Watchdog Raises Safety Fears Over EV Chargers and RCDs

[@bigclivedotcom]

It's good to know that Sweden is also bogged down by box-ticking officialdom. Given that the NICEIC is a "voluntary body" (marketing company) that uses propaganda on a regular basis, I wonder if the litigation incident is one of their publicity stunts to protect their lucrative income. Maybe they'll even feature it in their charity division (Electrical Safety First).

[@efixx]

Did they even plug the charger in to find out how it works!

[@4000578]

The issue here is that it's anti-competitive; they're obviously non-compliant with pretty much any major requirements in IEC61851 and IEC6008 (I've torn a unit down in detail). Having the relays trip is obviously not enough when the contact requirements aren't actually met (breaking current, arc quenching plates, etc). So, why would a random company get a free pass but nobody else does? Imo either Easee should get a sales ban and a recall, or the standard should change, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[@anb9565]

Sweden is a country where domestic grounding is still absent in pre-90s grandfathered property and doesn’t even have anything equivalent to a PAT so I’m surprised to hear the authority flagging this

[@jor7137]

@@4000578 Why are the contact reuirements not met if Easee says you have to put a proper circuit breaker before the charger?

[@4000578]

@@jor7137 Because they don't. They claim that they implement a type A RCCB per IEC 61008 standard and therefore that the installation need not include it. Because of this plenty of installations are missing the RCCB in panel, since Easee said "we have that already", when in fact they do not.

[@hopkins_electrical]

Recently fitted 4 3phase easee chargers on a job here in Ireland, tbh didn’t think twice about fitting A type rcbos to them, I don’t care about costing or the manufacturer said it didn’t need them, I priced the job with them included and if I’m expected to sign of on any Ev Charger, easee, Zappi, Ev box ect I will price for A type rcd protection all the time at the minimum. Too many chancers out there undercutting guys doing shoddy installations. Do it right or don’t do it at all is my thoughts!

[@matc1603]

What we talking £20 for an rcbo? No brainer.

[@leverloos]

@@matc1603 I'd love to know where you buy a 3 phase type a rcbo

[@mastergx1]

Honestly i'm surprised that RCD protection is the big issue for EV chargers. The much bigger challenges by far are earthing arrangements and PEN fault protection as you well know!

[@efixx]

Definitely challenges on both, but lots of good solutions out there too. 👍

[@sergiofernandez3725]

@@efixx Do the solutions have BS EN ?

[@TheNewFaceOfHSP]

Here in Denmark we require RCD Type B if the charger is not certified with a type B relay. We still always implement at least a type A in front, even though it's a fixed installation. I'm personally of the opinion that Type A's are kinda cheap and should be protecting almost everything, even if somebody just cut into the wire by accident or whatever.

[@deang5622]

We can argue the point over which is more important, pen fault protection or RCD but it's not an either or situation. They do different things and should both be used. If the RCD is not up to standard, (if) then believing it to be of lesser importance than pen fault protection should not result in no action being taken to address the RCD issue. The fact is, both pen fault protection and RCD's function is to prevent electrocution, so ignoring one, wilfully failing to take action on one at the expense of the other is *not* a strong argument.

[@mastergx1]

@@deang5622 Well of course they MUST be used. No-ones saying they're not! I was just making a point that when it comes to EV chargers, RCD protection is the easy bit. What usually makes the news is how tricky it can be to install them in compliance with the regs. In the case of PME supplies (which in reality, you have to assume all TN supplies are these days), there are ALOT of considerations to be made in regards to earthing, isolation, PEN fault protection, demand, etc. Thats the stuff that gets talked about.

[@sergiofernandez3725]

Worth asking Lewden Palazzoli for their opinion on the upfront RCD for the car charger. I assume that the digital RCD that EAsyCharge claim to have in their unit does not comply to a BS EN standard so I would say an upfront RCD is needed to comply to BS7671 AM2. If the RCD in the charger is 30mA then the RCD in the CU would need to be a bit higher or with a time delay to avoid tripping both ends at the same time.

[@efixx]

That's an interesting question actually Sergio. Feels like it could go round in circles, if it's not a compliant RCD and needs one then would the one in the board need to be time delayed? 🤔

[@farmersteve129]

If the internal RCD is self resetting then I would not bother about time delay as you still only have one device to reset - I'm also pretty sure that a 100mA S Type doesn't comply with 722.531.3.1. My main concern is that a self resetting RCD could try resetting whilst the fault is still present and pose a risk to a user who is unaware of the fault, whereas a traditional device requires a manual intervention which reduces the chances of that happening. Ultimately, if the internal RCD isn't certified to the relevant standards then a compliant device is required. We also have the issue of what is protecting the cable supplying the charger? I see very few installations where armoured cable is used from the DB through to the charger, so it would be prudent to provide protection at source anyway.

[@edc1569]

The problem with fitting RCDs upstream is someone needs to come out and reset it - we already have enough issues with chargers being offline.

[@efixx]

Great point 👍

[@martinsutherland4810]

Easee is one of the three brands that I tend to fit and it's pretty obvious that it must be an electronic device that offers the equivalent of a type A RCD + 6mA DC and they have always passed my Metrel tests. How can it's internal protection be tested if another 30mA RCD is upstream? Are we back to the days of testing with MCB and then swapping back to an RCBO? Do we now need to test both charge point and up-stream RCD? What do we tell the customer? That up-stream RCD may or may not trip before the integrated one? What a mess!

[@deang5622]

If you have two RCD's in the circuit, agreed you can't identity which one has actually cut the power off if both have tripped. But are you interested in testing the individual RCD or the behaviour of the electrical installation? If one of them cuts the power off, does it actually matter which one it is? The life is saved if either tripped. If you want to verify if the EV RCD has tripped then you can try this procedure. If you have two RCDs in circuit and you don't want to start swapping the RCBO for an MCB, then what you could do is this: Before you connect the EV circuit cable to the breaker in the CU, use a test meter to characterise the behaviour of the RCD in the CU. It is unlikely that the RCD in the EV is going to respond in exactly the same amount of time as the RCD in the CU. They may also trip at slightly different currents. So measure the response time of the RCD in the CU before connecting up the EV. Then do your EV circuit test with both RCDs in circuit. Perform the RCD test. And from this you can then identify which RCD actually tripped first. If you get a different trip time, then that's the time of the EV RCD. The limitation here is obviously that if the measured trip time is equal to the trip time of the RCD in the CU before you wired in the EV circuit then it is almost certainly the CU RCD which has tripped and you don't know whether the EV RCD is working or not. As you say, only other way to characterise the EV RCD is to bypass the CU RCD and test the EV RCD in isolation.

[@deang5622]

@Ian Louden I don't agree with this. Where you have multiple RCDs in the circuit, from mains cutout to the appliance, you want the RCD in the EV charger to trip first. The only impact of the EV charger tripping is removal of charging power to the car. This is a safe condition. If the requirement is as you state "should not trip below 60mA" them this means that the trip current has to be 60mA or more. If there are other RCDs in the circuit which have a trip current below this (and some RCD's are rated at 30mA), then they will trip first, cutting the power off to not just to the EV but potentially to other circuits too. And that's potentially dangerous.

[@deang5622]

@Ian Louden If the two standards conflict with each other then they both can't be complied with by a manufacturer. So nobody can be legally compliant. So it has to be down to the manufacturers to resolve the conflict in whatever way they chose, or they can collectively agree to adopt a particular solution. And if a prosecution does occur, then I am sure that in mitigation the conflict will be brought up and could end up in a not guilty verdict being awarded. Without looking at the standards in depth, I don't really see there is a huge issue. What you ideally need to prevent electrocution is a type A RCD with a 30 mA trip. Now what you are saying is, that you can't put that in to the RCD because the standard requires that a 60mA trip is required. But it is actually better to fit the 30mA trip RCD inside a mode 3 EV charger. It's safer and better so long as it does not trip spuriously. I can't see any EV charger manufacturer being prosecuted for putting a Type A 30mA into a mode 3 charger which is actually more stringent than required. As I say, worst thing that happens is it trips too often but that is not an unsafe situation but that if it were to happen, is more of an annoyance. If it happens too often then I am sure sales of the product will be hit and publicity on the internet will soon bring it to the manufacturers attention. So I'm confident they will do a lot of testing to ensure it doesn't trip unnecessarily. I don't think it obviates the need for an RCD, a delayed type S or even type A in the consumer unit protecting the cable to the EV charger. The RCD in the charger won't protect that cable from CU to EV.

[@eleson00]

As a Swede, I am embarrased that an old fart testing these complained that he couldn't SEE the RCD. As this now has gone viral, I'm afraid pride will go into this, and we will forever stop development of RCD's.

[@efixx]

Well, let's hope common sense and progress prevails!😁

[@elsdonsparks]

Back in the day, when the Sun moved out of fleets street and St Katherine's dock was was being revamped. they were known universally as No Good Bailey.

[@efixx]

When would that have been, the late 80's?

[@Torbjorn.Lindgren]

Update: The Norwegian regulator (NKOM) just announced (12 June) that they accept the Swedish Elsäkerhertsverkets conclusion and will not try to block the application of this in the entire EU+EES area. This is a important step given that this is the "home" regulator (so they're the most likely to protest), according to their FAQ this means that if no other EU+EES regulator protest and the Swedish court confirms it, it'll go in effect in the entire EU+EES area, possibly as early as 15 June (unclear if the court affirmation is in place). I've not seen anyone mention this automatic application mentioned before, despite people wondering why it's banned in one area but not others. Apparently there IS a mechanism for this, it just takes time (so others can check and block if necessary). They don't mention any protesting regulators at this time (and at lease Easee would have been on the rooftops if there were) so it looks likely it will go in to effect in the entire EU+EES area soon, given that we've only heard about concurrances. Unclear if UK would be aautomatically ffected, my guess is "probably not". NKOM says that Easee has now provided sufficient documentation for some of the original problems (after the Swedish sale stop) but there's still important areas where there's missing documentation, they mention safety related to use over time and different climatic conditions, and with how the relays are connected as examples. Since they say examples it's not an exhaustive list. They also point out other missing documentation regarding the radio section - that part looks like it should be easy for them to fix but finding more things Easee should have done but didn't wasn't what people expected here in Norway from the "home" regulator.

[@wizeguy1000]

now it has happened, Swedish authorities have stopped the sale of Easee. resellers must return all units. measures are required to restore security to the +100,000 installed units in Sweden. there are big headlines and news on TV. I myself am an installer, and have many worried customers now. Easee will appeal the decision, but to no avail I think..

[@davidbrown8365]

Sadly Easee and their electronic manufacturing partner are now laying off huge percentage of their workforces. Headline news in Norway today.

[@efixx]

Thanks for the heads up. A challenging situation for all involved.

[@charliedecker7702]

Pretty sure the regs are a guide and they used to state that something could be used if shown to be of a similar standard

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

Wow thank you Joe . It really is appreciated.👍

[@Mladjasmilic]

Zoe does ground loop test and trips many EVSE with integrated RCD. I had to bypass them in some cases to allow car to charge

[@AntonyoKnight]

Hope the builders go behind bars too...

[@pedrothetrainer]

Why an inbuilt RCD is needed, it is just protecting the appliance, not the circuit!? Pick any RCBO with SPD, connect it directly to the mains, that's it. Why messing with the consumer unit, add a new MCB, most definitely need to upgrade the RCD protecting the circuit to a type A. What a mess...

[@efixx]

Depends on how the circuit's installed really.

[@richardnewton5159]

Do Zappi's still have built in RCD's?

[@efixx]

That's a really good question, and the answer is I'm not sure. 😬

[@johnchurch4709]

Yes, they do.

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

Great news weekly Joe as always 👍

[@efixx]

Thanks Sean and well done on the win matey! 😃

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

@@efixx thank you Joe it really is appreciated.

[@charliedecker7702]

If it is self testing, it's similar to the US self testing arc fault and gfci breakers and receptacles then ?

[@efixx]

RCD test on an easee charger 👉 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGK5q6WAi7eagtE Consumer Unit Replacement free training module 👉 www.efixx.co.uk/Know%20How/consumer-unit-replacement-cpd

[@imark7777777]

Interesting but I see no issue with the rcd being integrated (assuming it actually lives up to the specifications required). I do see an issue with a virtual test button that could manipulate Software that is unable to be verified since they are not open source. So a hardware test button would probably be preferable although I don't see how that's relevant when you crazy UK installers already carry around RCD testers. Although having a Standard replaceable module does have benefits because I would see that being the most prominent point of failure. of course there's no way you're gonna get a manufacturer certified replacement so warranty and type testing would go out the window if anything else was put in that place. Even though a standard General mountable RCD would well taking up more space be simple to swap out with something else or even add more protections down the road.

[@slimjim2526]

So what about the granny charger that’s supplied by the car manufacturers to charge from a 13a they don’t have physical rcd mcb trip switch’s like the Easee chargers so are they going to be banned ?

[@jor7137]

You dont need a DC current RCD for those 1 phase chargers

[@stuartthespark]

Chaps, I've looked but cannot find a certain video you made last year. It was a EV cable across a public footpath, trenched into the path. Do you have a website for past video and into categories for ease of location.

[@efixx]

Try this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4HYnqqZnM-IbdE You can access all previous news episodes via the website www.efixx.co.uk/electrical-news-weekly

[@stuartthespark]

@@efixx thanks, but that's not it, it was trenched into the pavement, imagine a bit of trunking cut into a public footpath outside your home.

[@jagarcogheart]

if the function is the same and it is a tested design I don´t see a real problem whit what easee is doing. tho a manual test function would be nice.

[@efixx]

Yeah, it does seem a bit pernickety but it's fair enough they want to double check it's properly safe.

[@deang5622]

The functionality should be defined by its behaviour to a standard and not to a particular design. The automatic testing is interesting but easy to realise: just use a resistor and an electromagnetic relay and have the relay controlled by a microprocessor. Normally you wouldn't be able to have automatic periodic testing of RCDs because the test cuts the power off and that's potentially dangerous, but in the case of an EV that's feasible as the processor could chose a time when the car is not connected, and it is easy to sense the current to the car. The difficulty is going to come in terms of selectivity with an upstream RCD in the CU. If whilst performing the automatic RCD test in the EV charger the CU RCD trips and that RCD covers additional circuits in the property and not just solely the EV then that is going to be a problem. And that RCD in the CU must be of a different type with a longer time to trip. Though with additional relay switching under control of a microprocessor they could isolate the EV from the CU and thus prevent the CU RCD from tripping. I wonder what their approach is.

[@themagnificentche1119]

I’d be more concerned with how Easee it is to take the cover off..

[@deang5622]

Who cares? It almost certainly requires a tool to remove it, then it's not the home owners or installers fault if the party is electrocuted if they open it. The barrier is present , if some wants to defeat it and use a tool(s) in the process, that's their problem, their risk.

[@efixx]

Full review here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m5DEe4WbaseZZpY

[@themagnificentche1119]

@@deang5622 You can take the cover off by hand.. at least you could when I last installed one!

[@deang5622]

@@themagnificentche1119 That's not good.

[@noamfreedman7886]

Great video! The words might be flipflops and wigwam

[@DJ-SPARKY-REACH-ON-AIR]

fab video Wigwams and spaceships but i think u need a espresso and flip-flops and sun

[@efixx]

😂 I think you're probably right matey. 😅

[@ConjuredUndead]

I think your slip in words are Flip-Flop(s) and Wigwam… Bonus word is Probe 😂👍

[@Geeraffe]

ditched - flip-flopped - No idea 😀

[@efixx]

😂 Then I've done my job right. Tune in next week to see if you're correct!

[@Geeraffe]

@@efixx will do , the suspense is palpable 👍

[@TheBigT.]

Great show as always. I reckon the words are flip-flops and wigwam.

[@JakeT0191]

I reckon Flip Flops are your slip-in words

[@bendonovan2438]

Rains and probe

[@martyclarke969]

Okay Joe, I’m saying flip flop is 2 words 😅😅😅

[@efixx]

That's a very firm line drawn in the sand there Marty! 😂 Tune in next week to see if you're right.

[@martyclarke969]

@@efixx oh I expect defeat on a technicality… ✋

[@efixx]

Ah man, I'm gonna feel awful now! 😂

[@deang5622]

Debatable....Miriam Webster English dictionary describes it as "flip-flop". With a hyphen, though it is clear many people use it without a hyphen. It's a noun, a thing, and in my opinion should be referenced by the use of a single word, so I would say "flip-flop" , the hyphenated form is what it should be called. And I would say two words hyphenated together for a noun is a single word ..because they are always used together in the context of that thing. That is, you never call a flip-flop a flip or a flop, it is always a "flip-flop". That's my logic anyway. Hmmm....

