China's requirement is that EV batteries self-extinguish if ignited. Shut offs can be a circuit breaker. But the firefighters complain that circuit breakers are often incorrectly or poorly labeled apartment buildings. I agree. But every multi-family building over a certain number of units is inspected annually by the fire department. That would be the time to get those circuit breakers properly labeled for a potential emergency. For a potential emergency
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026, 7:44 AM Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to all for the clarifying feedback. Much appreciated. > > Can I ask for a bit further clarification ? I've marked up Bryce's > letter, below. > > Peri > > << Annoyed by leaf blowers ? https://quietcleanseattle.org/ >> > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Bryce Nesbitt via EV" <[email protected]> > To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Bryce Nesbitt" <[email protected]> > Sent: 27-Jan-26 00:23:09 > Subject: Re: [EVDL] January 27, 2026 : Deadline for comments on TIA > #1874 > > >... > > > >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. > [why is an automatic shut off sufficiently reliable that a manual one > isn't needed ?] > > >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. > [what is china's requirement ?] > > >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. > [what do you mean by granular ways to shut off power, relevant to an EV > fire ?] > > > > > >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. > [Great point !] > > > > > >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. > [Examples how ?] > > >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. > [Did you mean "shunt trip" ?] > > > > > >Ref: > https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-70-standard-development/70 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20260127/9c5c81bd/attachment.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > Address messages to [email protected] > No other addresses in TO and CC fields > HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20260127/469f24f0/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ Address messages to [email protected] No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
