not allow floating grounds, either, and the charger would check that ground is present.
None of the test they would perform counts as "energizing" anything. 15mA would still be a deminimis charge collected by capacitor and shunted through a resistor for a quarter of a second during test - in other words creating a very localized current that doesn't form a completed circuit with the
Re: (Score:3)
Put a GFCI outlet inline with a GFCI panel breaker. Push the test button. It's a coin flip whether the the outlet breaker or the panel breaker trips first. That is not a "design fault" in the outlet. Deliberately leaking some current to ground is how you test your GFCI protection.
North American EVSEs have GFCI protection built in. As part of their startup handshake procedure with the car, they test the ground fault protection loop. That necessarily involves leaking enough current to ground to trip the
Re: (Score:3)
Plugging your car into an outlet will "leak" 15mA to the ground just to check it works before charging. That's normal operation.
No it won't. You may have found a specific charger that operates like that, but that doesn't mean this is "normal operation" for all chargers. It seems this would be normal for chargers rigged into a house with inadequate RCDs installed in the first place - honestly something insanely common in America.
Electrical design involves matching the correct device to the design of the circuit it is powering. There are many chargers on the market around the world. Pick the appropriate one (standard design where I li
Re: (Score:3)
Given that this electrical design both a) senseless overtests a device
The chargers need to self-test to make sure they are safe to operate, can handle faults and surges properly, and will not blow up the battery.
It makes much sense that they check ground and verify GFCI functionality before delivering current. Anyways; the manufacturers' have determined it necessary for safety.
b) only covers a ground fault on part of the electrical circuit past fixed equipment
And the wall-outlet GFCI NEC wants only cov
Re: Clarifying the problem (Score:3)
Perhaps that would be one of the major reasons GFCI breakers in the breaker panel are rare,
Perhaps in the US, but they are standard in the UK. As to cost, RCD sockets cost about the same as RCDs that go in the fuse box (breaker panel), but of course you only need one per circuit instead of one per socket.
If you need regular access to the RCDs to reset them then you have bigger problems.
Re: (Score:3)
The chargers need to self-test to make sure they are safe to operate
No they don't. There's no code requirement for a GFCI to be tested before every use. In fact most GFCIs are never tested though it is recommended to test them yearly. It doesn't make sense to test a system that often, if anything this causes excessive wear on the switching mechanism.
Since EV chargers contain transformers; an upstream GFCI may not be able to sense a fault at the output windings of the transformer
If EV chargers contain transformers that isolate the ground connection then they are by definition no longer a circuit that requires ground fault protection upstream nor are they a circuit that should be capable of imparting an
Re: Clarifying the problem (Score:2)
On other places the code demands that the charger is equipped with a GFCI to ensure that the charged vehicle isn't endangering anyone.
Euro chargers are often 400V 3-phase.
Re: (Score:3)
Where I am, GFCI is required for an L2 charger that you're plugging in, I believe on the theory that it's great that your charger has stuff built into it, but it's the outlet itself that the GFCI is protecting.
If your L2 charger is hardwired, the L2 charger's built-in stuff handles it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a tempest in a teapot because correctly designed electronics don't use the ground plane as a current source or sink during normal operation.
Re: (Score:2)
I plug my Prius Prime into a GFCI outlet because it's in the garage and they've been required there for a long long time. There has never been a problem, and I don't see offhand why there would be a difference between Level 1 and Level 2.
Did I misunderstand the fine article? Was it saying that EVSEs might have ground faults more than 5 mA? Uh, how? With, as you pointed out, their own protective equipment on board.
Re: (Score:2)
I charge with a level one outlet outdoors.
I get a trip about a few times a year (probably less than 6 but more than 3).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even just plain old GFCIs, code now requires AFCIs on most new residential circuits. They are complete trash, go bad all the time and are prone to false tripping because they are just looking at the current curve and trying to evaluate if it "looks" like an arc is occuring. I guess lots of ordinary things look like arcs.
Re: (Score:2)
Friends with a quite new house, AFCI on many circuits, can not plug their simple vacuum cleaner into bedroom outlets. Fortunately the hall outlets aren't on AFCI.
