Putting a plug on an HPWC (Code Violations and Insurance)

[Canuck]

However, the question at hand is whether or not the insurance company is willing to try to use that as a denial of insurance benefits to you. If you suffer a loss, and the insurance company denies your claim stating a code compliance issue, you may still win -- but you'll be spending months or years going through all the processes against a company with deep pockets who has plenty of time on its hands.

In order to deny a claim, an insurer has to refer you to an exclusion in the policy. Once you have a fire, and if you have fire insurance, there is a presumption of coverage in favour of the insured. At that point, your insurer must reference an exclusion. The problem is that some insurance policies do have an exclusion that applies to code breaches. That's outright insanity in my opinion, since you can find code breaches in nearly every home. Now, the code breach must be causally connected to the loss, but just the fact that there is such an exclusion that your insurer can put to you is significant cause for concern, and FlasherZ hit he nail on the head when he said "you'll be spending months or years going through all the processes against a company with deep pockets who has plenty of time on its hands." So I can't stress to people enough the importance of reading your policy and, if you have clauses such as these, you should change insurers:

2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which
would not have occurred in the absence of one or more
of the following excluded events. We do not insure for
such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded
event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other
causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the
excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the
event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or
widespread damage, arises from natural or external
forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these:

a. Ordinance or Law, meaning enforcement of any
ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair
or demolition of a building or other structure.


Even if you are in jurisdictions that won't enforce these clauses, you don't want to have to sue to get that declaration. It's best not have such clauses it the first place, and many policies do not. Also, do not count on your broker to get you the correct insurance policy. You need to read through every clause yourself, and at each renewal when they send you changes in policy wordings.

 

[breser]

Article 110 says you must follow manufacturer's instructions. Is there an instruction (other than article 625) that says the HPWC *must* be cord-and-plug connected?

Nothing in the manual that I can see:
https://my.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/wall_connector_install_guide_northamerica.pdf

This is the closest it gets:

The Wall Connector must be grounded through a permanent wiring system or an equipment grounding conductor.

But I believe the equipment grounding conductor can be met by a plug if I'm remembering my NEC definitions correctly.
conductor.

 

[wk057]

110.54 Bonding and Equipment Grounding Conductors.
(B) Equipment Grounding Conductors. An equipment grounding conductor shall be run with circuit conductors inside the metal raceway or inside the multiconductor cable jacket. The equipment grounding conductor shall be permitted to be insulated or bare.

In the manual for HPWC...

"The Wall Connector must be grounded through a permanent wiring system or an equipment grounding conductor."

"Run 1” (25 mm) conduit on the left side of a wall stud. The conduit fits into the opening on either the back or the left side of the Wall Connector"

"NOTE: Refer to the National Electric Code(NEC) and local electrical codes when installing the Wall Connector."

It even refers to the NEC by article/section at times: "per 2014 NEC 625.40 Overcurrent Protection."

If there was any ambiguity left about hard wiring after this, this text should eliminate any that remains:

"After running service wiring to the desired installation location using 1” (25 mm) conduit,(see pages 5 through 7), and installing the appropriate circuit breaker (see page 8),TURN OFF THE POWER SUPPLY. Then follow these steps to install the Wall Connector."

Obviously Tesla intended the HPWC to be hard wired, and that the NEC 625 applies to it.

 

[FlasherZ]

FlasherZ hit he nail on the head when he said "you'll be spending months or years going through all the processes against a company with deep pockets who has plenty of time on its hands." So I can't stress to people enough the importance of reading your policy and, if you have clauses such as these, you should change insurers:

I don't know of many insurers who are willing to say "no, it's ok, go ahead and break the law, we'll still cover you" (in the US, NEC is codified in law in most jurisdictions and in some it's actually a misdemeanor to knowingly violate the NEC).

So wouldn't it be better not to tempt them in the first place?

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously Tesla intended the HPWC to be hard wired, and that the NEC 625 applies to it.