[@martyclarke969]

@@deang5622 yes, I suppose it is debatable with people who would claim it is two words and believe it, rather than with people who split the words intentionally for an attempt at humour.

[@eliotpalfreman1232]

Wigwams and spaceships ... Maybe

[@efixx]

Sounds like the name of a prog rock album... 🤔 Make sure you're tuned in next week to see if you got it. 😃

[@timbosparks]

Flip-flops and wigwams?

[@efixx]

Good guesses Timbo! Tune in next week to see if you got it right. 😊

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

Sadly that that stupid 15week suspended for 2 years won’t stop the dodgy fake spark he will just carry on under a different name.

[@efixx]

You'd think he'd be too embarrassed wouldn't you?

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

@@efixx yes but as I have said before there will always be and are those who are happy and willing to break the law and rules and regulations . And that will never change. Sadly

[@benlambert9471]

Going for flip flop and wigwam 😅

[@efixx]

Good guesses Ben, tune in next week to see if you're right! 😃

[@kevinpearson1600]

Wigwam morning espresso

[@efixx]

Good guesses Kevin, find out next week if you got it! 😃

[@canisferus]

Flip-flops and espresso

[@efixx]

Either guesses at the challenge words or the makings of a great holiday! 😁

[@carlrobson5745]

This weeks words flip-flops and wigwams

[@efixx]

Great guesses Carl, tune in next week to see if you got them right matey. 😊

[@deang5622]

JK, SR, D type?

[@LeedsSpark]

Wigwams and spaceships

[@orielzob2821]

Espresso n stainless Steel

[@efixx]

Tune in next week to see if you're right! 😃

[@jermaineburgess7016]

Flipflop and wigwam?

[@gillo100]

wigwams and espresso

[@efixx]

Great guesses, make sure you're listening next week to see if you got them right. 😊

[@TheSockWomble]

Check the flux capacitor? 😂😂😂

[@efixx]

Flux capacitor.... fluxing! 😂

[@MillsIan]

Flip flops, skin of teeth ?

[@efixx]

No, flip flops are footwear commonly worn to the beach! 😂 Just kidding, good guesses, make sure you're dialled in next Monday to see if you're right! 😁

[@davemyers77]

Wigwam espresso

[@mark_just_mark]

Bodger / espresso

[@efixx]

Spreading the guesses out Mark. Very smart. 😉

[@mark_just_mark]

@@efixx I’d need 10 guesses this week 🤣🤣🤣

[@efixx]

😂 Ha! That means I've done my job well this week. 💪

[@mark_just_mark]

@@efixx Stellar performance…!!!

[@stevejacklin8462]

flip-flop & wigwams

[@efixx]

Great guesses Steve, make sure you're listening next week to see if you're right! 😃

[@kimspence-jones4765]

Flip-flop, wigwams?

[@efixx]

Great guesses Kim, make sure you catch next week's episode to see if you got it! 😃

[@Ronny86_]

Flip flop & comprehension

[@efixx]

Some weeks we get suggestions of words I have no memory of saying! 😂

[@Ronny86_]

@@efixx oh no! Doesn’t sound good for me winning then 😂

[@doublehaven]

cacophony and flip flop

[@efixx]

Did I say cacophony this week? I genuinely don't remember! 😂

[@doublehaven]

@@efixx Announcing the winner from last week, one of the words didn’t match . I thought it was to deliberately mislead 😀

[@silverghini2629]

Flip flops 😀

[@mark_just_mark]

Flip-Flop / Wig-Wam

[@efixx]

More good guesses Mark. 👍👍👍

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

Flip flop and wigwams

[@efixx]

Could it be two weeks on the bounce Sean? We will see! 😃

[@Dog-whisperer7494]

@@efixx now you’re just being silly 😂😂👍it’s all good fun though if I don’t give it a go I will never know .

[@stepheng1290]

Flip flop & wigwam

[@efixx]

Nice guesses Stephen, make sure you're listening next week to see if you got it! 💪

[@JYPT100]

Flip Flop

[@efixx]

Good guess Joel, make sure you're listening next Monday to see if you got it! 👍

[@davemyers77]

Espresso pink