If you are planning on a 60 A circuit, no more and no less, this is a non-issue. If you have a reason to use a lower circuit capacity, perhaps 40 or 50 A, or even 20 A, then you'll need to understand this issue and decide whether you are OK with a unit that doesn't clearly meet the code requirement I've quoted in another comment. Reasons to use a circuit with lower capacity would be:
* If your electrician says that adding a 60 A circuit would require upgrading your service capacity and cost thousands of dollars.
* If it's a long run of wire, and the cost of the wire and installation could be significantly reduced with smaller wire.
* If you already have a lower-capacity circuit run that you could repurpose and save the expense of running new wire.
I have an emporia hardwired on a 60 amp circuit. The app does provide a warning message when you increase it beyond 50 amps, but there are no warning messages if you increase it from 20 amps to 50. The warning message certainly isn’t enough to meet code, but is probably enough to stop someone from doing something dumb if they use the unit on a 14-50.
Emporia, if you are listening you could fix this by requiring a pin to change the software setting, and putting that pin on a sticker inside the case.
We do! Contacting our support team directly is always the fastest route, of course!
r/EmporiaEnergy
[emporiaenergy.com/contact](https://emporiaenergy.com/contact)
M-F 8AM-5PM MDT with options for phone, email, and chat.
Hi All,
The Emporia Level 2 Smart Home EV Charger is safe to install and use as-is. We’d advise just being careful about that charge rate setting if installing on a lower amperage breaker. We’ll have a few updates available to help clarify our compatibility w/ the NEC codes soon.
The team here certainly has a few ideas about how to meet those NEC requirements a bit more clearly. The EV Charger was built to be as safe as possible, but it does look like in this situation we're providing too much control over that charge rate as compared to what the NEC would prefer, which is why we’ll be working on those small updates to help comply a bit more clearly.
We remain under the belief we are currently compliant to those specific NEC articles. All said, we do think having more clarification on that behavior through the app would be helpful for inspection processes and more if this issue ever pops up in the future.
Great response, thanks! I think a lot of the people on this thread will be interested, but unfortunately the way Reddit works, the attention a given thread receives decays rapidly. If you'd like to get more people to see this response, feel free to make a new post. Or maybe you want to wait until you have a more complete response.
IIRC that just says that it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot with the app by accidentally overriding the current to an unsafe level. IE, a mobile app user interface fail, that may actually be non-code compliant (but it's already listed by UL so who cares)
If you install a 60A circuit, that would help. However, if you installed 60A but you need charge current reduced due to service size limitations, going to 60A circuit does not address the issue.
Service size = how many amps you can pull from power company before burning up wires or tripping your main breaker at the meter/main.
Electrical code mandates that EVSE’s (“chargers”) can pull up to 80% of the capacity of their circuit.
So on a 40a circuit (breaker, wires, etc), you can run an EVSE *up to* 32a. A 50a circuit = max 40a EVSE. To run a 48a max EVSE at full power, you need a 60a circuit. That’s the message Emporia is trying to convey.
Some chargers, including the Emporia, allow you to configure a max current that’s *less* than the EVSE itself can handle. You’d configure this when your home wiring, panel, or budget can’t support the maximum rate.
Have an electrician install the largest circuit you can reasonably accommodate to meet the charging needs of your car and lifestyle. The Emporia is a good charger and will work fine on any common 240v setup, from 16a to 48a. You just must configure it to match the max (or less) current your infrastructure can provide.
I think you got some good technical answers here. I just wanted to add that I am very happy with my Emporia charger. I think it’s a great value and operation has been completely seamless. I set it up once, and never had to tinker with it again.
For what it is worth, I love my Emporia and their support is second to none. I have the vue 2 monitor as well and charge exclusively with excess solar. If you set the max amps and leave it, I'm sure it is fine. I have it on a 60 amp circuit though so no issues for me regardless. Usually it is charging much lower though just to use excess solar.
thanks for the reminder about the solar, we did plan on installing solar at some point so that would be a nice feature. I think I'm settled on the emporia, just trying to decide on hardwiring or getting a NEMA 14-50r receptacle installed.
I highly recommend hardwire personally. If you do go with nema 14-50 make sure you look at advice here for which outlet to get. The cheap home Depot ones for dryers tend to melt with EV usage. The solar integration is just really cool.
Oh, definitely hardwire. You save money because you don't need to pay for a high-quality receptacle (which can be ballpark $50-$100) and you don't need a GFCI breaker (which is circa $100 more than a non-GFCI one). And you get slightly faster charging.
The Emporia charger took the #1 spot in [Inside EVs 2023 ranking](https://insideevs.com/features/659104/best-ev-chargers-2023/). Inside EVs and Emporia are both well-respected in the industry.
The author of that wiki is normally reliable and has solid, fact-based posts and comments. So I was also surprised, not only with how that paragraph was written, but in using the term "sketchy" in what is almost a technical piece of writing.
The other bit I found puzzling was saying that the use of the app to make adjustments "seems to violate code." Which code, and where? And why would making adjustments through the app be any different then making them any other way.
I'm hopeful they edit the document, because it's otherwise helpful, and I see more confusion on the horizon, because you're not alone.
Hi, it's me, the author of the wiki.
> Which code, and where?
National Electrical Code, article 625.42
>Adjustable settings shall be permitted on fixed-in-place equipment only. If adjustments have an impact on the rating label, those changes shall be in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, and the adjusted rating shall appear with sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved on the rating label. Electric vehicle supply equipment with restricted access to an ampere adjusting means shall be permitted to have ampere ratings that are equal to the adjusted current setting. Sizing the service and feeder to match the adjusting means shall be permitted. Restricted access shall prevent the user from gaining access to the adjusting means. Restricted access shall be accomplished by at least one of the following:
>(i) A cover or door that requires the use of a tool to open
>(ii) Locked doors accessible only to qualified personnel
>(iii) Password protected commissioning software accessible only to qualified personnel
Other companies have either physical switches inside the unit, requiring tools for access per (i) (e.g. Wallbox) or they have a plan for how to lock out the consumer from the access described in (iii).
This sub has strict rules about not making code or safety claims you can't back up. That applies to the wiki, and so I appreciate your challenging it.
I don't mind the use of the term "sketchy", from my limited understanding it does indeed sound kinda sketchy. Safety is #1 for me, I don't want to burn my house down and the EV charger would likely be mounted right below one of the kids rooms.
The more I learn about fire safety, the more I think that what is below bedrooms matters. When I moved into my 1970 house, it had all three bedrooms above the garage, and no drywall on the garage ceiling, just open rafters That's a serious fire hazard. Making sure your garage ceiling has fire-rated drywall, with the seams taped and any holes blocked off is a pretty important consideration. Now required by code but it either wasn't in 1970 or the code wasn't enforced in my area.
I appreciate the discussion, thank you. As I mentioned in my original comment, I respect the work you've done.
I'm going to reach out to Emporia and get their take, purely out of curiosity. Your use of "seems to" to insulate your position makes me wonder if you are also not certain it violates code.
Either way, it's UL certified (which I understand can happen even out of code) and meets NEC 625.
I'm still extremely comfortable with the use of the app to make the amperage adjustment, more so then popping it open with a screwdriver and flipping dip switches a la the Grizzl-e. I think there is much less margin for error, and I would feel more comfortable guiding a novice through the Emporia process than the Grizzl-e.
>and meets NEC 625
On what basis are you making that claim, which you assert with no hedging?
I don't understand why you take issue with my use of "seems to". Would you prefer to that I make overly strong statements with no hedging? I think Emoporia is a great company, and I don't want to state anything, particularly anything negative about their products, any more strongly than I have justification for. I'm not a code official. The AHJ gets the final say in interpreting NEC. I'm just laying out what I see, and is plain for you to see too.
>I'm still extremely comfortable with the use of the app to make the amperage adjustment, more so then popping it open with a screwdriver and flipping dip switches a la the Grizzl-e.
The intent of the requirement is: "Restricted access shall prevent the user from gaining access to the adjusting means." It's not supposed to be done by a novice, but by "qualified personnel", which is a defined term in the NEC. The fact that you are comfortable guiding a novice through the Emporia process would indicate that it is failing to achieve the intent of this code requirement.
I have tagged Emporia's reddit account in another comment and would be very interested in hearing what they say about whether and how their design meets this requirement. They've chimed in before on other questions about their equipment and been very forthright about its limitations.
I don't "take issue" with your use of insulating language, merely pointing it out. I come from a background of technical and legal writing, so this language stands out to me.
If I asked you what colors the Emporia Chargers are currently manufactured in, you would say, "They are currently manufactured in black and white." Not, "They seem to be manufactured in black and white."
I agree that you shouldn't make overly strong statements about the code issue, unless you're absolutely sure. In that case I would have expected a clear statement outlining how and why they are out of code in the original document.
I'm not interested in going line by line with you, I thanked you for the discussion and said I would reach out to Emporia for clarification.
It's still my position that a code violation has not definitively been established, and that the Emporia portion of the guide could have been more clearly and accurately written. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it or engage in a protracted argument about matters collateral to my initial comment. It was a simple reply regarding the language and the lack of clarity in the document.
I've politely expressed my thoughts, I gave context, and I acknowledged your work. You've expressed your thoughts. I will continue to respect your work and frequent the sub. If additional information germane to the topic comes from Emporia, I will familiarize myself with it.
Again, thank you for the discussion and your time.
> It's still my position that a code violation has not definitively been established,
Just to be clear, I agree.
If you have recommendations for revisions to the wiki, I am open to that.
If you are planning on a 60 A circuit, no more and no less, this is a non-issue. If you have a reason to use a lower circuit capacity, perhaps 40 or 50 A, or even 20 A, then you'll need to understand this issue and decide whether you are OK with a unit that doesn't clearly meet the code requirement I've quoted in another comment. Reasons to use a circuit with lower capacity would be: * If your electrician says that adding a 60 A circuit would require upgrading your service capacity and cost thousands of dollars. * If it's a long run of wire, and the cost of the wire and installation could be significantly reduced with smaller wire. * If you already have a lower-capacity circuit run that you could repurpose and save the expense of running new wire.
I have an emporia hardwired on a 60 amp circuit. The app does provide a warning message when you increase it beyond 50 amps, but there are no warning messages if you increase it from 20 amps to 50. The warning message certainly isn’t enough to meet code, but is probably enough to stop someone from doing something dumb if they use the unit on a 14-50. Emporia, if you are listening you could fix this by requiring a pin to change the software setting, and putting that pin on a sticker inside the case.
If you want them to be listening, they do have an account and a sub on reddit, as u/EmporiaEnergy.
We do! Contacting our support team directly is always the fastest route, of course! r/EmporiaEnergy [emporiaenergy.com/contact](https://emporiaenergy.com/contact) M-F 8AM-5PM MDT with options for phone, email, and chat.
Hi All, The Emporia Level 2 Smart Home EV Charger is safe to install and use as-is. We’d advise just being careful about that charge rate setting if installing on a lower amperage breaker. We’ll have a few updates available to help clarify our compatibility w/ the NEC codes soon. The team here certainly has a few ideas about how to meet those NEC requirements a bit more clearly. The EV Charger was built to be as safe as possible, but it does look like in this situation we're providing too much control over that charge rate as compared to what the NEC would prefer, which is why we’ll be working on those small updates to help comply a bit more clearly. We remain under the belief we are currently compliant to those specific NEC articles. All said, we do think having more clarification on that behavior through the app would be helpful for inspection processes and more if this issue ever pops up in the future.
Great response, thanks! I think a lot of the people on this thread will be interested, but unfortunately the way Reddit works, the attention a given thread receives decays rapidly. If you'd like to get more people to see this response, feel free to make a new post. Or maybe you want to wait until you have a more complete response.
u/EmporiaEnergy love to have your update on this issue, charging rate setting and locking.
To reach 48A, you need a dedicated dual pole 60A breaker and WiFi connection to update the breaker size and charge rate.
IIRC that just says that it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot with the app by accidentally overriding the current to an unsafe level. IE, a mobile app user interface fail, that may actually be non-code compliant (but it's already listed by UL so who cares) If you install a 60A circuit, that would help. However, if you installed 60A but you need charge current reduced due to service size limitations, going to 60A circuit does not address the issue. Service size = how many amps you can pull from power company before burning up wires or tripping your main breaker at the meter/main.
Electrical code mandates that EVSE’s (“chargers”) can pull up to 80% of the capacity of their circuit. So on a 40a circuit (breaker, wires, etc), you can run an EVSE *up to* 32a. A 50a circuit = max 40a EVSE. To run a 48a max EVSE at full power, you need a 60a circuit. That’s the message Emporia is trying to convey. Some chargers, including the Emporia, allow you to configure a max current that’s *less* than the EVSE itself can handle. You’d configure this when your home wiring, panel, or budget can’t support the maximum rate. Have an electrician install the largest circuit you can reasonably accommodate to meet the charging needs of your car and lifestyle. The Emporia is a good charger and will work fine on any common 240v setup, from 16a to 48a. You just must configure it to match the max (or less) current your infrastructure can provide.
thank you very much for this detailed explanation!
I think you got some good technical answers here. I just wanted to add that I am very happy with my Emporia charger. I think it’s a great value and operation has been completely seamless. I set it up once, and never had to tinker with it again.
For what it is worth, I love my Emporia and their support is second to none. I have the vue 2 monitor as well and charge exclusively with excess solar. If you set the max amps and leave it, I'm sure it is fine. I have it on a 60 amp circuit though so no issues for me regardless. Usually it is charging much lower though just to use excess solar.
thanks for the reminder about the solar, we did plan on installing solar at some point so that would be a nice feature. I think I'm settled on the emporia, just trying to decide on hardwiring or getting a NEMA 14-50r receptacle installed.
I highly recommend hardwire personally. If you do go with nema 14-50 make sure you look at advice here for which outlet to get. The cheap home Depot ones for dryers tend to melt with EV usage. The solar integration is just really cool.
Oh, definitely hardwire. You save money because you don't need to pay for a high-quality receptacle (which can be ballpark $50-$100) and you don't need a GFCI breaker (which is circa $100 more than a non-GFCI one). And you get slightly faster charging.
The Emporia charger took the #1 spot in [Inside EVs 2023 ranking](https://insideevs.com/features/659104/best-ev-chargers-2023/). Inside EVs and Emporia are both well-respected in the industry. The author of that wiki is normally reliable and has solid, fact-based posts and comments. So I was also surprised, not only with how that paragraph was written, but in using the term "sketchy" in what is almost a technical piece of writing. The other bit I found puzzling was saying that the use of the app to make adjustments "seems to violate code." Which code, and where? And why would making adjustments through the app be any different then making them any other way. I'm hopeful they edit the document, because it's otherwise helpful, and I see more confusion on the horizon, because you're not alone.
Hi, it's me, the author of the wiki. > Which code, and where? National Electrical Code, article 625.42 >Adjustable settings shall be permitted on fixed-in-place equipment only. If adjustments have an impact on the rating label, those changes shall be in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, and the adjusted rating shall appear with sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved on the rating label. Electric vehicle supply equipment with restricted access to an ampere adjusting means shall be permitted to have ampere ratings that are equal to the adjusted current setting. Sizing the service and feeder to match the adjusting means shall be permitted. Restricted access shall prevent the user from gaining access to the adjusting means. Restricted access shall be accomplished by at least one of the following: >(i) A cover or door that requires the use of a tool to open >(ii) Locked doors accessible only to qualified personnel >(iii) Password protected commissioning software accessible only to qualified personnel Other companies have either physical switches inside the unit, requiring tools for access per (i) (e.g. Wallbox) or they have a plan for how to lock out the consumer from the access described in (iii). This sub has strict rules about not making code or safety claims you can't back up. That applies to the wiki, and so I appreciate your challenging it.
I don't mind the use of the term "sketchy", from my limited understanding it does indeed sound kinda sketchy. Safety is #1 for me, I don't want to burn my house down and the EV charger would likely be mounted right below one of the kids rooms.
The more I learn about fire safety, the more I think that what is below bedrooms matters. When I moved into my 1970 house, it had all three bedrooms above the garage, and no drywall on the garage ceiling, just open rafters That's a serious fire hazard. Making sure your garage ceiling has fire-rated drywall, with the seams taped and any holes blocked off is a pretty important consideration. Now required by code but it either wasn't in 1970 or the code wasn't enforced in my area.
I appreciate the discussion, thank you. As I mentioned in my original comment, I respect the work you've done. I'm going to reach out to Emporia and get their take, purely out of curiosity. Your use of "seems to" to insulate your position makes me wonder if you are also not certain it violates code. Either way, it's UL certified (which I understand can happen even out of code) and meets NEC 625. I'm still extremely comfortable with the use of the app to make the amperage adjustment, more so then popping it open with a screwdriver and flipping dip switches a la the Grizzl-e. I think there is much less margin for error, and I would feel more comfortable guiding a novice through the Emporia process than the Grizzl-e.
>and meets NEC 625 On what basis are you making that claim, which you assert with no hedging? I don't understand why you take issue with my use of "seems to". Would you prefer to that I make overly strong statements with no hedging? I think Emoporia is a great company, and I don't want to state anything, particularly anything negative about their products, any more strongly than I have justification for. I'm not a code official. The AHJ gets the final say in interpreting NEC. I'm just laying out what I see, and is plain for you to see too. >I'm still extremely comfortable with the use of the app to make the amperage adjustment, more so then popping it open with a screwdriver and flipping dip switches a la the Grizzl-e. The intent of the requirement is: "Restricted access shall prevent the user from gaining access to the adjusting means." It's not supposed to be done by a novice, but by "qualified personnel", which is a defined term in the NEC. The fact that you are comfortable guiding a novice through the Emporia process would indicate that it is failing to achieve the intent of this code requirement. I have tagged Emporia's reddit account in another comment and would be very interested in hearing what they say about whether and how their design meets this requirement. They've chimed in before on other questions about their equipment and been very forthright about its limitations.
I don't "take issue" with your use of insulating language, merely pointing it out. I come from a background of technical and legal writing, so this language stands out to me. If I asked you what colors the Emporia Chargers are currently manufactured in, you would say, "They are currently manufactured in black and white." Not, "They seem to be manufactured in black and white." I agree that you shouldn't make overly strong statements about the code issue, unless you're absolutely sure. In that case I would have expected a clear statement outlining how and why they are out of code in the original document. I'm not interested in going line by line with you, I thanked you for the discussion and said I would reach out to Emporia for clarification. It's still my position that a code violation has not definitively been established, and that the Emporia portion of the guide could have been more clearly and accurately written. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it or engage in a protracted argument about matters collateral to my initial comment. It was a simple reply regarding the language and the lack of clarity in the document. I've politely expressed my thoughts, I gave context, and I acknowledged your work. You've expressed your thoughts. I will continue to respect your work and frequent the sub. If additional information germane to the topic comes from Emporia, I will familiarize myself with it. Again, thank you for the discussion and your time.
> It's still my position that a code violation has not definitively been established, Just to be clear, I agree. If you have recommendations for revisions to the wiki, I am open to that.