Cheap 240v/16A J1772

[paco3791]

Then you should be weary of the UMC because it is not UL certified either. The inspector gave me a hard time when he came to inspect my 14-50 outlet because he looked at the UMC and was trying to find a certification on it. It shouldn't have mattered because he's there to inspect the outlet, not what I'm plugging into it, but because I happened to have it there, he wouldn't pass my inspection. I had to get a hold of Tesla and it turns out that technically the UMC is considered "part of the car" so it doesn't require UL certification but rather is subject to some automobile standards that it has to adhere to. Apparently that answer was good enough for the inspector and they passed it in the end.

That's the first I've heard of the "part of the car" argument. Interesting. Pretty sure not all manufacturers do it this way as I believe that at least the Leaf does have their charger Listed, though it may or may not be with UL, could be ETL or CSA. But Tesla seems to have an aversion to established industry standards, which I understand, to a point.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Do you use the non-UL listed Tesla UMC or Tesla Supercharger? To my knowledge, no Tesla product is UL listed.

UL Isn't the only Listing agency in the game. I know I've seen pictures on this forum of at least two superchargers that do have 3rd party certification marks, one from CSA, that I can't find at the moment, and this one: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...arger-Buildout?p=574973&viewfull=1#post574973 that has a TUV mark. I work at UL though not in this particular area anymore. Also if someone wanted to get an openEVSE certified UL would be more than happy to take their money to certify it, assuming it could pass that is. Though it would be prohibitively expensive to do on a personal basis. I'm with @PhilBA on this one though, I'd prefer an EVSE with a 3rd party safety certification, I trust Tesla, but when it comes to safety I don't mind having an independent third party check things over and test the charger. Tesla seems to have gotten around the problem by saying the UMC is "part of the car" somehow, but typically per the National Electric Code anything that plugs in or gets wired directly to your house needs to be listed by someone. It's entirely possible that a code revision at some point in the future will remove that exception/interpretation and they will have to get the UMC certified.

 

[TonyWilliams]

UL Isn't the only Listing agency in the game. I know I've seen pictures on this forum of at least two superchargers that do have 3rd party certification marks, one from CSA, that I can't find at the moment, and this one: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...arger-Buildout?p=574973&viewfull=1#post574973 that has a TUV mark. I work at UL though not in this particular area anymore. Also if someone wanted to get an openEVSE certified UL would be more than happy to take their money to certify it, assuming it could pass that is. Though it would be prohibitively expensive to do on a personal basis. I'm with @PhilBA on this one though, I'd prefer an EVSE with a 3rd party safety certification, I trust Tesla, but when it comes to safety I don't mind having an independent third party check things over and test the charger. Tesla seems to have gotten around the problem by saying the UMC is "part of the car" somehow, but typically per the National Electric Code anything that plugs in or gets wired directly to your house needs to be listed by someone. It's entirely possible that a code revision at some point in the future will remove that exception/interpretation and they will have to get the UMC certified.

If you work at UL, you already know that UL isn't required in the USA. CSA, on the other hand, is required in Europe.

Tesla has no USA testing laboratory certification, neither from UL or any other USA testing laboratory, nor is one required. Yes, the two different Panasonic charge cables used by Nissan are both UL listed.

The diminutive "if it could pass" for OPENevse but you "trust Tesla", who has ABYSMAL quality control on its Mexican built Mobile Connector doesn't quite make sense to me, but I understand the sentiment.

 

[paco3791]

The diminutive "if it could pass" for OPENevse but you "trust Tesla", who has ABYSMAL quality control on its Mexican built Mobile Connector doesn't quite make sense to me, but I understand the sentiment.

Wasn't meant as a dig at openEVSE, just guessing that it wasn't designed with the specific requirements of the Standard in mind. and yes Tesla's UMC has had a bunch of failures all the more reason I would feel more comfortable if they had third party certification.

 

[tga]

Also if someone wanted to get an openEVSE certified UL would be more than happy to take their money to certify it, assuming it could pass that is

Correct me if I'm wrong (if you work at UL, you know more about this than me), but that will only certify that particular unit - it will not certify all OpenEVSE's built, since they are built by different people (who have different levels of skill), and can be built with a variety of components. An OpenEVSE doesn't have to be built from the complete kit. You could buy the board (or even fab them yourself from the files), and source the rest of the components (fuses, relays, enclosure, etc) elsewhere. You don't need to use the same parts for it to be called an "OpenEVSE".

 

[paco3791]

Correct me if I'm wrong (if you work at UL, you know more about this than me), but that will only certify that particular unit - it will not certify all OpenEVSE's built, since they are built by different people (who have different levels of skill), and can be built with a variety of components. An OpenEVSE doesn't have to be built from the complete kit. You could buy the board (or even fab them yourself from the files), and source the rest of the components (fuses, relays, enclosure, etc) elsewhere. You don't need to use the same parts for it to be called an "OpenEVSE".

Correct, if someone wanted to go into business selling EVSE's based on the openEVSE design they could get a specific design or group of designs certified, I haven't looked at openEVSE in a while so I'm not sure how much variation there is but you might be able to cover a bunch of the different design options with a couple of worst case tests. but while it's possible that isn't really what openEVSE is intended for, and as long as all of the components you use are third party certified you have some degree of coverage there. The safety concern would come in how they are assembled or like you say if you are fabing some parts yourself. Not saying it's unsafe or even less safe than a mass produced product, if done with care by a person with the right knowledge. But I wouldn't expect an electrical inspector to look at it and sign off on it either.

 

[Chris1howell]

Wasn't meant as a dig at openEVSE, just guessing that it wasn't designed with the specific requirements of the Standard in mind. and yes Tesla's UMC has had a bunch of failures all the more reason I would feel more comfortable if they had third party certification.

OpenEVSE was designed to meet or exceed all UL, NEC and J1772 standards. No safety features were left out of OpenEVSE, such as the diode ckeck (many commercial units) or the Ventalation required state (almost all commercial EVSEs). I looked into UL and ETL for OpenEVSE but at 40k+ it is not reasonable for an Open Source project. To take the conservitave approch the OpenEVSE design uses power modules (AC/DC and DC/DC), relays, GFCI coil...etc which are listed.

 

[paco3791]

OpenEVSE was designed to meet or exceed all UL, NEC and J1772 standards. No safety features were left out of OpenEVSE, such as the diode ckeck (many commercial units) or the Ventalation required state (almost all commercial EVSEs). I looked into UL and ETL for OpenEVSE but at 40k+ it is not reasonable for an Open Source project. To take the conservitave approch the OpenEVSE design uses power modules (AC/DC and DC/DC), relays, GFCI coil...etc which are listed.

Not to mention the ongoing costs of maintaining the certification. It's a nice low cost option for a knowledgeable DIYer. I just prefer to have something with a warranty behind it, even the best of us can screw something up and to have something with not certs or warranty hooked up to my two most expensive assets, house and car, isn't my personal cup of tea. If something were to go wrong the insurance claim could be an absolute mess. YMMV.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Wasn't meant as a dig at openEVSE, just guessing that it wasn't designed with the specific requirements of the Standard in mind. and yes Tesla's UMC has had a bunch of failures all the more reason I would feel more comfortable if they had third party certification.

My guess is that if the Tesla Mobile Connector (UMC) could pass UL and it would still fail with users at the same dismal rate. Blink, the US government funded joke that spent $100 million of your money to install charging stations, is also UL listed.

Blink products are the absolute worst available on the market, bar none.

UL might give you warm fuzzies, but that's about all it can provide. It can neither indicate a safe nor a quality product with anything close to 100%.

 

[paco3791]

My guess is that if the Tesla Mobile Connector (UMC) could pass UL and it would still fail at the same dismal rate. Blink, the US government funded joke that spent $100 million of your money to install charging stations, is also UL listed.

They are the worst available product on the market, bar none.

UL might give you warm fuzzies, but that's about all it can provide. It can neither indicate a safe nor a quality product with anything close to 100%.

I'll agree with you on the quality side. But all UL is designed to do is make sure the thing fails in a safe way. Correct functionality is almost never part of a UL or other third party certification. For example a normal UL investigation wouldn't look at anything having to do with the J1772 communication protocol. Which is kind of important if you want the thing to actually work, that's on whoever is the manufacturer. From UL's perspective a non functional EVSE, that doesn't supply current or voltage, is just about the safest thing there is, assuming it's not live or on fire. :smile:

 

[TonyWilliams]

From UL's perspective a non functional EVSE, that doesn't supply current or voltage, is just about the safest thing there is, assuming it's not live or on fire. :smile:

Bingo! And UL would happily take your tens of thousands of dollars to tell you that.

 

[FlasherZ]

The HPWC is UL-listed, as is the J1772 adaptor. The UMC is not.

The other thing you have to look for is which UL categories that something is listed under. There are devices that are listed under certain categories to make it easier to put a mark on it. For example, some vendors sell devices that are UL listed - they're happy to tell you that they are - but they are only listed under tests for "power supply safety devices" or something similar, where the standards are quite lax. Gives them a great marketing boost to say they're listed, when the tests are fairly meaningless to their intended purposes.