eMotorWerks JuiceBox Pro 40 gets UL Listed

AUG 10 2017 BY TOM MOLOUGHNEY 17

The JuiceBox Pro 40 EVSE now has UL listing

A little over two years ago I posted a review of the JuiceBox Pro 40 EVSE from eMotorWerks here on InsideEVs. At the time eMotorWerks was a small company based in California, just beginning to become known in the EVSE industry.

I was impressed with the features the JuiceBox offered, particularly the Wi-Fi connectivity and the JuiceNet app. The app allowed users to view their charging activity in real time, adjust the amount of energy their car was getting, access records of past charging sessions and set up notifications. At the time, it was the only residential EVSE that allowed this kind of connectivity and access to energy use, and it was also one of the few EVSEs that was also available in a plug-in variety.

However there was one drawback about the EVSE that detractors frequently brought up. The unit wasn’t Underwriters Laboratory (UL) approved. Despite quality and safety assurances from eMotorWerks personnel, the fact that the unit didn’t have UL certification caused a lot of potential buyers to pass on purchasing one.

The UL certification can be an expensive and time-consuming process, and small companies just starting out sometimes pass on it until they have the working capitol to apply. Also, if they make any changes to the unit they then need to get it re-certified, so often a small company may wait a while before applying for certification because if they plan on refining the unit a couple times in it’s early stages of availability.

I personally used a JuiceBox Pro 40 for two years to charge my EVs and never had a problem. However, now the concern of a possible lack of safety can be laid to rest as eMotorWerks has recently announced that the JuiceBox Pro 40 EVSE passed Underwriters Laboratory testing and is now UL listed.

This is newsworthy because the JuiceBox has become a very popular EVSE, and the fact that it wasn’t UL listed has been a hotly debated topic here and on many online EV forums.

In addition to the recently-updated JuiceNet app, eMotorWerks continues to innovate. They recently partnered with Share&Charge for the first peer to peer network, allowing JuiceBox owners to rent out their charging station and get paid to do so.

Five popular EVSEs side by side. From left to right: Aerovironment, ChargePoint, ClipperCreek, Bosch & JuiceBox

Categories: Charging

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

17 Comments on "eMotorWerks JuiceBox Pro 40 gets UL Listed"

newest oldest most voted

Nice!

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Good for them!

They have good products. I have the old school 60A that I get 40A (limited by the on-board charger) charge rate.

I also have an OenEVSE 40A for backup.

Thank you for your kind words 🙂

I’m not as impressed with UL as I used to be. My 6 year old Schneider Electric (aka Square D) 30 amp wallbox overheated when I first charged my Roadster to it since it had to charge for 8 hours.

A call to their engineering dept. put one of their application engineers on the line who said “we don’t care since it works fine with a Leaf and a Volt” (- big deal – they charged at 18 or 15 amps at the time, for not as long).

I had to beef it up myself to make it run cool.

So, not taking anything away from this fancy juice box, but my wallbox was also “UL Recognized” so, its pretty faint praise in my book.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

The Volt’s charger I believe was also UL listed but got too hot…
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1074419_gm-well-replace-chevrolet-volt-120-volt-charging-units

Oh, that was a different issue that I believe GM was totally blameless. The original VOLTEC for the early 2011 volts had a molded plug at the end of a #16 AWG pigtale. The owner’s manual insisted the owner have the proposed receptacle this was to be plugged in at be professionally inspected, and replaced if necessary. The original unit I had used for a few years at my home and it was perfectly fine at the maximum setting of 12 amperes. But apparently there were some dangerous situations at some houses where they were plugged into worn outlets and the owner’s manual directive to only use 8 amperes in that case was not followed. Chevy through a recall insisted on destroying all of those units, replacing them with a unit with a pigtail using #14 AWG cord. (In other words – to avoid bad publicity – GM got rid of perfectly fine charger cords and replaced them by cords which would heat sink away heat from the defective outlet.) I’m not aware of any lawsuits, but GM would have been held harmless by the directive in the owner’s manual. My Schneider Electric wallbox was a different case. The FEED… Read more »

I got my first JuiceBox back when you had the option to put it together yourself. It came as a kit, and you assembled the parts.

It was a valuable way to learn the inner workings of an EVSE.

“UL Seal of Approval”.

They don’t like that when you talk that way, or at least they didn’t like it for their first 100 years…. UL doesn’t “APPROVE” of anything.

A “UL LISTING” simply meant that testing the product met MINIMUM safety standards. It did not mean the thing was good for any particular purpose that a customer might use it for.

It is analogous to an “AAA” listing of a motel. It doesn’t mean the thing is 5-star – it just means the joynt meets MINIUMUM standards of cleanliness.

So, a UL listing might mean this thing is somewhat LESS likely to cause a fire all by itself.

Bill, this is helpful to some that have strict building codes that won’t allow non UL products or make them not qualify for existing credits. Others also like to know some official agency tested the product and approved it.

Precisely, I suspect it’s also beneficial to have it UL listed should there ever be a fire as a result of the unit. I don’t think my home owners insurance carrier would be all that pleased if I built some off the shelf EVSE that caught fire and burned my house down.

Ah, the often repeated myth that somehow your homeowner’s policy doesn’t cover you if you plug in something that isn’t UL listed.

No idea why people don’t actually read their policy instead of making claims that have no basis in fact.

Pay special attention to the section about taking due care of your property to prevent fires.

Plugging in some sketchy device which overheats and catches fire might be seen as negligence.

You have a strong argument against such claims if the device is UL listed.

I checked the File number on UL’s website. It is listed. That’s how I verify a listing.

I use the Leviton unit EVB 45 with my Volt, 2012, 49K miles and 41 gal gas used!

Great Car and ESEV unit. 5+ years usage, 3 plug-ins a day and zero problems.

Obviously Leviton is UL certified. What that does is to insure that chenges are not made with out UL being involved. That keeps the unit meeting the UL Standard.

You must be new here. You aren’t supposed to like Volts…just pure BEVs and then preferably only Tesla.

It’s more of a case of puzzlement as to why someone would brag that they only used their gas engine for less than 2% of their miles driven.

Almost as silly as people thinking it might be good to tow a generator behind an EV.

Buying all that complexity for no good reason, other than to assuage their irrational range anxiety.

If you only use 41 gallons of gas in a Volt over 45k miles of driving you bought the wrong vehicle.

It’s no different than Tesla fans crowing about the supercharging network.

How often do you use it. Almost never? Then why are you so insistent that it’s essential?

In both cases the answer is that there are use cases for which supercharger or a range extender make your trip better. Even if you rarely use them they provide value to you.

Now I kinda regret that I bought one only a few months before this version came out. Not because I care about UL, but because I missed out on the blinkenlights.