No doubt in my mind that the first statement there is true (Tesla intended for the wall connector to be a fixed appliance). However, it doesn't change a potential technical argument that the NEC might not have jurisdiction over a wall connector connected via cord-and-plug if you pressed the issue. In most cases, the AHJ will inspect up to the receptacle, and anything plugged into that receptacle then becomes an appliance. It may be that the NEC's jurisdiction in its article 110 demand on following manufacturer's instructions ends at the receptacle.

Now, is that smart? Probably not. But you could make such a technical argument.

Now for a specific - the green wire in a 6/3 or 6/4 cable is considered an equipment grounding conductor for the purpose of 110.54, because it is "run with circuit conductors [...] inside the multiconductor cable jacket". And since it says "the Wall Connector must be grounded through a permanent wiring system or an equipment grounding conductor", it meets that requirement. Also, technically, I can run conduit to the wall connector and terminate that conduit in a junction box from which a cord and plug emerges and it would be in line with Tesla's instructions.

To my point, above, it's probably best to assume the NEC does cover the EVSE, and that its provisions on extension cords are as good as law. That's what I would do, but some others like shortcuts.

 

[wk057]

I had read the "or" in the sentence in the HPWC manual (quote above) to have the adjective "permanent" applied to both possible setups.

But anyway, I'm going to stick with my recommendation, and that is to hard wire the HPWC without exception. When it comes to safety, especially with things in my home where my family and I live and sleep, there are no real excuses for shortcuts or ambiguity.

Not to pick on you, Canuck, but in your setup you're looking at what, $100-$200 in material and labor, tops, to professionally hard wire that HPWC for 40A? Probably under $50 if you did the work yourself. Same for anyone else with a NEMA 14-50 near their HPWC. You in particular could have just taken out the NEMA 14-50, put a cover with a knockout on the junction box, and wired the HPWC right over top of it using the existing wiring for less than it cost to buy the 14-50 plug/cord. Literally < $10 in parts. Actually, for your setup it would probably look better, too, because you'd have only one wire (the charge cable) and you could flip the HPWC the other way and not have to loop the charge cable back around.

Given all of that, and no offense intended to anyone, but I just find it pretty inexcusable for anyone to do this with the HPWC as a permanent install solution. Saving a few cents at the expense of safety and potential hassles down the line just does not seem worth it when the safe and hassle free method is actually just as simple and more elegant anyway.

Edit: For the record, before someone calls me a hypocrite, when I had wired a HPWC with a 14-50 temporarily it was because it was a) not a permanent install, b) was charging in two locations with 14-50's (and storing the UMC at one and the HPWC at another), c) I had the "extra" HPWC already, sitting unused, in preparation for my dual permanent install at my new place a couple of months later (one was already installed there earlier). I tried to make the temporary setup as safe as possible by using pinch straps on both sides of the 14-50 plug cord as well as a NM 1" connector to hold the cable in place. I mounted it to a 2x4 inches above the existing 14-50 outlet using at most 8" of cord. I also zip tied the plug to the box with the 14-50 so it couldn't easily be unplugged.

 

[andrewket]

In order to deny a claim, an insurer has to refer you to an exclusion in the policy. Once you have a fire, and if you have fire insurance, there is a presumption of coverage in favour of the insured. At that point, your insurer must reference an exclusion. The problem is that some insurance policies do have an exclusion that applies to code breaches. That's outright insanity in my opinion, since you can find code breaches in nearly every home. Now, the code breach must be causally connected to the loss, but just the fact that there is such an exclusion that your insurer can put to you is significant cause for concern, and FlasherZ hit he nail on the head when he said "you'll be spending months or years going through all the processes against a company with deep pockets who has plenty of time on its hands." So I can't stress to people enough the importance of reading your policy and, if you have clauses such as these, you should change insurers:

2. We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which
would not have occurred in the absence of one or more
of the following excluded events. We do not insure for
such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded
event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other
causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the
excluded event to produce the loss; or (d) whether the
event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or
widespread damage, arises from natural or external
forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these:

a. Ordinance or Law, meaning enforcement of any
ordinance or law regulating the construction, repair
or demolition of a building or other structure.


