Editor’s note: This letter is in reference to changes made in the 2026 edition of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code, that will require emergency shutoff devices to be installed at community accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Fire Engineering published an article by Chris G. Greene and Chris Pfaff, “EV Charging Stations and the E-Stop Dilemma” in November 2023 (bit.ly/3CKvoOU) that called out this gap. The academic community and emergency responders made correcting this safety gap a priority.
Our vehicles are evolving at record speed, and the modern electric vehicle has been dubbed the future of travel. It is more efficient, faster, quieter, and environmentally subdued and, for the anointed owner, brings an innate feeling of moral ascendance over the fools still trapped in their gas-guzzling time capsules.
However, for the fire service, there was a very large elephant in the room that was making all of us very uncomfortable. The propulsion system and fuel were unfamiliar. The fires that involved EVs were unusually difficult to tame, and we had to accept that the fuel source for these vehicles could reignite days, even weeks, after crews thought they had it resolved. The term “stranded energy” became a standard part of our vernacular.
The trepidations born from all these changes have, in some cases, resulted in fire agencies assigning the work of EV suppression to hazmat companies. This move will have a turbulent effect on the fire service due to the simple fact that the toxins that are emitted from every vehicle fire are considered hazardous materials regardless of whether it is a BEV, HEV, or ICE. Are we really ready to supplant vehicle suppression specialists, our engine companies, with hazmat?
We need to unwind that trend right now. Make no mistake, fire crews that have chosen to put fire out for a living are your suppression experts. I know that those words are going to ruffle some feathers, but someone had to say it. Choosing to stay with engine work is an active decision, and you feel it every night. You’re going to get your teeth kicked in, but you’re going to get darn good at putting out fire. These resource allocation disparities are an internal discussion to be resolved solely by the fire service.
With that said, the more complicated and dangerous issue has to do with refueling those EVs at rapid charging stations (direct current fast chargers, or DCFCs). There is currently no requirement for the installation of an emergency shutoff device for these chargers—at least not one that you would recognize or could easily access.
It’s important to understand the severity of this situation. The voltage for a modern DCFC will be somewhere between 400 Vdc and 1,000 VDC. These chargers are supported by localized high-voltage transformers, rectifiers, and switchgear equipment. This is a complicated setup for even the most seasoned electrician, much less a fire crew. A fire or rescue in this environment is extremely dangerous for our emergency responders, who may have no sense that this emergency scene involved this invisible and lethal hazard—“high energy direct current.”
Consider this scenario: You have just been dispatched to a refueling station for a reported car fire. While en route, you consider the potential rescue elements, suppression line, hydrant, and so on. I would bet that there is one more item you are considering, and it is likely on each crew member’s mind: locate and activate the emergency shutoff device. This has been a fundamental part of our hazard mitigation process for fires at refueling stations for more than two generations of first responders. It is unlikely that anyone on your crew is unaware of this device and how it is prioritized in this situation.
Now imagine this same fire incident, only when you arrive, there is no E-Stop. The hazard that is most dangerous and difficult to address— uncontrolled fuel release at a refueling facility—cannot be secured in any predictable way. That is exactly what firefighters across the nation had to face prior to 1984, when the first modern E-Stop devices began to be installed. Forty years ago, this innovative blind spot was corrected via NFPA 30A. Unfortunately, when the refueling stations for all those EVs were rolled out, there was no requirement for the installation of these safety devices. Well, that is about to change.
The fire service is on track for a big win in NFPA 70 with regards to emergency shutoff devices at EV charging stations. This recommendation has advanced through the first and second review process for the code adjustment process and will likely go into the 2026 electrical code. This proposed code change will exclude applications in the one-and two- family residential settings. The devices will be similar to the ones we have grown accustomed to at traditional refueling stations, and they will be located with the same distance requirements to the chargers: no closer than within 20 feet of the hazard and no farther away than 100 feet, which mirrors NFPA 30A. The installation of these critical safety devices and harmonizing their installation requirements with traditional refueling station shutoff devices are exactly what we needed to help ensure our safety, building on what we have benefited from for more than 40 years.
These changes are tough to come by but worth the effort. We must own our safety and advocate for codes that work for our responders.
Though many agencies have claimed credit for this victory, it reflects the collective efforts of our emergency responders and academic partners. However, absent publications like Fire Engineering to ensure our concerns could be heard, this endeavor may have failed. I want to thank Fire Engineering for supporting these efforts and for providing the amplification of the full “Marshall Stack” that only Fire Engineering can deliver.
Chris G. Greene
Captain (Ret.)
Seattle (WA) Fire Department
REPORTS OF … DOES IT MATTER?
Dispatch sets off the tones in the firehouse. It’s for a Box Alarm- Structure Fire. It’s a two-story woodframe dwelling with heavy fire on the first floor and smoke throughout. While you are getting dressed out, dispatch provides more information: There is an occupant trapped on the second floor. While en route, you see multiple reports on the computer that the victim is in the A-B bedroom. Once on scene, the engine company does its job of protecting the search and the truck performs search and rescue operations. Crews perform a targeted search on the bedroom but find no victim. The search team extends the search to the rest of the second floor, which is also clear. A primary search of the first floor and basement proves negative as well. A secondary search begins, and that’s negative. No one is found—no one ended up being home.
Next shift, the tones get set off in the same manner, another Box Alarm- Structure Fire. This time, it’s a ranch on a slab. Dispatch doesn’t have any reports other than a possible fire. While en route, you receive no updates. You arrive to find a single-story home with a couple of rooms going in the rear. No one is outside, there are no cars in the driveway, and it is midday. Operations get underway, and crews find a victim in the front bedroom. They remove the victim and the fire is extinguished.
A month later, the tones drop for yet another Box Alarm-Structure Fire. Dispatch advises it’s a 2 1/2-story wood-frame building with a fire in the basement extending to the first floor. While you are en route, dispatch advises that a neighbor is reporting, “Everyone is out of the house.” You arrive on scene to find smoke throughout and fire coming from the basement windows. The occupants are outside with their kids and report all their family is out. The engine company begins extinguishment, and the truck company starts a search. It turns out the children were having a sleepover, and their friend was found on the second floor during a search.
Above are three examples of what fire companies could experience when they pull up to a working fire. There could be reports of victims, no reports at all, or reports that everyone is out. All three of these could be and have been inaccurate on numerous occasions. This should not change our priority of life. We need to prioritize search on every fire until we can’t due to structural instability.
Here’s a table from the Firefighter Rescue Survey-The First 3,000 Rescues.
| ON-SCENE REPORT TYPE | REPORTS VS. TOTAL RECORDED RESCUES |
|---|---|
| Yes: Reports of victim(s) | 67% |
| Yes: Report that everyone is out. | 3% |
| No: No reports at all | 29% |
More than 100 victims were found in working fires with a report of, “Everyone is out.” This could happen for multiple reasons. The trauma of watching their home burn can cause people to forget that their kids have friends sleeping over. They may simply be unaware that the oldest came home from college during the night. In the worst case, an eyewitness may be attempting to hide evidence of a crime and intentionally gives a negative report. These reasons alone should be enough for us to perform a search on every working fire.
Fifty-eight percent of incidents that had reports of “Everyone is out” were made by either family or a person from the same fire building. What do we do with this information? Some information may not be bad, but we cannot be sure of the validity of what we’re told. This is why when we hear these reports it’s best not to repeat them. The reasoning behind this is it keeps everyone on the fireground with the default of expecting victims. Repeating a report could drop the tempo, mindset, and even operational strategy.
If it is our policy not to perform a search because of reports that everyone is out, then we are simply failing those we swore to protect. When we hear these reports, is it good information? Possibly. If we keep that information to ourselves and don’t repeat it over the radio, this keeps our tempo and mindset consistent with being defaulted to someone is inside.
The building is not clear until we (the fire department) say it’s clear. For more information, go to firefighterrescue-survey.com.
Jeffrey Bryant Jr.
Firefighter
Aurora (IL) Fire Department
FIRE BUILDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTROL
When we go through the academy, it’s always drilled into our heads to keep nonessential personnel out of the building and especially off the stairs during live fire conditions. I have seen what we call “freelancing.” These members always end up on the stairs, attempting to get a look at the fire conditions or to get the chance to get on the line. This is a dangerous practice. Too many people on the stairs can completely block egress from upper floors and can overload the stairs. This could create a collapse hazard.
During my years as a junior officer or a junior ranking chief, I would take over the position of “traffic cop” at the front door and only send more personnel into the building when someone inside needed a new bottle or a breather would come out. Too many firefighters on the fire floor or stairs leading to it create traffic jams for operations on the floors above. The worst practice is to allow freelancing and let personnel wander into the building.
Instead, maintain a strong staging area with a strong staging area manager who will only let firefighters leave the area when operations calls for them. Under no circumstance should you ever overload a fire building or allow freelancing. Fire conditions can change in an instance, and when the building is overcrowded, the original teams cannot get out safely, not to mention any firefighters who wandered into the building and where they may be located. Remember to keep good accountability of where your members are operating at all times.
Ken Robertson
Ex-Chief
Garfield (NJ) Fire Department