I'm torn. I'm all for safety, but I could conceive scenarios where AFCI nuisance trips, lights go out, person stumbles down stairs trying to get to basement breaker panel.
Perhaps noise filters for noisy brush motors would be a win-win.
BTW, I do wiring sometimes, (I wear many hats) and whenever I do a bigger job, I always run dedicated lighting circ
Re: Clarifying the problem (Score:2)
The problem is with slow chargers, which often plug into a standard 240V outlet. I charge my car using one. But I also have my whole system on RCDs (AFAICT this is the European name for what's being required?) and don't have a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here in the UK, when I put my home charger in about nine years ago, it was required to be on an isolator and thus separated from the house’s RCD. That was a safety requirement, but now I think about it, it also avoided tripping the RCD. The US so often does such shitty implementations of things. Like hotel rooms that are too dark and have bathtubs that are too shallow with horrible shower curtains that suck inwards towards your body when the water goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Separate isolator yes, otherwise you'd overload your house group RCD which typically has an either integrated or upstream overcurrent protection that is not sized for what is ultimately likely to be a tripling of the load on your house.
But that's not a requirement to install it without an RCD. In fact in many cases the installation is done with a RCBO (Residual Current Breaker with Over-Current) combining both RCD and Overcurrent protection in the one device. In fact the standard requires risk assessments t
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I start to talk about anything with electricity, I rapidly remember how little I know about electricity!
I should really have limited my comments to this: the US situation described in the article sounds bonkersly stupid and bad, and the UK situation has never struck me as anything other than safe, and a much better experience as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I start to talk about anything with electricity, I rapidly remember how little I know about electricity!
On the contrary, you stimulate discussion, including explanations that help others who want to learn, or maybe don't want to, but end up learning.
At the risk of overstating the obvious, many discussions here and other topical forums involve people who have strong base knowledge of the subject. As such we often "talk over the heads" of many who are very wanted in the discussion. I'm always happy to explain the basics, if anyone asks or seems to ask.
I should really have limited my comments to this: the US situation described in the article sounds bonkersly stupid and bad, and the UK situation has never struck me as anything other than safe, and a much better experience as well.
Not disagreeing with you, but why do you all enjoy bashing u
Re: (Score:2)
The standard RCD trip current in the UK is 30mA.
There's a dizzying array of RCD stuff in the UK regulations. It sounds like, in the US they've just decided that 5mA is better than 30mA (which it is) without thinking about all the things that do "weird" things to the waveform that the RCD sees.
https://electrical-assistance.... [electrical...ance.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, thank you for that link. I had no idea there were so many different types of breakers used in UK. Very good. I'll study up later. Just seeing the different waveforms RCDs are designed for tells me they're doing much more than simple GFCI functionality.
Here in the US, our GFCI systems, AFAIK, (I'm an EE _and_ do wiring, residential, commercial, and industrial, but I'm not necessarily up on the latest and deepest details) a GFCI outlet just looks for balance between the "hot" and "neutral", or two "hots"
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the UK, when I put my home charger in about nine years ago, it was required to be on an isolator and thus separated from the house’s RCD. That was a safety requirement, but now I think about it, it also avoided tripping the RCD. The US so often does such shitty implementations of things. Like hotel rooms that are too dark and have bathtubs that are too shallow with horrible shower curtains that suck inwards towards your body when the water goes on.
We need a shining example of the proper way to do things like the UK, who have really bright hotel rooms, and AI enabled shower curtains.
Not sure I'd be bragging about a country that went Brexit. Anyhow, at least you have nice shower curtains.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK does indeed have brighter hotel rooms, and hotel bathrooms normally have shower screens rather than curtains, and I think that's much better. The UK does a number of other things that I strongly prefer to the US as well, from better electronic banking payments to public transport to plug sockets. And the US does a number of things better than the UK, too. On politics, both countries have amply demonstrated a commitment to idiocy over the past several years. I'm not going to shy away from calling out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Clarifying the problem (Score:3)
In the U.S., the utility power is three phase, but often a neighborhood will just receive one phase from the utility while the next neighborhood gets the 2nd phase, and a third gets the third phase. Utility systems are more often 3-wire delta configuration, but I have seen some newer systems running their utility as 4-wire wye (4th wire is a neutral).