Even if you are in jurisdictions that won't enforce these clauses, you don't want to have to sue to get that declaration. It's best not have such clauses it the first place, and many policies do not. Also, do not count on your broker to get you the correct insurance policy. You need to read through every clause yourself, and at each renewal when they send you changes in policy wordings.

I'm guessing you know which of the major carriers have this boilerplate language. Are you willing to share?

 

[FlasherZ]

I'm guessing you know which of the major carriers have this boilerplate language. Are you willing to share?

It's State Farm in Illinois (copied and pasted from my former homeowner's insurance policy).

 

[wk057]

Seems like a clause that makes some sense, though, IMO.

 

[FlasherZ]

I had read the "or" in the sentence in the HPWC manual (quote above) to have the adjective "permanent" applied to both possible setups.

The use of the article "an" makes the difference. If it were instead worded "through a permanent wiring system or equipment grounding conductor", then I would agree with you. But by using two articles ("a" and "an"), it attaches the adjective only to the first. They do this in the code as well.

I agree that in most cases it makes sense to permanently wire the device. Article 625 wants stuff to be permanently connected (but I think, reading its history, it mostly envisions larger outdoor charging units with 120V EVSE's added later). That said, I don't think there's anything inherently unsafe about using plug-and-cord connection within equipment specs.

 

[Chris TX]

I agree with FlasherZ (I think). NEC stops at the outlet. As long as the outlet is properly protected with proper gauge and breaker, you should be able to plug whatever you want into it. Short it out, over-amp it, whatever and the circuit is still protected via breaker. Put a GFCI breaker on it to protect personnel if it's going to be outside or near water.

Now, if you hardwire the EVSE, NEC would need to be extended to the device. This is why the HPWC and the UMC, which basically do the same thing, have two different rating classes: UL for the HPWC and EMC for the UMC.

Interpret things however safe you want to make them. "Better safe than sorry" applies here with expensive things like houses and cars (and lives).

 

[wk057]

I agree that in most cases it makes sense to permanently wire the device. Article 625 wants stuff to be permanently connected (but I think, reading its history, it mostly envisions larger outdoor charging units with 120V EVSE's added later). That said, I don't think there's anything inherently unsafe about using plug-and-cord connection within equipment specs.

Generally I would agree, but since the HPWC was designed for a permanent install I think there is a risk of dislodging the conductors of a plug-and-cord setup unless extra precautions are taken. Drilling a hole in the side and wiring up a 14-50 cable is going to be way less safe than something like UMC, IMO, where the outside connection was designed for the stress of a plug-and-cord setup.

 

[FlasherZ]

I agree with FlasherZ (I think). NEC stops at the outlet. As long as the outlet is properly protected with proper gauge and breaker, you should be able to plug whatever you want into it. Short it out, over-amp it, whatever and the circuit is still protected via breaker. Put a GFCI breaker on it to protect personnel if it's going to be outside or near water.

Just as a technicality - no, you violate the NEC for the infrastructure involved if you offer a load to a circuit in excess of its rating. OCPD's are intended as emergency protection against overloads.

Now, if you hardwire the EVSE, NEC would need to be extended to the device. This is why the HPWC and the UMC, which basically do the same thing, have two different rating classes: UL for the HPWC and EMC for the UMC.

Also mostly untrue. The NEC doesn't apply to the wiring inside your stove/range, A/C units, etc., for example.

The reason the NEC makes an argument for application to EVSE equipment is that the code-making panel considers the car the appliance. It considers the HPWC similar to an autotransformer, or a service panel, or some other piece of electrical supply equipment. I haven't heard of a case where that's been tested in a legal setting, though. That said, I think we're discussing strange cases and such. In most cases, hard-wiring the HPWC is the right thing to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Generally I would agree, but since the HPWC was designed for a permanent install I think there is a risk of dislodging the conductors of a plug-and-cord setup unless extra precautions are taken. Drilling a hole in the side and wiring up a 14-50 cable is going to be way less safe than something like UMC, IMO, where the outside connection was designed for the stress of a plug-and-cord setup.

