# ICC calls for all new homes to have 240-volt EV charging



## Curt Renz (May 22, 2017)

Electrek - 2 hours ago: ICC - 240-volt


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

I know I'll get shouted down for this opinion, but as a former home builder, to saddle all new homes with the cost of EV wiring would be a ludicrous waste. To me, it is reminiscent of a proposal in the '90's to put elevators in all new homes so that they would be ADA compliant. That idea didn't pass muster, and I hope this one doesn't either.


----------



## msjulie (Feb 6, 2018)

@FRC While I can understand your position as a general rule, a 240 line is nothing in a new home especially compared to an elevator!

We're renovating a house and added 240 lines in a bunch of rooms for some small super efficient (backup) electric heat. The cost vs a regular 110 is like nothing... noise in the overall and not even worth the discussion time truly.

Plus I like my pipe dream of having an EV as being the new normal and the outlet helps that along.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

IIRC the proposed rule doesn't require the actual wiring - just the circuit capacity at the power panel and the conduit to be installed.. Adding the circuit breakers, pulling some cable and installing outlet boxes can be done later.


----------



## msjulie (Feb 6, 2018)

@Klaus-rf Ok seems a little silly as wiring a house w/o finished walls is tons easier than doing it later... feels like a loop-hole to make the rule less onerous I suppose.


----------



## Curt Renz (May 22, 2017)

I had a new home built 3.5 years ago. While it was being built, I asked the builder to install a 240-volt outlet in the garage with a NEMA 14-50 receptacle. They complied with no extra charge. They said it wasn't really burdensome while a home is still being built, and they wanted to keep their customer happy.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Curt Renz said:


> I had a new home built 3.5 years ago. While it was being built, I asked the builder to install a 240-volt outlet in the garage with a NEMA 14-50 receptacle. They complied with no extra charge. They said it wasn't really burdensome while a home is still being built, and they wanted to keep their customer happy.


That's a world different from a tract home builder putting up hundreds of homes each year on spec. To add $150 to each home when less than 10% will ever need or want the feature is ridiculous. And moreover, why does a regulatory body need to mandate it? Why not let the market decide when a feature is wanted/needed?


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

FRC said:


> I know I'll get shouted down for this opinion, but as a former home builder, to saddle all new homes with the cost of EV wiring would be a ludicrous waste. To me, it is reminiscent of a proposal in the '90's to put elevators in all new homes so that they would be ADA compliant. That idea didn't pass muster, and I hope this one doesn't either.


after seeing the costs of running my own 60A circuit I'm in agreement. Though they should at least run conduit to the panel if it's not located in the garage. This way you won't need to cause interior damage to run it after the home is finished. That's a cheap expense and can be used for anything else a homeowner might want (EV, tools, etc).


----------



## Dr. J (Sep 1, 2017)

FRC said:


> That's a world different from a tract home builder putting up hundreds of homes each year on spec. To add $150 to each home when less than 10% will ever need or want the feature is ridiculous. And moreover, why does a regulatory body need to mandate it? Why not let the market decide when a feature is wanted/needed?


Assuming the new home has a life longer than 10 years, it's not at all ridiculous. EV adoption will be increasingly commonplace over the next 10-50 years. Why wouldn't people of the future want to charge at home? Letting the market decide would allow an increasing number of new homes each year to become functionally obsolete in this regard. This is called "planning ahead." Unless you believe EVs are a fad.


----------



## AutopilotFan (Oct 6, 2018)

It seems to me that new homes ought to have 240v service anyway, for air conditioning and electric dryers. The additional cost to provide capacity (and maybe an outlet) near where cars park doesn't seem like much. Since home charging is one of the complications that keeps people from buying electric, this is a great way to address the problem.

As someone who charges at 110v at home right now, I am constantly pointing out that if you have electric power, you can charge your car. It's just a lot slower.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Dr. J said:


> Assuming the new home has a life longer than 10 years, it's not at all ridiculous. EV adoption will be increasingly commonplace over the next 10-50 years. Why wouldn't people of the future want to charge at home? Letting the market decide would allow an increasing number of new homes each year to become functionally obsolete in this regard. This is called "planning ahead." Unless you believe EVs are a fad.


No I don't believe it's a fad. I also don't believe that the majority will need an EV charging solution in their home in the next 2 decades. If you'll allow me to assume that this is correct(even if you assume it's not), then why does the majority(non EV adopters) need to help foot the bill for their charging solution when after construction solutions are available to that minority(EV adopters)? Again, once the tipping point is reached, be it in 10, 30, or 50 years, the market will decide when it's the right time to place EV solutions in every new house. When a buyer says "I'm buying your competitors house because it has a charging solution and your's doesn't" it's time for me, and the rest of the market to consider a change. This hasn't happened yet and, IMHO, won't anytime soon. As I stated in my initial post, my stance on this issue is not likely to meet with general approval in this forum. I just have much more faith in a free market than I do in regulation.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

Chicken or the egg. My gut tells me that if the breaker box is in the garage then the cost is truly minimal on a new house. However I get the big companies building these days are solely focused on maximize big profits of big companies, they are going to use this for an extra huge profit margin literally probably adding $1000 to the price of the house for something that costs likely $150 to add at build time if the plug is no more than 20' from the panel. 

In this part of the country I haven't seen a house built in the last 60 years that didn't have a 200 amp panel. For most houses under 3000 sq' that is plenty for the AC, pool, cook top, oven and car charger. Those panels and service already exist and definitely go into any new build. It's just not hard nor all that expensive to have the plug added, by either yourself or an electrician. It's $250 to $600 from what I see most paying. Most will get that savings in 3 months from not buying gas for the old car.

So just no real reason this can't be added after the fact by whoever would need it vs adding it to a code that requires every new build to add it.


----------



## Dr. J (Sep 1, 2017)

FRC said:


> the market will decide when it's the right time to place EV solutions in every house.


That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about charging infrastructure in *new* houses.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Dr. J said:


> That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about charging infrastructure in *new* houses.


OK, I edited my post to reflect that we're talking about new homes. Changes my position not at all. I am talking about new homes.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

FRC said:


> I also don't believe that the majority will need an EV charging solution in their home in the next 2 decades.


That's perfect timing, then. The Electrical Codes are not fast, by any means. How many homes are still out there with ungrounded outlets? Or relying on gas because they lack 240 volt dryer or range outlets, or 240 volt service for water heaters? Or simply have the wrong _kind_ of 240 volt outlet to support things things? If electrical codes are adopted now, it's going to mean in 20-50 years, a significant number of homes will finally have EV charging outlets.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Most all of us here have made a lifestyle choice to drive EV's(myself included). My home did not include a charging solution when I bought it, I added it at a total cost of $93 and about 4 hours of my time. My neighbor thinks that my lifestyle choice is short-sighted and silly, as is his right. He has no charging solution in his garage nor does he ever plan to need one, instead he has some extra $$$ in his pocket. Another neighbor has a custom built home with a charging solution that he paid his builder a bit extra for, he has no EV and no current plans to get one, but he realizes that he might change his mind someday. All three of us have what we want, and we obtained it without governmental interference and without impinging on the rights or pocketbooks of our other neighbors. If that neighbor who thinks I'm silly for adopting EV's builds a new home, why should he be forced to pay for an EV charging solution that he doesn't want or need? He shouldn't. And if someday he sells that home to someone that want's an EV, they can choose to retrofit, or they can choose to buy a home that is equipped. Absolutely, no need for any governmental interference. They've got their hands full with stuff that needs doing.

Goodnight.


----------



## Collier007 (Dec 26, 2018)

My degree is in economics and I have always been interested specifically in behavior economics. In general, I agree that I don’t want the government forcing people to add an electrical charging station to their new home just like I don’t want them to force me to add a hydrogen charging station in my garage if I build a new home. (remember the 00s when hydrogen fuel cells were the answer?). With that said, most people don’t see the real cost of their Co2 emissions and that is distorting the market. I personally feel that climate change is a huge problem for our planet and I believe that the government is going to need to introduce more “nudge” policies in order to make it easier for people to make environmentally conscious choices. I would think that the cost for a builder to install an outlet on a new home pre-drywall would be dramatically less than the cost for a homeowner with no electrical experience to higher an electrician to install it, which may be the difference between wether they go EV or not. 

I will step off my soap box now and apologize for my “virtue signaling”.


----------



## Dr. J (Sep 1, 2017)

FRC said:


> OK, I edited my post to reflect that we're talking about new homes. Changes my position not at all. I am talking about new homes.


Here is the justification for the heavy hand of government requiring EV charging infrastructure in new homes.

If in the near future EVs are widely adopted, it is optimal for as many as possible EV owners to charge their vehicles at home. For one thing, that would relieve the burden on centralized charging facilities. We can call this distributed consumption, and it's cheaper, better and more convenient than installing more centralized charging than is otherwise necessary.

A large percentage of new and existing homes don't already have EV charging infrastructure in place. This means, when needed, it must be added after the fact, at a much greater expense than if installed when the home was built. Is it better (more efficient) to start now requiring new homes have EV infrastructure installed when the home is built, or have it installed later at much greater expense? I think the answer is obvious, but in case it isn't: it's more efficient to require it when the house is built because it's substantially cheaper.

Today's new housing market does not promote the voluntary inclusion of EV charging structure because consumers aren't asking for it. And for the same reasons that consumers aren't asking for many things in new homes: it costs money upfront. Same issue you are having with it as a homebuilder. Even though these things make the house more valuable, the two parties to the transaction are penny-pinchers.

This is a classic market failure: it's better (more efficient) to require installation of charging infrastructure in new homes as soon as possible (to cover as many new homes as possible), but the market won't be ready for that until EV adoption is much more widespread, and perhaps it won't happen even then. Market failures are what government regulation is made for. Requiring the installation of EV infrastructure in new homes is good public policy, just as requiring automakers to install emissions controls, airbags, anti-lock brakes and backup cameras was good public policy, even though those things raised the price of new cars and consumers were not at the time clamoring for them.


----------



## styleruk (Dec 3, 2018)

Whilst I don't have much of an opinion on this (UK has 240 standard), the focus should be on solar for new builds. I fitted solar panels years ago when I first got an EV and that is so convinient. Normally, over a weekend, I charge the car at the lowest, which is about 1.25kW. That suits me perfect as I generate that on a cloudy day so the cost to me and environment is reduced somewhat. Governments should focus more on fitting solar panels or tiles or whatever is the best solution, or at least discount it more than they are. If a significant percentage of users can charge their own car with little grid input, it would improve the situation developing.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

styleruk said:


> Whilst I don't have much of an opinion on this (UK has 240 standard),


FYI, the "240v" is a red herring. All North American private homes have single-phase 240v service. What this new standard dictates is that the electrical panel used in new homes is sized to allow the addition of NEMA 15-50 outlets for every parking spot in the home. So it basically dictates a larger current (amps) or power capacity for the main panel to accommodate this.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

I agree with @FRC's stance that it's too early for this to be put into law. But we're not talking about a change in law yet. While the ICC's building standards are often incorporated into state and local laws, it's usually a specific, _older_ version of the standard that is incorporated into law (ex - looks like PA's building codes were last updated in 2015, Nebraska in 2012, etc.). So I think this is a fine time for the ICC to look ahead and update the new versions of their guidelines for the trends that they're seeing. It will probably be several years before states begin adopting this latest version of the standard into their own building codes.


----------



## GDN (Oct 30, 2017)

JasonF said:


> That's perfect timing, then. The Electrical Codes are not fast, by any means. How many homes are still out there with ungrounded outlets? Or relying on gas because they lack 240 volt dryer or range outlets, or 240 volt service for water heaters? Or simply have the wrong _kind_ of 240 volt outlet to support things things? If electrical codes are adopted now, it's going to mean in 20-50 years, a significant number of homes will finally have EV charging outlets.


Actually I think we'd all be better off if we did have gas in the homes. I've got a gas cook top, gas water heater and gas HVAC system. I'm MUCH better off with those compared to what I'd pay for electricity, they are quick to heat and I'd pay extra to get gas put in to a house. If there were any kind of reasonable solar option I might think differently on that, but none of them are truly cost effective.

What is the one worst thing about the Model 3 and EV's? Very likely the heating solution. It relies on electrical power and it's hugely inefficient. I'm not saying we have much of an option, just pointing out some facts.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

JasonF said:


> How many homes are still out there with ungrounded outlets?


Building codes only ever apply to new construction. Existing dwellings are always grandfathered-in.


----------



## AutopilotFan (Oct 6, 2018)

Collier007 said:


> My degree is in economics and I have always been interested specifically in behavior economics. In general, I agree that I don't want the government forcing people to add an* electrical charging station* to their new home just like I don't want them to force me to add a hydrogen charging station in my garage if I build a new home.


Here may be the point of confusion that has us disagreeing. Does the statue call for an *electrical charging station* or just for the *circuit/plug/wiring* for one?

I was thinking the latter. The equivalent might be a statute that requires a water line & outlet in/near the garage in case you ever want a hydrogen charging station. That infrastructure is cheap and easy to add during new construction, and disruptive to add to an existing one. Plus having a faucet in the garage might be handy for all kinds of other stuff, just like having a 240 outlet might be used for things other than car charging.

Do you have the same objection if the rule was to add the infrastructure and not the station itself?


----------



## Collier007 (Dec 26, 2018)

AutopilotFan said:


> Here may be the point of confusion that has us disagreeing. Does the statue call for an *electrical charging station* or just for the *circuit/plug/wiring* for one?
> 
> I was thinking the latter. The equivalent might be a statute that requires a water line & outlet in/near the garage in case you ever want a hydrogen charging station. That infrastructure is cheap and easy to add during new construction, and disruptive to add to an existing one. Plus having a faucet in the garage might be handy for all kinds of other stuff, just like having a 240 outlet might be used for things other than car charging.
> 
> Do you have the same objection if the rule was to add the infrastructure and not the station itself?


My understanding is that its just for an outlet and/or switch box than can handle the outlet, which I have no objection to given the very minimal cost and efficiencies it would provide. My point was to address a previous post which got into the issues of governments mandating anything that people have not specifically said that they want and are willing to pay for (free market) and the slippery slope it creates when bureaucrats make decisions for people.


----------



## gary in NY (Dec 2, 2018)

I don't think code changes covering the capacity for for EV charging in new construction is particularly onerous, even if that capacity may not be used for a decade or longer (housing is generally a very long lived asset which eventually may provide that capacity). Personally, I wouldn't build anything today without such capacity (I have a project starting this year which will, and hopefully will be net zero). There is always a risk in such "future proofing" housing though. I'd like to have back the time and materials used for internet/network/cable connectivity is every room, most of which has never been used after wireless systems became commonplace. In an automatous vehicle world, will the need for EV charging exist in all homes?

BTW, our elected officials and their appointed bureaucrats make a multitude of decisions for the public every day (in law enforcement, public health and safety, national defense, economic and environmental affairs, etc). This is what we elect them to do. I'm a 30 plus year civil service veteran, with a majority of those years served under an elected official - so maybe you can blame me .


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

AutopilotFan said:


> Do you have the same objection if the rule was to add the infrastructure and not the station itself?


YES


----------



## AutopilotFan (Oct 6, 2018)

FRC said:


> YES


Why do you object to requirements to add the infrastructure? It isn't expensive when you do it during an initial build.


