Simultaenous Contact

This is the kind of issue we are seeing folks.

At the moment - it is very hard to determine the phases for street furniture as legally we are not allowed to touch them. Thereis also the issue of isolation, etc. However the phasing issue is not as much a concern for me. The reality is the likelihood of a fault causing an issue compared to the actual volume of real life issues we see. The whole problem needs quantified. 

Yes agreed, in reality the street furniture has no O-pen protection and unlikely to have RCD protection as well, however the EV charge point does, as well as an RCD and M3 protection on the charge point. 

If the main fault issue is a PEN / Broken PEN then surely that is an issue for the DNO to implement a monitoring system not the humble Electrician or the humble home owner.  Probably a round table discussion for IET and ESQR team?

Another thought, what about a possible voltage offset between the CPCs of adjacent properties as I'm pretty sure not all the installers check the electrode resistances.  Maybe a simple answer could be to build a wall between the properties and maybe fork off around the street lamp.  This would then give you a physical fire proof barrier which COULD remove the Simultaenous Contact issue all together.  Not sure what the correct height for the wall would be but lets say for the sake of this discussion about let say 1m50cm

Very common to cycle the 3 phases for houses in turn as you go down the street but lights often are on their own radial so small groups of  street lights can be isolated for maintenance.  As such they could be on any phase, and maybe not even the same transformer.  

That opens an even bigger can of worms.

It might be safer to charge the car stealing a supply from the street lamp, and certainly cheaper until you are found out ! Joking aside, the sort of situation in the picture is both unavoidable with on street charging and horrid.

The neatest solution would be some kind of a non-conducting street lamp sleeve., but I'm not aware of one.

Mike.

What about the classic UK concrete lamp post from 1930 to 1990's.  Granted they were a bit heavier and .............

classic UK concrete lamp post  well, yes,  although  partly conducting when wet of course. Ideally when combined with the related 

classic UK TNS earthing,  also starting from about 1930.. .   Sadly both seem to have largely gone.

The interconnection of earths to street lamps and adjacent house supplies is the sort of thing that only the DNO can sensibly keep control or have records of, and even they may well not.
Mike.

Hi Sergio - the barrier is a good idea and forms part of our process, however the practicalities of building structures for sim contact around lap posts in gardens is nor accepted well by clients

Totally understand.  Postal workers and delivery drivers also dislike them (Walls) as it makes them walk further

Dom said:

This is the kind of issue we are seeing folks.

That situation looks remarkable familiar.

Fortunately, I am separated from the street lamp, which is more or less on the boundary, by a 2 m high brick wall.

By contrast, the neighbours will need to be careful where they put the EVCP for their recently-purchased Jaguar.

Dom said:

This is the kind of issue we are seeing folks.

That situation looks remarkable familiar.

Fortunately, I am separated from the street lamp, which is more or less on the boundary, by a 2 m high brick wall.

By contrast, the neighbours will need to be careful where they put the EVCP for their recently-purchased Jaguar.

Yes Chris - however the argument would be, the car can be parked at the end of that drive. If there is a 7.5 metere lead as standard then there is a sim contact risk there. The reality is there is a risk there as soon as an installer walks away from that property. There is no legal agreement dictating or limitating where that car is parked. 

Mind you with a 7,5m lead for a lot of houses, even ones with some sort of driveway,  it is actually perfectly possible to park next door, or on the pavement, and maybe the roadside for that matter, and still uncoil enough lead to plug in an EV.

Do we worry about adjacent houses charging EVs on the street ? There must be a similar concern if we do. 
It is perhaps just as well that most modern garden electrical items like mowers, hedge trimmers and pressure washers are double insulated or this would be a problem we already had, and more so, as very few folk will grip firmly  onto a car for very long while its plugged in, unlike a power tool. 

The govt seems happy to allow on street charging from cables to the house, so this is probably already happening.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-the-electric-vehicle-ev-pavement-channels-grant

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cross-pavement-solutions-for-charging-electric-vehicles/cross-pavement-solutions-for-charging-electric-vehicles

Mike.

Just to be clear: are we saying that the EVCP box, the end of the charging lead, or the nearest part of the car must be more than 2.5 m away from the lamppost?

Chris Pearson said:

Just to be clear: are we saying that the EVCP box, the end of the charging lead, or the nearest part of the car must be more than 2.5 m away from the lamppost?

I think the assumption is that the car is "class I" - so the whole thing is classed as an exposed-conductive-part - so last option. It would have all been so much simpler if they'd made them Class II....

   - Andy.

But is the car an exposed conductive part? To be such, it needs to fit the definition and so must be considered "equipment". As per 113.1, the regulations only apply to equipment that is selected for the installation. 

That's my point. The car cannot be part of the installation.

If the charging lead plugs in to the EVCP, as opposed to being attached, that is not either.

This brings me back to the balcony solar PV discussion and where the boundaries of BS 7671 lie.

Chris Pearson said:

That's my point. The car cannot be part of the installation.

It doesn't have to be.

Class I equipment relies on protection in the installation, so the installation needs a means to ensure that exposed-conductive-parts of Class I equipment are so connected.

The equipment to be considered doesn't need to be part of the electrical installation.

lyledunn said:

But is the car an exposed conductive part? To be such, it needs to fit the definition and so must be considered "equipment". As per 113.1, the regulations only apply to equipment that is selected for the installation. 

No, but the car can have exposed-conductive-parts.

See the definition of 'Class I equipment' in BS 7671.

More importantly, according to BS EN 61140, which applies to electrical equipment and installations, a Class I appliance or item of electrical equipment connected to an installation, and the installation, the system providing ADS is treated as one system, and the earthing and bonding of the installation, and the protective bonding system in the appliance, are required to be treated as one protective bonding system.