Electrician understanding of Electrical Vehicle Charging installations

No I dont think so. If someone is going to make a mess of an EV install, they are going to make a mess of anything they do. I presume the earthing requirements are the main concerns of competency and safety?

I do think there should be more rigorous inspections, but that is like turkeys voting for christmas. The NIC/Napit do not want to upset their Members, and, I think, they make it difficult to report any below standard work to them. That the NIC allow any one in a Company to work on the electrical installation, then have one person signing off that work shows that they care little about the quality of the workers doing the work. I'm sure you've seen the pictures online and in the magazines of some of the shocking new build work happening. Yet, NIC/Napit never respond by saying the 'member involved has been suspended' etc.

It has all changed in the last year with EV chargers, in that there are now EV chargers available that do not require to be TT'd, so they can be installed by pretty much anyone , with no regard to earthing requirements. That the OZEV grant is also ending next month, again allows anyone to install them, as during the life of the OZEV/OLEV Grant, you needed to be a member of the OZEV gang, and have attended at least one training course, even though that course may be truly useless (as my C&G 2919 course was). Once the Grant has gone, there is no incentive to be a OZEV Member, so the standards will drop, maybe only slightly, but less oversight will mean fewer standards to keep to. I've been told by a few Distributors that all new installs will have the open PEN protection within a year. Of course, that doesnt help the ones that have been installed badly in the last few years, but does mitigate the lack of competence for current and future installs, in that the earthing arrangements have been made safe for any numptie to install.

Hot tubs are another similar install that goes by pretty much unregulated, in fact I'd say there is far more of a risk with them, yet people still put them in with a commando plug on a PME system.

There is a button at the top of the NAPIT notifications page on their website for members to report dodgy electrical work, I’m not sure what happens if you press it, but it is there.

Regards giving Competent Person Scheme the right to inspect your work it is nonsense, it’s down to your customers to decide if they will allow access and most customers don’t want an assessor from a CPS scheme anywhere near their homes or businesses, generally the customers chose an electrician they trust and unless there’s an obvious problem they don’t want someone else to check it.

Sparkingchip said:

Regards giving Competent Person Scheme the right to inspect your work it is nonsense, it’s down to your customers to decide if they will allow access and most customers don’t want an assessor from a CPS scheme anywhere near their homes or businesses, generally the customers chose an electrician they trust and unless there’s an obvious problem they don’t want someone else to check it.

The customer is not usually in the best position to judge electrical work, they are simply interested in the superficial aspects, not what is behind the scenes like the Punch and Judy show. I fear it will take an incident for action to be taken. However, it is during the assessment time that they reserve the right to inspect EVC installations but they can still vet the paper work; the customer has the right as usual to deny access to a property for whatever reason. I agree that the industry needs tightening up w.r.t. standards but the competent person schemes seem to be too financially motivated ........... period.

Jaymack      

Wow, I saw your comment of the C and G2919 Course, as being ‘truly useless’. I teach this course and I might suggest not all training providers will leave you feeling the Course was useless. I try to explain all of the Solutions to O-PEN, RCD types,as well as diversity issues, contact with the DNO, impact protection and IP protection to name a few. Thanks

Jaymack said:

The customer is not usually in the best position to judge electrical work

Does the customer know that?

I listened to the podcast of last weeks Fix Radio Electrical Show (7th April 2022) with Tom Nagy talking to Paul Meenham, the failure rate of OLEZ/OZEZ inspections is quite significant, the biggest issue being incorrect types of RCD being installed or existing inappropriate types already installed not being replaced.

The issue being that electricians are either connecting to existing Type AC RCDs or actually installing them, rather than ensuring the minimum requirement of having Type A RCD protection is met.

Hi Sparkingchip. I am concerned that as an industry we seem to be saying that Type A RCDs are our savour. For Electric vehicles additional DC protection can be provided by the charger unit, otherwise we should be using Type B. 
I understand your point that certain contractor have installed AC RCDS, but we need to be careful of the mantra of Type  A’s being the new norm too. 
This could also be the case in homes and offices for general circuits, not just EV’s, if we believe DC fault currents and this ‘blinding’ effects are evident. Thanks 

SL1 

I am am not convinced that every installation with Type AC RCDs warrants a C2 code on an EICR.

However with built in RCD protection in EVSE it must be better to run a circuit to it without any RCD protection than it is to connect the circuit to an existing Type AC RCD in a consumer unit and must definitely be better than installing a new Type AC RCD for the circuit.

But then the amount of work and cost may increase, because it’s no longer possible to just connect the EVSE circuit into the existing consumer unit and a new additional consumer unit connected into the tails with a Henley block may be required with a main switch, a Surge Protection Device with a MCB as well as a RCD with a MCB or RCBO. Obviously that is all going to cost more than just putting a MCB costing less than a fiver into a spare way in an existing consumer unit with a Type AC RCD.

I am not going to worry about connecting new electric showers to Type AC RCDs, but I would not consider connecting EVSE to one.

Mind you, most PV inverters I see are connected through Type AC RCDs.

Not quite sure where you are going with this one. The EVCP needs its own RCD, which could be internal or even wired adjacent to it. However. if the supply is in soft cable buried < 50 mm deep, it may need to be protected for that reason alone.

Chris Pearson 

In the radio interview last week Paul Meenham was pretty adamant that anyType AC RCD warrants a C2 in an EICR.

Paul Meenhan also said OLEV/OZEV audits are identifying Type AC RCDs protecting EVSE as a major issue and the most common non-compliance.

Part of the discussion was that if the EVSE has a built in RCD and Open PEN protection, then surely the best answer is to install the circuit in a manner that means the circuit doesn’t need RCD protection, but that often means that a spare way in a RCD protected consumer unit cannot be utilised, increasing the amount of work and the cost of the installation as a new or additional consumer unit may be required.

The electricians who failed the audits are having to go back and rectify their work, if they have connected the new EVSE into an obsolete consumer unit with a Type AC RCD will they have any options other than installing an additional consumer unit? If they do have to install an additional consumer unit that’s quite a financial hit if they only priced for a MCB in a spare way. 

Incidentally, I actually bought some new Type A RCDs to upgrade my consumer unit last year, but used them on a job and now need to order some more, should I sleep soundly knowing I have not upgraded?