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 23251 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
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Chris Pearson:

    There may well be many other instances of potentially dangerous outdoor metalwork (we have galvanised conduit which serves our outbuildings - incidentally, the supply was TN-S when it was installed) but that doesn't mean that we can ignore new ones.




    But if we genuinely believe new ones are a significant risk, can we justify the continued existence of the old ones? Should we not at least recognise those cases as undesirable and worth fixing when other work is happening? Or if in reality there are more old ones than there are ever likely to be EVs and we currently have an insignificant number of incidents associated with outside taps and conduits then perhaps it is telling us that we should be ignoring the new ones, that our finite resources would save more lives if used differently.


    More generally, the collision of risk approaches between the automotive and electrical worlds is interesting. If a lost neutral caused the car to explode into a cloud of shrapnel and flame, it still wouldn't make more than a few percent difference to the body count associated with letting minimally skilled persons manoeuvre big steel boxes at speed in a public place. If a car manufacturer had a fixed budget for safety improvement I would certainly rather they spent it on better brakes or airbags than on making chargers class II.

Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Chris Pearson:

    There may well be many other instances of potentially dangerous outdoor metalwork (we have galvanised conduit which serves our outbuildings - incidentally, the supply was TN-S when it was installed) but that doesn't mean that we can ignore new ones.




    But if we genuinely believe new ones are a significant risk, can we justify the continued existence of the old ones? Should we not at least recognise those cases as undesirable and worth fixing when other work is happening? Or if in reality there are more old ones than there are ever likely to be EVs and we currently have an insignificant number of incidents associated with outside taps and conduits then perhaps it is telling us that we should be ignoring the new ones, that our finite resources would save more lives if used differently.


    More generally, the collision of risk approaches between the automotive and electrical worlds is interesting. If a lost neutral caused the car to explode into a cloud of shrapnel and flame, it still wouldn't make more than a few percent difference to the body count associated with letting minimally skilled persons manoeuvre big steel boxes at speed in a public place. If a car manufacturer had a fixed budget for safety improvement I would certainly rather they spent it on better brakes or airbags than on making chargers class II.

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