Even if all three phases run to a neighborhood, often you'll see a utility pole with just one transformer can on it. That transformer will that just 2 lines of
Re: Clarifying the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, your GFCI plug is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, your GFCI plug is bad.
A lot of them are, if by "bad" you mean "trip too easily".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed. I have had several "trip too easily," and after buying a replacement of the same make and model, the new one no longer "trips too easily." So I do believe that these things can degrade over time and become "bad".
There's an exemption? (Score:2, Informative)
From the fine article:
But while the device is programmed to automatically reset and try again, the panel requires a manual reset. There is one EV-charger carve-out: Bi-directional chargers are exempt.
What does it take to have a bi-directional EVSE? I assume it's more involved than the typical uni-directional kind. If the nuisance trips are a problem and there's an exemption then I expect the exemption will be popular unless the cost is prohibitive.
This sounds like a few good reasons to have a PHEV than a BEV. If the EVSE trips the GFCI in the middle of the night then your overnight charge might not be enough for your trip the next day. If there's an extended power outage becaus
Re:There's an exemption? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The most important part, at least in Europe, is the temperature sensor in the plug. If it overheats the EVSE shuts off. That's probably the most common type of fault that they experience.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like a few good reasons to have a PHEV than a BEV. If the EVSE trips the GFCI in the middle of the night then your overnight charge might not be enough for your trip the next day.
Since getting it a bit over a year ago, my partner's EV has experienced failed overnight charging twice. The first time was due to a crappy no-name charger from Amazon giving up the ghost, and the second time was due the utility transformer blowing. Both times, a half hour of charging at the nearest DCFC station took care of the problem. It's rather hilarious to think that's a potential dealbreaker for EV ownership, when with an ICE vehicle you literally have to make a trip to the gas station every singl
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've been refueling my cars (ICE) since I was old enough to drive (that's been awhile) and I never saw an inconvenience.....there's a gas station every other block it seems...it isn't a "special" trip I have to take, it's just something I do occasionally on the way to somew
EV road trips are easy (Score:2)
As an example I live in Houston and to visit my brother in central Wisconsin I just:
1) get in the car
2) press the microphone button on the steering wheel
3) say "go to Nekoosa, Wisconsin"
4) confirm the destination
5) start driving
Here's a video of that [x.com] from 2022.
Longest EV trip we've done so far was 5000 miles to Yellowstone, onto Tacoma Washington, then back to Houston. Only planning we did ahead of time
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious....does this give you the shortest route...or does it alter the shortest route to make sure you can find charging stations?
On this trip, each time you needed to recharge...how long did it take? Was there a line? Were there any chargers that were out, etc?
Did
Re: (Score:3)
Shortest route based on the location of the chargers. If you pause that video at 0:12 you'll see the routine route in 2022 took us thru Dallas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota before coming in from the west side of Wisconsin. Our most recent trip to visit my brother was thru Texarkana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Illinois, before coming into Wisconsin from the south,
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I’ve been charging at home for nearly a decade, and have never not once in all those years had a failed charge. But then, I’m in the UK where we have a resilient grid and sane power infrastructure
Re: There's an exemption? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in an area smaller than San Bernardino County, right?
Area of San Bernardino county: about 20,000 square miles
Area of UK: about 94,000 square miles
It's not smaller, it's nearly five times the size.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Accidents and equipment failures happen to all vehicles. That's why breakdown services exist.
Sometimes schedules are missed due to failures, it happens, it has always happened. It happened even before cars, horses could become sick or injured.
Re: There's an exemption? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this article about US or European regulations? (Score:3)
Re:Is this article about US or European regulation (Score:5, Informative)
240V is common for garage car charging in USA.
This has nothing to do with EU, as they don't care what the NFPA say.
Maybe you're unaware that USA homes are supplied with a centre tapped 240V supply. Half the house is supplied from each half, with some appliances like dryers getting the full 240V.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that only general purpose 120V, 15 and 20A outlets requried GFCIs-- equipment that would be plugged in and unplugged within the vicinity of a tub or sink. Then they decided every 120V outlet in a "wet location" should be GFCI, including things like the refrigerator. Same held for outlets installed outside. Garages and carports followed a similar path, eventually everything needing to be GFCI.
I forget if it was the 2020 or 2023 code cycle where they added 240V outlets, and eliminated the 15-
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is that the availability of 240V GFCI breakers and outlets is still extremely poor, and you can add around $100 to the cost of install.
In my area the county actually posted an errata removing the requirement for HVAC systems to be on GFCI due to problems getting breakers and nuisance tripping.
My brother's an electrician, he keeps me up to date on this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is two-fold: people should not go willy-nilly resetting circuit breakers firstly, and secondly people might not always have access to the breaker when it trips-- think of a circuit on a house panel in an apartment complex.
There is also the issue that it is completely unnecessary. The purpose is to address poor installation, specifically improper grounding. There are significantly more serious problems if you start to assume the electrical installation is not done properly. AFCI and the expansion
Re: (Score:2)
making me doubt the author (I refuse to call him journalist)
So because of *your* ignorance you dismiss and insult someone else? 240V is common in the USA for fixed appliances and high current devices (look up split-phase power).
And when you're done educating yourself try and be less of an arse.
Why are they complaining? (Score:3)
If there's a ground fault, fix the ground fault. Don't keep trying it again.
Auto-resetting a ground fault protection seems like a dangerous feature.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They're wanting the more reasonable 30 mA trip level. And I'd concur, we use 30 mA where I live and it works great. 5 mA is reserved for medical environments.
Re: (Score:2)
If the GFCI is TOO touchy, it may trigger even where there is not actually a ground fault (AKA a nuisance trip).
Re:Why are they complaining? (Score:5, Insightful)
And too many nuisance trips is how you end up with no GFCI protection at all, as the homeowner removes that annoying thing, and if you're lucky, puts in a regular breaker. It's like $100 less than the GFCI one, after all.
If you go back to the fuse days, too many burnt out fuses risked having a penny installed instead.
Re: Why are they complaining? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would that work to conduct electricity? Fag paper I'm taking to mean cigarette wrapping paper.
The penny worked with at least some home US fuses. They were copper, so pretty conductive.
would totally allow a fire to start.
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarette cartons are lines with aluminum foil coated paper to keep moisture in.
Re: (Score:2)
If the GFCI is "too touchy" then it is faulty and not tripping at the correct level. If it is tripping anyway then you have a ground fault somewhere that is around the level of the safe touch current and you need to fix the ground fault somewhere.
There's no such thing as a nuisance trip. There are only faults in your home be they wiring, devices, or electrical design.
Re: Why are they complaining? (Score:2)
This. I learned this long before I became an electrician, when I struggled with crashing software and installed Norton Crashguard, which basically ignored crashes and let the all continue running, often with amusing results. Ignoring the bug/crash is no solution, and auto restarting software after it crashes is a horrible kludge.
The same applies to electrical faults.
Does US have different type of GFCI? In Europe we've got various types with different capabilities:
Type AC: only good for sinusoidal AC
Type A:
Re: (Score:2)
The point of an outlet is they are modular. You can plug any kind of load into it as long as it doesn't exceed the current rating. Having to know exactly what kind of breaker happens to be attached to it kind of defeats the purpose for the average home owner, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
That is only true in a purely resistive load (which a charger is not). It is possible to spec a GFCI device such that the nuisance trips don't happen, but that runs afoul of regulations with a one size fits all approach that won't carve out exceptions. It tends to be a problem when people assUme that if some is good, more is more gooder.
Protecting People, not Equipment (Score:2)
They also include their own GFPE (Ground Fault Protection of Equipment), which is intended to protect equipment
I suspect the code is more worried about people, thus the lower threshold for tripping. This is a building code and they may not be willing to assume all the equipment on the circuit will always have adequate protection for people.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the code is more worried about people, thus the lower threshold for tripping.
It is not merely that code is more worried about people.. The code authors literally do not care in the slightest about anything else and are concerned solely with requiring all measures they can get away with implementing to assure maximum safety. They don't care much about costs or practicality - the code authors have been known to mandate very expensive requirements such as the new requirements for specialized comb
Japan (Score:2, Troll)
Japan doesn't have electric cars because GFCI is mandatory. Ever noticed when you go to Japan you never see any three prong outlets there? There's no such thing as a three prong plug in Japan because GFCI is mandatory.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Japan does have outlets with ground. They take several forms and are not mandatory. But they do exists.
Oh, and Japan has electric cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Are you a MAGA-moron?
Re: (Score:3)
So, you admit your statement was crap? That is a good first step. And no, there are 3-prong outlets in Japan, as a brief Internet search shows. These are "Type B (NEMA 5-15)" (https://www.netio-products.com/en/glossary/type-b-nema-5-15). And that means they are allowed and that you can have one installed if you want one. Quite a bit different from "there are none", is it?
Now, lets have a look at your _other_ claim, namely 2% of all car sales being EV in Japan. Turns out, it is crap as well: https://roadgeni [roadgenius.com]
Equipment manufacturers use NFPA to make money (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've even read that AFCI breakers are designed, not to save lives, but to save property, by preventing fires.
That said, when the math was done, the increased cost of AFCI breakers, up against prevented damage, only makes sense in a home with over a million dollar replacement cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Adding $1000 to the cost of every new home must be offset by how many homes/lives it will actually save.
Given AFCIs are designed to prevent your house from burning down, the cost of literally thousands of AFCIs is covered if only one house doesn't catch fire.
Also where do you get the $1000 from? An AFCI is $30. Likewise an RCDO is only a couple of dollars more expensive than a simple OCB.
Do you value your life / property so little?
Re: (Score:2)
Association, not Agency! (Score:2)
That's how you know it's not a federal authority doing this
It is, in fact, a government regulation (Score:2)
It is, in fact, a government regulation because its referenced by name, edition, chapter, etc. in many states building codes.
Is this only relevant for plug-in vs hardwired? (Score:2)
A few posts have intimated that this requirement is just for chargers plugged into outlets, rather than a proper hard-wired wall box. Is that right? In the UK, we call those “granny chargers” and they’re not recommended for anything other than occasional charging.
An USA thing? (Score:2)
When the author says "That's because it proposes to require the same exact ground-fault circuit-i
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb? (Score:2)
Is this word helpful here?
Clearly, this is a matter of opinion, as some experts (you know, the ones updating the rules--these people aren't sanitation workers) think it's a good idea. Perhaps a discussion is more appropriate. Calling it "dumb" only makes the author look...dumb.
Broken By Design (Score:2)
This is just regulation designed to make something so useless it won't get adopted. For example: arc supression breakers are required for new construction. However if you happen to enjoy vintage equipment you're fucked; because the first time a brush motor or contact point arcs it trips. As a pinball technician this was a major problem...those things will arc just during normal operation.
This is the same thing. By adding safety but reducing usability; two things will happen: people stop using it, or so man
NFPA weilds far too much power (Score:2)
These are the clowns that brought us mandatory ARC fault breakers, promulgated absurd requirements for low voltage wiring, tagged on thousands in additional costs to solar installations without credible objective evidence of efficacy and complete disregard for the interests and safety of those other than themselves.
For example the requirements for per module electronics in a PV install has not only significantly raised the material cost of installation it raises maintenance costs of replacing large numbers
The National Electical Code (Score:2)
Gets modified by cities and states all of the time. A city or state can choose not to implement a specific section, or add sections which are contrary to the national version. This is what I think will happen, if it this rule is finalized.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla was the first one to run out of EV tax credits. That's because Tesla is the biggest EV car manufacturer in the US market and those tax credits are capped based on the number of units sold. In other words, those tax credits were mostly helping his smaller competitors, not Tesla.
As to the rest of his antics, I can't really explain them either.
Re: Regulations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We find the fact that you Americans only have these for bathrooms and not at your distribution boards, protecting every circuit, old fashioned and alarming.
It's much safer to have individual GFCIs at the outlet level for wet locations as, if there is another inductive load on the branch circuit, like a bathroom fan, it can delay tripping the GFCI by several hundred milliseconds. If there's current arcing through your heart, that's enough to make a difference between life and death.
Source: A family member is a master electrician. He knows the NEC by heart. He insists on only wiring individual GFCIs, not branch GFCIs.
Re: (Score:2)