Hyundai, Chevrolet and 2 others preliminary evaluation PE24028
Electrical arcing and thermal events, potentially leading to fires, while utilizing Enel X Way USA, LLC's JuiceBox residential charger.. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the electrical on 4 model years (2018–2023). Opened Oct 3, 2024, closed Jun 5, 2025 after 8 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedOn October 3, 2024, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened PE24028 to investigate alleged failures of Enel X Way's JuiceBox Level 2 residential EV chargers. The allegations were described as thermal incidents and electrical malfunctions, which could trip the circuit breakers in Juicebox owners’ homes and disrupt electric vehicle charge cycles. On October 2, 2024, Enel X Way posted on its website that Enel X Way North America would cease operations in the United States and Canada on October 11, 2024. The closure would potentially impact the charging app and supporting software. ODI sent Enel X Way an Information Request (IR) letter on October 21, 2024. Enel X Way provided an incomplete response to the IR on December 9, 2024. Enel X Way later provided a complete response to the IR on January 24, 2025. ODI reviewed Enel X Way’s IR submissions to determine whether further action is required. Based on ODI’s analysis, there was no clear trend in the cause of the failures described in customer complaints and warranty reports. Additionally, there have been no recent reports alleging safety issues. The available information does not warrant further action at this time. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor for any safety trends and reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in this Closing Resume, go to NHTSA.gov.
A Preliminary Evaluation is the first formal stage: NHTSA has decided the complaints and other information it screened are worth a closer look, and asks the manufacturer for its own data on the condition. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2024 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2024 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2024 | 2 files 12 |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2024 | 9 files 123456789 |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2024 | 3 files 123 |
| Filed document | INOV | 2024 | |
| Filed document | INCV | 2024 |
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What owners had already reported
Source: complaints on file the day it openedWhen NHTSA opened this on Oct 3, 2024, owners had filed 819 complaints with the agency about the model years above. Owner complaints are the agency’s main early signal: ODI screens them, and a Preliminary Evaluation is usually where a pattern in them ends up.
This is what the complaint file held on that date, not a claim about which reports prompted the investigation — NHTSA’s complaint records carry no investigation number, so nobody can make that link from the data alone. The opening resume linked above names the reports ODI itself cited. Complaint records on this site begin with 2016.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themA vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs PE24028 a recall?
No. A preliminary evaluation is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is PE24028 still open?
No. It closed on Jun 5, 2025 without a recall.
Which vehicles does PE24028 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 4 model years: 2018 Chevrolet Bolt EV, 2018 Chrysler Pacifica, 2022 Hyundai Ioniq 5, 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 6. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.