The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 185 replies
  • Subscribers 33 subscribers
  • Views 23247 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EV CHARGING EQUIPMENT

John Peckham
I am hearing from my network of contractors, that have actually read the new 722, that they have been asking charging equipment manufactures for documentary proof to comply with Note 5 of 722.411.4.


They are getting knocked back for asking or in one case a Declaration that says the particular device complies with BS 7671. I think that is wrong to declare that as BS 7671 is an installation safety standard and not a product standard. I believe that as a minimum the equipment must comply with the Low Voltage Directive and be CE marked. I also believe that manufacturers have to issue a Declaration of Conformity. 


BS 7671 722 has numerous references to the various standards required such as BS EN 61851 that the equipment must comply with. I am thinking it may be illegal to offer the sale of equipment that does not comply with the Low Voltage Directive and is not CE marked?


I am hoping the countries top man of equipment safety standards, Paul Skyrme , sees this post and will come on and give us his expert view?


Has any forum member asked for a Declaration of Conformity from EV charging equipment manufacturers and received one?
Parents
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    gkenyon:




    ebee:

    Well we could all use isolating transformer and configure the ouput as our own TNS just for the charger




    Unless I've missed something, I don't think this is any improvement on using TT earthing system just for the charger ... except more expensive?

     



    A transformer would have the advantage of confining any d.c. residual currents to the EVSE system - potentially saving on a lot of expensive B-type RCDs upstream (but we're straying into another thread there),


       - Andy.


     




    The Type B (or Type A or F plus RDC-DD) would still be required for the EVSE.


    I don't think there's a requirement (or need) for upstream devices to be anything more onerous than Type A, as the downstream device detects the DC residual current fault. A few manufacturers have been supplying Type A rather than Type AC for a few years now.

Reply
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    gkenyon:




    ebee:

    Well we could all use isolating transformer and configure the ouput as our own TNS just for the charger




    Unless I've missed something, I don't think this is any improvement on using TT earthing system just for the charger ... except more expensive?

     



    A transformer would have the advantage of confining any d.c. residual currents to the EVSE system - potentially saving on a lot of expensive B-type RCDs upstream (but we're straying into another thread there),


       - Andy.


     




    The Type B (or Type A or F plus RDC-DD) would still be required for the EVSE.


    I don't think there's a requirement (or need) for upstream devices to be anything more onerous than Type A, as the downstream device detects the DC residual current fault. A few manufacturers have been supplying Type A rather than Type AC for a few years now.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines