FCSP current limiting via FordPass app, new feature?

[FlasherZ]

Is there an NEC load calculation schema that would apply to a barn? I’m not trying to be a smarta$$, I really don’t know!

Yes indeed.

Section 220 (load calculations) contains a number of standard and optional load calculations, table 220.102 is specifically for Farm Loads for Other Than Dwelling Unit, for example.

Section 225 gives requirements for outside branch circuits and feeders.

Sponsored

 

[Maquis]

Yes indeed.

Section 220 (load calculations) contains a number of standard and optional load calculations, table 220.102 is specifically for Farm Loads for Other Than Dwelling Unit, for example.

Section 225 gives requirements for outside branch circuits and feeders.

Ah….looking at that table triggered my memory. I can’t say I’ve ever had to use it. But it does seem like 220.60 would allow him to do what he’s doing.

 

[FlasherZ]

Ah….looking at that table triggered my memory. I can’t say I’ve ever had to use it. But it does seem like 220.60 would allow him to do what he’s doing.

You have to be careful with this, because different AHJ's approach this differently. Most of them want a higher level of confidence that it's not possible or there are physical constraints that make them non-coincident. For example, imagine the case where you have 4 garage bays, each equipped with a Tesla HPWC and a FCSP. You can say that because you can only physically fit one vehicle in a bay at a time, it's unlikely that you'd be using the FCSP and HPWC in each bay simultaneously and therefore you only have to consider one of the two chargers per bay.

On the other hand, if you tried to make the argument that because you only have 2 service employees, you're only ever likely to have 2 cars in the bays that are charging and so you only have to consider 50% of the load, you are likely to run into a problem. Likewise, an argument that because 75% of the cars you service are non-plug-in, you should only have to consider a 25% of the load also tends to fail an argument for using 220.60.

Early in the Tesla days, a homeowner told his AHJ that he'd make sure that his family only charged one car at a time and therefore he believed he could only count 1 car's load under 220.60 had his plan rejected by the inspector.

Most inspectors I know are on the conservative side and would say that 220.60 is not the right code to be used here. However, there are other items you can rely upon, for example the demand factors for four or more appliances fixed in place (220.53), etc.

If you can satisfy the AHJ, you're likely good. And if you have one that's willing to accept "I can only use one tool at a time", then go with it. Most will say "what if you have someone else come over and help?" or something similar.

 

[Maquis]

You have to be careful with this, because different AHJ's approach this differently. Most of them want a higher level of confidence that it's not possible or there are physical constraints that make them non-coincident. For example, imagine the case where you have 4 garage bays, each equipped with a Tesla HPWC and a FCSP. You can say that because you can only physically fit one vehicle in a bay at a time, it's unlikely that you'd be using the FCSP and HPWC in each bay simultaneously and therefore you only have to consider one of the two chargers per bay.

On the other hand, if you tried to make the argument that because you only have 2 service employees, you're only ever likely to have 2 cars in the bays that are charging and so you only have to consider 50% of the load. Likewise, an argument that because 75% of the cars you service are non-plug-in, you should only have to consider a 25% of the load also tends to fail an argument for using 220.60.

Early in the Tesla days, a homeowner told his AHJ that he'd make sure that his family only charged one car at a time and therefore he believed he could only count 1 car's load under 220.60 had his plan rejected by the inspector.

Most inspectors I know are on the conservative side and would say that 220.60 is not the right code to be used here. However, there are other items you can rely upon, for example the demand factors for four or more appliances fixed in place (220.53), etc.

If you can satisfy the AHJ, you're likely good. And if you have one that's willing to accept "I can only use one tool at a time", then go with it. Most will say "what if you have someone else come over and help?" or something similar.

In the examples you give, such as a home with 2 EVSEs, I’d totally agree.

In a barn with a bunch of disparate equipment that gets occasional use, I’d say that’s the exact situation 220.60 was intended to be used for. AHJ has final say, of course.

 

[FlasherZ]

In the examples you give, such as a home with 2 EVSEs, I’d totally agree.

In a barn with a bunch of disparate equipment that gets occasional use, I’d say that’s the exact situation 220.60 was intended to be used for. AHJ has final say, of course.

I just want to make very clear that I've never had an AHJ accept an offering of "I promise I won't run the lathe and grinder at the same time, so 220.60 applies". Typically they want to see it grounded in more concrete terms.

 

[Maquis]

I just want to make very clear that I've never had an AHJ accept an offering of "I promise I won't run the lathe and grinder at the same time, so 220.60 applies". Typically they want to see it grounded in more concrete terms.

I wouldn’t accept a promise, either. But I guarantee you that I can’t run more than one of the tools in my woodworking shop at a time.

Sponsored