Many moons ago I read NEC 625 and decided that it was both vague and either outside their (NEC's) scope or non-applicable.
It appears to try to regulate the connection between a permanently installed charger and the EV. Read that way it makes sense, after all you don't want someone plugging a hairdryer into 336V DC. If you read it as ONLY applying to permanently installed chargers, then it doesn't apply to most of us who use on board chargers...as long as the plug for the charger is fixed to the charger. In that case the EV becomes an appliance and can legally use standard outlets and extension cords. However the wording is very vague so perhaps they DO mean that it applies ANY grid charged EV. In that case they are overstepping their pseudo authority. It could be interpreted to apply to portable chargers, but I don't see anyway it could reasonably be interpreted to apply to onboard chargers that use standard outlets. I have decided to interpret it to only apply to permanently installed chargers (Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment) and therefor it doesn't apply to me. Perhaps it's a moot point, since I believe most places in the US have not yet adopted NEC 625 on a local level...yet. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:25 PM Subject: Re: NEC 625 > Jim Coate wrote: > > NEC provides some sort of mechanism for submitting questions and > > comments to be considered for the next revision, yes? Should we risk > > "picking a fight" with the auto makers lobby and be petitioning for > > section 625 to be revised/removed? If so, is it the norm for NEC to > > take comments from individuals, or only established groups? If a > > group, would comments from the EAA be appropriate? (and if > > individuals, can Lee write comments for us all to use :-) > > I feel completely helpless and outclassed by organizations like the NEC. > When I first heard of NEC 625 as a proposed standard, I tried to contact > them. But I was unable to reach anyone with any authority on NEC 625, > and no one returned messages. Many months later, when I was finally able > to reach people, it was a done deal. Too late. > > These organizations operate in a very special insular world. Getting a > standard written is much like getting legislation passed in congress -- > a full-time job for professionals. > > But while congresspeople have to listen to votors, there is no > obligation for these standards committees to listen to private > individuals. They simply have no interest in the comments, opinions, or > concerns of individuals. The people on them are put there by large > corporations to promote their own special interests. Unless and until > EVers develop and fund a powerful lobby, we aren't going to get heard by > such committees, and will have no say at all in writing the regulations. > > This *has* happened with other hobbyist groups. The ARRL (Amateur Radio > Relay League) lobbies for ham radio operators, keeping the government > and broadcast industries from a total monopoly on the airwaves. The EAA > (Experimental Aircraft Association) fights to allow private pilots to be > able to build and fly their own planes. Without these organization's > efforts, there is little doubt that amateurs could not exist in these > areas. > -- > Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring > 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering > Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything > leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen > >
