NON COMPLIANT NEW EV INSTALLATIONS

0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3).

I guess that begs two questions - not only the capability of the installers, but also the capability of the inspectors. I guess we've all come across claims of C1s for BS 3036 fuses or lack of bonding to a plastic service pipe and C2s for things that 'I wouldn't have done like that' but when you dig into the details are perfectly compliant or insulation resistance on long pyro cables that's a tad under 1MΩ. What reassurance do we have that the inspectors weren't fishing for remedial work for instance?

 

OK, there is a possibility of an earth fault on the EV charger at the same time as a loss of neutral on the supply and someone touching a lamppost and the car at the same time, but this applies whether it is an EV charger or my vacuum cleaner while I'm cleaning the car.

 

The shock risk from a broken PEN isn't quite as remote as that - it only needs a broken PEN and to be touching a metallic part of the car while stood on the ground (wearing something less than well insulating footwear) - as the PEN is connected directly to the car body via the installation's earthing conductor no Earth fault is needed. As for vacuum cleaners - along with almost every hand-held appliance intended for outdoor use they're almost universally double-insulated (or at least, like some garden shredders, have any exposed-conductive-parts beyond normal reach) - so avoiding the problem completely.


I do take the point about making perfection the enemy of the good however - I've had a long standing argument that making a TT electrode avoid any PME influence is pointless if the ground under the car is subject to that same influence - hence a simple TT system with the electrode in close proximity to the vehicle is likely to be quite adequate.


   - Andy.

0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3).

I guess that begs two questions - not only the capability of the installers, but also the capability of the inspectors. I guess we've all come across claims of C1s for BS 3036 fuses or lack of bonding to a plastic service pipe and C2s for things that 'I wouldn't have done like that' but when you dig into the details are perfectly compliant or insulation resistance on long pyro cables that's a tad under 1MΩ. What reassurance do we have that the inspectors weren't fishing for remedial work for instance?

 

OK, there is a possibility of an earth fault on the EV charger at the same time as a loss of neutral on the supply and someone touching a lamppost and the car at the same time, but this applies whether it is an EV charger or my vacuum cleaner while I'm cleaning the car.

 

The shock risk from a broken PEN isn't quite as remote as that - it only needs a broken PEN and to be touching a metallic part of the car while stood on the ground (wearing something less than well insulating footwear) - as the PEN is connected directly to the car body via the installation's earthing conductor no Earth fault is needed. As for vacuum cleaners - along with almost every hand-held appliance intended for outdoor use they're almost universally double-insulated (or at least, like some garden shredders, have any exposed-conductive-parts beyond normal reach) - so avoiding the problem completely.


I do take the point about making perfection the enemy of the good however - I've had a long standing argument that making a TT electrode avoid any PME influence is pointless if the ground under the car is subject to that same influence - hence a simple TT system with the electrode in close proximity to the vehicle is likely to be quite adequate.


   - Andy.