EVSE Regulations in Canada

[mknox]

Which just proves how stupid the rule is. If higher power doesn't require a disconnect, then there's no reason that lower power should.

There could be practical reasons. A switch capable of breaking 130 kW of DC current would be massive. It might be that that these "commercial grade" installations have forms of protection in the Supercharger cabinet behind the fence that serve a similar function. (I'm way into the speculation phase right now). Further, if these things overheat and catch fire, they are mostly outdoor and stand-alone and won't take a garage or house with it.

 

[RAM_Eh]

Can the breaker be locked in the "open" position? If that's not the case, well, you're not code-compliant.

All breakers can be locked in the open position. You need a breaker lock. Breaker is good for source of disconnect.

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

There could be practical reasons. A switch capable of breaking 130 kW of DC current would be massive. It might be that that these "commercial grade" installations have forms of protection in the Supercharger cabinet behind the fence that serve a similar function. (I'm way into the speculation phase right now). Further, if these things overheat and catch fire, they are mostly outdoor and stand-alone and won't take a garage or house with it.

You are correct that high power DC is very difficult to switch off. AC power has the benefit of having 2 "0" points 120 times a second. 400VDC does not. There is very little can be done if an arc is formed on a high voltage DC circuit. I work for a company (not my division) that makes high powered DC switches used primarily in transit applications. The switches take small "bites" of the circuit - they split it into 250 volt, or less, pieces, and then switch it. The gear is still HUGE, but limits the arcing capability of the circuit.

If you want to see some interesting damage, look for pictures of solar farms that have been wired incorrectly. 600VDC to 1000VDC arcs freely. More than one rooftop fire (in Canada) has been caused by phase reversal and/or poor grounding technique. Note that new code requirements are in play that will help minimize this risk.

I suspect that the switch on the supercharger will be on the AC side. 600VAC (or 480 ) is a lot easier to manage. Lockout/tagout can be attained in the cabinet of the switchgear.

 

[Doug_G]

They can probably cut it even faster by disabling the converters directly.

 

[Peter_M]

All breakers can be locked in the open position. You need a breaker lock. Breaker is good for source of disconnect.

No, the code says the disconnecting means needs to be lockable and within sight of the EVSE. The reason for the disconnect, as others have said, is to allow someone servicing the EVSE to be sure that it is disconnected and stays disconnected while they work on it. They are treating EVSEs as "serviceable units" - i.e. more like an air conditioner than a light fixture. A NEMA 14-50 outlet is not a serviceable unit so I don't think it should require a disconnect, despite what Doug's inspector insisted on, and even if you read the code as written, it's still below the voltage threshold to require one. It should be treated the same as a stove or dryer outlet, not like an air conditioner that requires a disconnect.

However, what makes sense isn't always the same as what the inspectors insist on, and it's very hard to argue with them.

 

[DMC-Orangeville]

No, the code says the disconnecting means needs to be lockable and within sight of the EVSE. The reason for the disconnect, as others have said, is to allow someone servicing the EVSE to be sure that it is disconnected and stays disconnected while they work on it. They are treating EVSEs as "serviceable units" - i.e. more like an air conditioner than a light fixture. A NEMA 14-50 outlet is not a serviceable unit so I don't think it should require a disconnect, despite what Doug's inspector insisted on, and even if you read the code as written, it's still below the voltage threshold to require one. It should be treated the same as a stove or dryer outlet, not like an air conditioner that requires a disconnect.

However, what makes sense isn't always the same as what the inspectors insist on, and it's very hard to argue with them.

My HPWC and 14-50 - installed by electrical contractor and approved by ESA. Note disconnect is on HPWC not 14-50

 

[mknox]

My HPWC and 14-50 - installed by electrical contractor and approved by ESA. Note disconnect is on HPWC not 14-50

If you install a NEMA 14-50 for a stove or a welder, you don't require a disconnect. If it's for an EV, you do (not arguing whether this is right or wrong). Likely what happened here is that the inspector saw the HPWC as needing a disconnect, but just treated the 14-50 as a "regular" outlet.

 

[Doug_G]

My HPWC and 14-50 - installed by electrical contractor and approved by ESA. Note disconnect is on HPWC not 14-50

That is eminently sensible. Unfortunately you can't argue with the referee.

