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 32 subscribers
  • Views 20643 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
    Dave, it's not the cost of a charging point you need to use in your calculation, but the overall increase in cost from whatever extra safety measures are being proposed against the number of lives those safety measures save. e.g. cost-benefit analysis on type B RCDs, lost neutral detection devices and install costs. I agree that for all but the most basic safety measures we're likely to conclude we should have spent that money on road safety or vaccines, etc. but £500 is clearly not the right number here.


    The harder calculation is then the one of human nature. If you push the cost of a charging point install up to what extent will people decide they can't be bothered and daisy chain 3 extension leads out the window to a granny lead, complete with upturned buckets over all the sockets as we so often see on Christmas lights. Not that we see any significant increase in electrical deaths associated with Christmas lights so maybe that's not as dangerous as it sounds either.
Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Dave, it's not the cost of a charging point you need to use in your calculation, but the overall increase in cost from whatever extra safety measures are being proposed against the number of lives those safety measures save. e.g. cost-benefit analysis on type B RCDs, lost neutral detection devices and install costs. I agree that for all but the most basic safety measures we're likely to conclude we should have spent that money on road safety or vaccines, etc. but £500 is clearly not the right number here.


    The harder calculation is then the one of human nature. If you push the cost of a charging point install up to what extent will people decide they can't be bothered and daisy chain 3 extension leads out the window to a granny lead, complete with upturned buckets over all the sockets as we so often see on Christmas lights. Not that we see any significant increase in electrical deaths associated with Christmas lights so maybe that's not as dangerous as it sounds either.
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