How to differentiate between a connectable installation and an appliance?

[JamieP]

Obviously in some situations it's quite obvious

But often I find situations when people try claim something is an appliance to avoid connectable installation rules

What is the best way to clearly separate the two in situations where it may not be so obvious?

[PeteRig]

One way Jamie is the definitions in AS/NZS 3000, your thoughts?

[AlecK]

The definition of "connectable installation" comes from the Electricity Act, but relies for a key aspect on the definition of "vehicle" in another Act (from memory; the Road Transport Act).
Basically anything that has wheels can be a "vehicle";
and any "vehicle" that is capable of accepting an external supply is a connectable installation.


The official view - though not stated clearly anywhere I know of - appears to be that an owner has two pathways to achieving electrical safety:
a) follow CI requirements; or
b) follow appliance requirements.
There is certainly NO clear demarcation provided in Act / ESRs.


It's also important that a CI is not within the definition of "electrical installation".
It doesn't have a "point of supply": and it doesn't fit the other part of the definition (covering standalone "installations") because it isn't a 'property".
Its a separate thing; basically a collection of "fittings".
Another difference is that an "installation" excludes all appliances, but a "CI" includes them.


Personally I take the view that if people occupy the structure, it should be treated as a CI.
So caravans, site huts, etc should be CIs

If it's an unoccupied piece of equipment, then 'appliance' rules are a better fit.
So an external supply to a fire engine for a sump heater should be treated as just an appliance; there's no point adding a switchboard for that sort of thing.

[JamieP]

Thanks Pete, I have looked at them and also compared them to definitions in Regs and the Act, but sadly wasn't enough to clear it up for me but appreciate the input

As for you Alec, so if it's not a vehicle, it can't be a connectable installation? Just thinking along the lines of sleepouts and cabins etcetc, I feel like I've mis understood

As for the latter, that makes sense, what sprung my question was similar situations to the fire truck example when they have external connections, a crane for example and socket outlets on such a vehicle but couldn't decide whether it would be deemed an appliance or not and if it needed an EWOF among other requirements etcetc

[AlecK]

Not what i said.

Definition of CI does apply to more than just vehicles;
"relocatable buildings" & "pleasure vessels" can also have connectable installations in them. And each of those classifications has its own grey area.

But it would be difficult to confuse either of these with an "appliance"; whereas" many appliances fit within definition of "vehicle"; just by having wheels.

A sleepout in a relocatable building would be a CI ; but in a building fixed to ground it couldn't be a CI.
Which provides a clear(ish) demarcation method.
We don't have even that much for "vehicles".

And speaking of 'pleasure vessels"; there's a land-mounted home not far from here that's been accepted by MBIE (on appeal against Council) as a 'boat", so not needing to comply with Building Act.
With "tiny houses"; the same person who calls it a 'caravan" to escape Building Act can hardly avoid the electrical side having to comply with caravan rules!

If there are socket outlets involved; there may be safety issues relating to overload protection.
But in the end it's not down to us to decide. We are not policemen,
We're installing, or testing, to one set of rules or the other.
We can suggest which approach should be followed; but if they reject our advice, our choices are either do it their way or walk away.

Hence my personal demarcation; that's where I draw the line for what i'm prepared to sign off .