You should have seen the stupidity our inspector came up with when it was time to wire up our little office building. Didn't matter what the code said, or what the sealed engineering drawings said. He insisted on a bigger conduit, and a second conduit for future expansion, despite the fact I'd already made them double the size of the feed (cheaper to do it now - learned that the hard way on my house!). Then he said we only had to run the second conduit half-way across the parking lot. Hokay... you do realize the whole thing is being sealed in concrete, right?

Can't make this stuff up.

 

[rsplodge]

Hi, I'm not a Tesla owner but an i3 owner about to install my EVSE, but have been hunting around for more info regarding the Ontario code for this stuff and came across this thread.
Do you actually need to tell the inspector what the plug is for? Can you not just get a 14-50 outdoor receptacle and associated circuit/wiring approved, without the disconnect switch, and then afterwards just decide to use it for your EVSE?
I'm really surprised that given the code says "150V to ground" that they are requiring a disconnect switch.
Also I think Doug mentioned a GFI was required but doesn't the code say this is only for subrule 1a) which is for the 125V receptacles.
Regarding outdoor 14-50 receptacles: Is one like DMC-Orangeville posted satisfactory or is not something that is more weatherproof when it is being used, required? I had seen some much more elaborate outdoor 14-50 receptacles on other threads.

...Roger

 

[green1]

Hi, I'm not a Tesla owner but an i3 owner about to install my EVSE, but have been hunting around for more info regarding the Ontario code for this stuff and came across this thread.
Do you actually need to tell the inspector what the plug is for? Can you not just get a 14-50 outdoor receptacle and associated circuit/wiring approved, without the disconnect switch, and then afterwards just decide to use it for your EVSE?
I'm really surprised that given the code says "150V to ground" that they are requiring a disconnect switch.
Also I think Doug mentioned a GFI was required but doesn't the code say this is only for subrule 1a) which is for the 125V receptacles.
Regarding outdoor 14-50 receptacles: Is one like DMC-Orangeville posted satisfactory or is not something that is more weatherproof when it is being used, required? I had seen some much more elaborate outdoor 14-50 receptacles on other threads.

...Roger

No, you don't have to tell an inspector what an outlet is for. It only matters if the EVSE is hardwired. otherwise an outlet is an outlet, what you plug in to it is your business.

 

[llavalle]

As for the GFI, it is required by Canadian code if the outlet is below a certain height above ground (can't remember the exact height).

 

[mknox]

No, you don't have to tell an inspector what an outlet is for. It only matters if the EVSE is hardwired. otherwise an outlet is an outlet, what you plug in to it is your business.

Not quite correct. If the outlet is for the purpose of an electric vehicle, it has to follow Section 86 of the Ontario Electrical Safety Code (in Ontario). Rule 86-200 talks to signage and Rule 86-300 talks about branch circuit requirements. Rule 86-306 talks about receptacles used for vehicle charging. And so on.

 

[Doug_G]

Option 1 - lie and say it's for a welder. The idea behind reporting EV usage is so the utility will know if there are a bunch of EVs in the neighbourhood, which could have impact on the transformer (risk of overheating due to large continuous load). I don't know if there would be insurance impact if you're "found out". (I'm officially not recommending this.)

Option 2 - tell them it's for an electric car. Depending on your jurisdiction they might require a cutout switch for the plug (which is silly and IMHO an incorrect reading of the electrical code - you're installing a cutout switch so you can "safely work on" a plug, which is silly - by that logic you'd need a cutout switch for the cutout switch, then a cutout switch for that cutout switch, then...). It will also require signage ("Car Charger Only" - no idea why since the world would not end if you plugged in an RV).

The cutout switch does make a handy cable holder...

 

[mknox]

Doug, the inspectors are not all that familiar with the new Section 86 rules and sometimes misinterpret them. I'd have to go back and look, but recall the cutout is only required on 60 amp and greater circuits. Your 50 amp circuit shouldn't require it. Having said that, it's not a bad idea and I put the exact same switch on my NEMA 14-50 outlet. My garage floor can in winter be soaked in salt brine and I like the idea of opening the switch before unplugging and handling my UMC while standing in salty water!

As another example, I was speaking with an inspector who had been insisting all HPWCs be installed on 100 amp circuits "because that is the rating listed on the device". He's not wrong, but some latitude needs to exist to accommodate the fact that UMCs can be configured for lower amperage circuits via the internal DIP switches.