I don't view it as any different than a UMC. In fact, one could argue the HPWC connected via plug-and-cord is going to be safer than a UMC because it's permanently mounted and less likely the plug would be yanked loose.

I have connected my air compressor in the same way - a length of rubber cord with a NEMA 6-30, connected to a receptacle. The reason I did this is that I have other tools that can use that receptacle. If you look at the compressor, you could make an argument that its 3/4" conduit entrance means it should be direct-wired, but there are listed components for properly attaching rubber code to a conduit cut-out.

 

[tga]

Nigel, thanks for carving out this thread. I find this topic more interesting than the original thread (I lost interest in the original).

Let me ask a different, but related, question.

625.44 talks about "intended for connection to" an outlet - if I understand wk057 and FlasherZ's debate, the intent is strictly defined by the manufacturer's instructions, correct? Wk057 talks back on page one about the HPWC being listed for (or not) connection via hardwired or outlet - does "listed" relate to UL (or ETL/CSA/etc) listing?

Obviously, some EVSE's are intended for connection to a 14-50, since they are supplied with a 14-50 cord (Leviton 40A Evr-Green 400, some of the lower power Clipper Creek units)

What about a non-UL listed EVSE (such as a home made OpenEVSE). My suspicion is that it would be an NEC violation to hard-wire them, but not to plug in with a 14-50.

For that matter, are there legal/insurance issues surrounding plugging in any non-UL/ETL/CSA listed (or home made) AC powered equipment? Curious to hear FlasherZ and Canuck's opinions.

 

[ChrisPDX]

Your particular setup is probably fine, since no one is going to accidentally grab the 14-50 cord up on the ceiling I would think, but I don't see any pull out protection from the photo so nothing to stop something from getting snagged on it, for example. The one photo below yours in that thread is a problem waiting to happen with that upside down HPWC. The contactor in the HPWC isn't, by default, designed for reverse orientation and will have slightly higher resistance upside down. The part number they use is custom, so, it may be... but the default is upright only. He also said he put something inside to prevent pull outs, but that wont stop the opposite. If his method is metallic it could potentially short a leg to ground or worse if someone fiddled with the cable.

As the owner of the upside down wall mounted one, I figured I would reply to this. First off, I fully understand this is not technically to code. I believe I've taken enough precautions to insure that the risk of fire is as minimal as possible. Also, due to the work that has to be done to make this safe, I would normally never recommend anybody else do this unless they know what they are getting into. Since most people don't fall into this category, I don't normally recommend other owners do this when talking to them about charging options.

Regarding securing the cable to the HPWC, there is a metal clamp that came with the 14-50 cable that I used inside. This alone will prevent the cord from being pulled out. To address your concern about the cord being pushed in or shorting the terminal, I also drilled a small hole into the clamp and screwed it to the inside of the HPWC. This keeps it from being pushed inwards as well and reduces any movement from the cord to the terminals. I may also secure the cable to the wall for further protection at some point in the future. With there never being any movement in the cord on a normal basis, wall mounting it was a low priority for me.

The contacts not being designed for that orientation is interesting. I specifically asked about upside down mounting another thread and nobody brought that up. I'll see about getting my IR temp prob and check that part out a little more closely. The whole unit runs cool (no warmth at all), but I didn't check the contacts directly since I figured running at only 40 amps would not make them an issue.

