On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 9:36 AM (-Phil-) via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > The concern appears to be first responder safety, not servicing.
Yes, and the Big City Fire Working Group refused to work with EV installers. They were very clear that it was about first responder safety. And, curiously that no training be required on EV charger work vs. gas station work. The notion was the budgets are too tight for responders to be trained on EV. Here's my letter: National Fire Protection Association Secretary, Standards Council NFPA 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, Massachusetts U.S. 02169 RE: NFPA 70, TIA 1874. Conditional support. Via email to [email protected] Dear National Fire Protection Association, While I ultimately am writing in support of TIA 1874 because it sands a few rough edges off a sharp section of new code: this work is not nearly done. The new 625.43(D) was created without substantive consultation or input from on-the-ground EV charging installers and electricians, particularly not those working in multifamily situations such as apartment complexes. Those who work in EV charging do care about safety, do care about safety for first responders, and do care about property safety and liability. There are better ways to do all this that offer greater certainty to first responders, and have less second order safety effects. 625.43(D) mandates manual shutoffs for equipment that already automatically shuts itself off. These regulations were very clearly based on an analogy to NFPA 30, where there are indeed case stories of everyday hero customers pressing the e-Stop button and stopping the dangerous flow of liquid fuel into a bad situation. Electrons don’t work like that. We don’t need this. We could on the other hand use a requirement like China has imposed for self-exquinishing batteries for EV. And perhaps a requirement for emergency cabinets with deployable temporary fire blankets (if research in the end proves that to be sufficiently valuable in real incidents). And increased use of personal voltage safety devices. First responder personnel need reliable granular ways to shut off power, but not just EV power. I urge the NFPA to create a focused and balanced task group on 625.43(D) to help understand the impact of this regulation, and to help balance the tradeoffs in e-Stop. The impacts and solutions are almost totally different for Level 1, Level 2 public, Level 2 private and Level 3 public fast charging. 625.43(D) does not properly distinguish. That task group should look at the record and see what’s substantiated in terms of risk. But not just focus on that risk, but take a step back and see how charging can be arranged to minimize overall risk, weighing impact on consumers as well as that of first responders. UL standards for EVSE do retries for good reasons: to balance safety against stranding risk, something not incorporated into 625.43(D). This regulatory cake is not properly baked, as a TIA so soon after release of the 2026 code has demonstrated. Signed, Bryce Nesbitt, January 27, 2026 Note 1: One of the unavoidable hazards of a readily accessible e-Stop is haters. Haters are going to press the button. As a charging operator I shudder at the impacts. With no ability to remotely reset that event, the station will be down. Then, someone’s going to come along and try to charge. Emergency providers can be trained to understand how to determine if a station is delivering power, and how to get the automatic shutdown electronics to activate. Retail drivers can’t be taught. Some number of them will stretch their battery and try to reach the next station, and end up hopefully at least on the shoulder, creating a hazard for themselves and others. Vehicles are safety critical systems. Note 2: Well on one hand this seems like a mild improvement to a baleful rule which every state should delete from NEC. It looks like mostly language changes except it grants Note 3: Shut trip breakers are not available for many common apartment panels. This rule can bring a cascade of impacts that appear disproportionate to the stated benefit. Ref: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-70-standard-development/70 _______________________________________________ Address messages to [email protected] No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