You could say the outlet is for a welder, stove or what have you, but if there was a problem and it was determined an EV was connected to an outlet not inspected and approved for that use, there could be insurance issues.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea behind reporting EV usage is so the utility will know if there are a bunch of EVs in the neighbourhood, which could have impact on the transformer (risk of overheating due to large continuous load).

Actually, no. It has more to do with the "continuous loading" conditions that an EV imposes on a circuit. Unfortunately the ESA does not have any duty to inform the local utility of EV connections like this, and don't due to "privacy concerns". One of the government EV working groups I'm on has been tackling this issue. There needs to be a way around either ESA or MOT privacy guidelines so that utilities can be aware of EV loads. There is no reason not to let your utility know. They're happy to have the additional revenue and do want to make sure that the local distribution system is able to support the new load. To the utility, a Tesla charging looks like about 4 new houses on the system.

 

[beeeerock]

I'm pondering how I can advance a system for EV charging in a residential strata complex. Parking is in a secure heated structure.

The strata is, of course, most concerned about NOT paying for EV driver's power. Logical, no issue from me. The problem is how to make this happen.

In my web searching, I came across the Juicebox. From what I can see, the Juicebox can be installed with other Juiceboxes and configured to communicate via wifi with each other. The idea is that they can negotiate charge current in total, so that the breaker's limits aren't exceeded. There might also be some ability to monitor power consumption per user... I've reached out to them for more information.

However, I'm wondering whether the negotiated current draw feature could actually be utilized. Somewhere I thought I read that only one EVSE can be installed on a breaker. Is that correct? And if so, could this negotiation be used to have, say, 1 unit on each of 8 breakers on a panel, with the sum of the breaker's ratings exceeding the service breaker current? Then the Juicebox units could discuss the draws and ensure the total draw doesn't exceed the main breaker limit.

What ratings need to be on the Juicebox to be legal for use in Canada?

Thoughts on this from the experts in the field??

 

[Jaff]

I'm pretty sure that this requirement is accurate, at least for my province (ON).

I'm also sure that the code will be in need of an update once devices like this start hitting the market.
With the Model # 3 / i3 / Bolt either here now, or hitting the marketplace shortly, multi EV families will need an approved device to manage the current between multiple residential charge stations.

If anyone here knows what the applicable provincial code / if code amendments are forthcoming, perhaps they could chime in here and give us a heads up.

I'm pondering how I can advance a system for EV charging in a residential strata complex. Parking is in a secure heated structure.

The strata is, of course, most concerned about NOT paying for EV driver's power. Logical, no issue from me. The problem is how to make this happen.

In my web searching, I came across the Juicebox. From what I can see, the Juicebox can be installed with other Juiceboxes and configured to communicate via wifi with each other. The idea is that they can negotiate charge current in total, so that the breaker's limits aren't exceeded. There might also be some ability to monitor power consumption per user... I've reached out to them for more information.

However, I'm wondering whether the negotiated current draw feature could actually be utilized. Somewhere I thought I read that only one EVSE can be installed on a breaker. Is that correct? And if so, could this negotiation be used to have, say, 1 unit on each of 8 breakers on a panel, with the sum of the breaker's ratings exceeding the service breaker current? Then the Juicebox units could discuss the draws and ensure the total draw doesn't exceed the main breaker limit.

What ratings need to be on the Juicebox to be legal for use in Canada?

Thoughts on this from the experts in the field??

I'm pondering how I can advance a system for EV charging in a residential strata complex. Parking is in a secure heated structure.

The strata is, of course, most concerned about NOT paying for EV driver's power. Logical, no issue from me. The problem is how to make this happen.

In my web searching, I came across the Juicebox. From what I can see, the Juicebox can be installed with other Juiceboxes and configured to communicate via wifi with each other. The idea is that they can negotiate charge current in total, so that the breaker's limits aren't exceeded. There might also be some ability to monitor power consumption per user... I've reached out to them for more information.

However, I'm wondering whether the negotiated current draw feature could actually be utilized. Somewhere I thought I read that only one EVSE can be installed on a breaker. Is that correct? And if so, could this negotiation be used to have, say, 1 unit on each of 8 breakers on a panel, with the sum of the breaker's ratings exceeding the service breaker current? Then the Juicebox units could discuss the draws and ensure the total draw doesn't exceed the main breaker limit.

What ratings need to be on the Juicebox to be legal for use in Canada?

Thoughts on this from the experts in the field??