 

[davewill]

Then there's another matter: jurisdiction of the NEC as it applies to appliances vs. infrastructure. Now, I admit I haven't looked to see if there are any examples of case law where this has been escalated to an official review, but the NEC is intended to cover wiring infrastructure. The code-making panel for article 625 will likely tell you that they believe the car is the appliance and the EVSE (even pluggable EVSE's) is infrastructure gear. This would mean that article 625 must be followed even for cord-and-plug connected devices. However, if you were to look at the EVSE as the appliance rather than the car, then you could make an argument that all the provisions of extension cords and even the entirety of article 625 don't apply, because it's impossible for it to be governed. What are you going to do, bring an inspector over each time you want to charge? ...

Definitely a gray area. I went through two installations of my Blink, (I moved) which comes fitted with a 6-50 plug attached. In both cases the inspector wouldn't sign off until the EVSE was mounted in place. I do know that many people avoided that by just describing the install as a 240v receptacle without specifying EV charging, then installing the EVSE afterwards. Many of them were either OpenEVSEs or upgraded Nissan EVSEs.

So, should I need a new permit and inspection if I were to replace the Blink with another plug-in EVSE? I don't need one if I get a new electric range. I didn't call an inspector when I replaced the J1772 cable (the POS J1772 plug the Blink came with failed just after the warranty ran out)...of course I don't if I replace a bad receptacle or breaker, either. Repairs generally don't need a permit.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

Hardwired HPWC on a 60A breaker does not require a local "Cut-Off," but a hardwired HPWC on a 70A breaker does require a disconnect method/switch close by?
Am I interpreting that correctly? I've heard that 60A is the 'sweet spot' for breaker/wire cost, but this would make it more so.

 

[FlasherZ]

625.44 talks about "intended for connection to" an outlet - if I understand wk057 and FlasherZ's debate, the intent is strictly defined by the manufacturer's instructions, correct? Wk057 talks back on page one about the HPWC being listed for (or not) connection via hardwired or outlet - does "listed" relate to UL (or ETL/CSA/etc) listing?

Obviously, some EVSE's are intended for connection to a 14-50, since they are supplied with a 14-50 cord (Leviton 40A Evr-Green 400, some of the lower power Clipper Creek units)

What about a non-UL listed EVSE (such as a home made OpenEVSE). My suspicion is that it would be an NEC violation to hard-wire them, but not to plug in with a 14-50.

For that matter, are there legal/insurance issues surrounding plugging in any non-UL/ETL/CSA listed (or home made) AC powered equipment? Curious to hear FlasherZ and Canuck's opinions.

A couple of quick points on these (in order of ease):

It is not illegal to use a non-listed device, or a home-built device as an appliance. In fact, the UMC isn't listed (or at least wasn't as of a year ago). There are sections of the code that require equipment be listed for the purpose, but other sections that talk about intent of purpose versus listing.

A non-UL listed EVSE is still considered an EVSE. If you subscribe to the theory that EVSE is supply equipment and therefore part of the infrastructure, then it's subject to NEC article 625 (and is not an NEC violation to hard-wire; NEC 2014 625.44(B) allows for cord-connection as long as the device is intended for connecting to an outlet). For what it's worth, the UMC doesn't comply with NEC 2014 625.44(B) for cord-and-plug connected devices, either, because that article says that EVSE's must be fastened (therefore, hanging from the outlet violates this section). Subscribing to this theory also means that you have to follow NEC article 110 guidance that manufacturer's instructions must be followed. If you subscribe to the theory that an EVSE unit is an appliance, then NEC's jurisdiction is in question and it's questionable as to whether article 625 could be enforced.

(NEC 2011 doesn't have all this language, and most jurisdictions are currently on 2011 while 2014 is being adopted.)

Devices are "listed" for a specific use. Some UL listing categories are extremely generic, while some are very specific, so it's a different definition for "purpose". The code defines "listed" as being certified by a body acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), which means your inspector's office. The code isn't too specific on this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Hardwired HPWC on a 60A breaker does not require a local "Cut-Off," but a hardwired HPWC on a 70A breaker does require a disconnect method/switch close by?
Am I interpreting that correctly? I've heard that 60A is the 'sweet spot' for breaker/wire cost, but this would make it more so.