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Here's why


FRC said:


> No I don't believe it's a fad. I also don't believe that the majority will need an EV charging solution in their home in the next 2 decades. If you'll allow me to assume that this is correct(even if you assume it's not), then why does the majority(non EV adopters) need to help foot the bill for their charging solution when after construction solutions are available to that minority(EV adopters)? Again, once the tipping point is reached, be it in 10, 30, or 50 years, the market will decide when it's the right time to place EV solutions in every new house. When a buyer says "I'm buying your competitors house because it has a charging solution and your's doesn't" it's time for me, and the rest of the market to consider a change. This hasn't happened yet and, IMHO, won't anytime soon. As I stated in my initial post, my stance on this issue is not likely to meet with general approval in this forum. I just have much more faith in a free market than I do in regulation.





FRC said:


> Most all of us here have made a lifestyle choice to drive EV's(myself included). My home did not include a charging solution when I bought it, I added it at a total cost of $93 and about 4 hours of my time. My neighbor thinks that my lifestyle choice is short-sighted and silly, as is his right. He has no charging solution in his garage nor does he ever plan to need one, instead he has some extra $$$ in his pocket. Another neighbor has a custom built home with a charging solution that he paid his builder a bit extra for, he has no EV and no current plans to get one, but he realizes that he might change his mind someday. All three of us have what we want, and we obtained it without governmental interference and without impinging on the rights or pocketbooks of our other neighbors. If that neighbor who thinks I'm silly for adopting EV's builds a new home, why should he be forced to pay for an EV charging solution that he doesn't want or need? He shouldn't. And if someday he sells that home to someone that want's an EV, they can choose to retrofit, or they can choose to buy a home that is equipped. Absolutely, no need for any governmental interference. They've got their hands full with stuff that needs doing.
> 
> Goodnight.


----------



## msjulie (Feb 6, 2018)

Collier007 said:


> My point was to address a previous post which got into the issues of governments mandating anything that people have not specifically said that they want and are willing to pay for (free market) and the slippery slope it creates when bureaucrats make decisions for people.


Well this happens a lot, for "the good of the people" I suppose.. smoke detectors and co2 detectors are mandated and at least what I've seen, they now have to be hard wired (vs the less expensive kind in home depot and the like). So forced to get something I might not want in my brand new home but reasons.

Some things may not be obvious at the start, like 240v available for charging a car. I never expected to own an EV when the pinnacle of "electric" cars were things like a Prius (it's a fine car for what it is I suppose but BORING  )

Houses live a long time, we have a "new" house that was born in 1943 and is getting renovated with 2x240 to the garage because one Tesla and maybe someday a 2nd. One previous "new" house was built in late 1800's and "upgraded" over time but still was hard pressed dealing with decent internet access in much of the house; no wiring, bad signal travel in the old walls. It's hard to guess what technology might bring in all cases, but some things seem predictable and reasonable.

EVs need to be part of our future so prepping for it seems both smart and the cheaper path (I could tell you the pain of getting that 2x240 to the garage but it makes me sad and mad).


----------



## AutopilotFan (Oct 6, 2018)

FRC said:


> Here's why


It looks like your reasons are:

Because it will take 20 years before EVs are more common than ICE
Because different people want different things and shouldn't have to pay for what they don't want.
Neither of these seem like the choice you'd make if your objection is to both the infrastructure and the charging station. They seem like the objections you'd make to the installation of the full charging solution. Let me elaborate:

One thing that slows the adoption of EVs is having an obvious home charging solution. If your brand new (and over time, your not as new) home already has a circuit and an outlet where your car is parked, you have an obvious home solution. You don't even need an EVSE, you could just use your mobile cable to plug in to the 240 outlet that exists. If we start installing those in new homes now, they'll exist 20 years from now when EVs are common. Objecting to this is short-sighted.
Yes, different people want different things. Having a 240 circuit available in the garage lets people do things other than install a charging solution. They might decide to put in air conditioning. They might attach an electric generator. They have choices. Objecting to this because people might not want an EV is inexplicable.
So I'll ask again -- why are you objecting to the infrastructure?


----------



## FRC (Aug 4, 2018)

Asked and answered. We simply disagree about the role of regulation in our lives. 'nuff said.


----------