Correct. Article 625.42 requires equipment configured/rated for more than 60 amps or more than 150 volts to ground to have an accessible disconnect.

- - - Updated - - -

Definitely a gray area. I went through two installations of my Blink, (I moved) which comes fitted with a 6-50 plug attached. In both cases the inspector wouldn't sign off until the EVSE was mounted in place. I do know that many people avoided that by just describing the install as a 240v receptacle without specifying EV charging, then installing the EVSE afterwards. Many of them were either OpenEVSEs or upgraded Nissan EVSEs.

NEC 2014, 625.44(B) requires that EVSE's be fastened. Only 120V, 15/20A EVSE's do not require fastening (625.44(A)).

So, should I need a new permit and inspection if I were to replace the Blink with another plug-in EVSE? I don't need one if I get a new electric range. I didn't call an inspector when I replaced the J1772 cable (the POS J1772 plug the Blink came with failed just after the warranty ran out)...of course I don't if I replace a bad receptacle or breaker, either. Repairs generally don't need a permit.

Correct. Replacing like-for-like is generally ok. If you are upgrading, it can be subject to inspection (e.g., you pull new, larger wire to replace a 6 kW EVSE with a 20 kW EVSE). This is where the code isn't specific, and AHJ's usually set their own rules. Some jurisdictions require that you pull a permit if you need to pull the front off a panel to make a change; some jurisdictions don't require much of anything.

 

[breser]

Hardwired HPWC on a 60A breaker does not require a local "Cut-Off," but a hardwired HPWC on a 70A breaker does require a disconnect method/switch close by?
Am I interpreting that correctly? I've heard that 60A is the 'sweet spot' for breaker/wire cost, but this would make it more so.

To specifically address the disconnect (which is somewhat ancillary to this thread). You don't necessarily have to have a disconnect switch close by for the HPWC. The rule is that it has to be easily accessible. If the load center is easily accessible by the breaker can meet the requirement. But note that you will need a lockout device on the breaker so that the breaker can be locked in the open position. This needs to be installed at all times, not just when you want to lock it out. It's probably just worth asking the inspectors before installing since there is room for interpretation in the code.

In my particular case I have the load center on one side of the garage and the HPWC on the other side. No separate disconnect other than the breaker was necessary.

 

[FlasherZ]

To specifically address the disconnect (which is somewhat ancillary to this thread). You don't necessarily have to have a disconnect switch close by for the HPWC. The rule is that it has to be easily accessible. If the load center is easily accessible by the breaker can meet the requirement. But note that you will need a lockout device on the breaker so that the breaker can be locked in the open position. This needs to be installed at all times, not just when you want to lock it out. It's probably just worth asking the inspectors before installing since there is room for interpretation in the code.

In my particular case I have the load center on one side of the garage and the HPWC on the other side. No separate disconnect other than the breaker was necessary.

This is probably one of the larger spectra I have seen with regard to code interpretation. Some inspectors don't even care about the lock-out requirement; some accept the basic breaker lock you can buy; some are okay with considering the breaker the disconnect, even with the panel in another room; some want the switch to be within reach of the equipment; some are fine with a simple padlock tang on the panel door.

Local interpretation and amendments, with little in the way of addressing confusion beyond local consideration are what make the NEC a pain in the rear sometimes.

 

[dhrivnak]

I wired my HPC into a NEMA 14-50. It has run just fine for several years and have run at 64 amps with no issue or heat. And yes I know that is not code. The reason I did this was I initially installed a NEMA 14-50 and pulled #6 wire for it (oversized) on a 70 amp breaker, if/when I sell the house I will replace the 70 amp break with a 50 amp version and I will be fully in code. I charged for a year on my UMC before I got the HPC.

I am comfortable doing this because 99+% of the time I charge at 40 amps. There have been a handful of times I wanted/needed full power which is 64 amps in my case. When I have done this I have monitored the temperatures to made sure there are no hot spots. So do I "recommend" it no. But can it be done, yes. Can it be done safely, again yes.