Title 20 energy standards?

[D.P. Roberts]

I think the article mentioned that a third party would do the testing, unless the company involved was ISO 9001 certified, in which case they could test themselves.

Assuming that there is a standard, eventually, I wonder what the long-terms effects will be. For one thing, manufacturing costs will go up, which of course means higher prices for us. On the other hand, if there's a simple way of comparing the energy efficiency of different models, manufacturers will make them more energy efficient, which results in lower operational costs. Manufacturers might start having smaller lineups - fewer models means less testing. Less efficient spas will be dropped altogether. Smaller manufacturers will probably have a harder time of it, but those selling spas made in their garage will be entirely out of business. It will be interesting.

[Tom]

I think the article mentioned that a third party would do the testing, unless the company involved was ISO 9001 certified, in which case they could test themselves.

DP, could you cite the article, please?  Since the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency in presently working to develop energy standards for Canadian hot tubs, I'm interested.  Thanks!

I'll add another note to the idea of third-party testing.  A manufacturer might be able to send  one representative product sample to an approved test facility.  Since all of our Arctic spas are made in much the same manner, the results of that single test would be generalized to the entire product line.  A second sample would cover our entire Coyote line.   This is more reasonable than testing every model by every maker, though IMO many of the  concerns expressed about self-reporting would apply to this method.

Even though there are concerns over self-reporting, sample testing, and wholesale testing, I think that any of those methods represents an improvement over a totally unregulated system and provides potential benefit to the consumer (and to the environment as less efficient models drop out).

[Mendocino101]

I think this thread points to just how many things are up in the air regarding the whole process and that is why I still believe that it is still a long way away from becoming standard. California did this with pools and multi speed pumps for energy savings and I am sure they thought at the time to pull spas along without realizing that pools and their large body of water were actually easier to regulate particularly since they were only dealing with pump efficiency and not insulation, heating and filtering in the same way a spa works. I also do not think at the time they had an idea about how many makers they were.

[Tom]

Texas seems to be moving towards regulation...

Edited:  Hmm, that's not the Texas one... can't find it now.  But this article (below) says 1 week to test a unit (don't know why, CEC says 72 hours   and surely setup/takedown time shouldn't take 5 days?
http://www.poolspanews.com/2007/091/091title20.html

Canada is looking at the issue (and the results will apply to any hot tub imported into Canada).  I think we are at least a year away from even having an agreed testing standard, and though we seem to be ahead of many states, we will no doubt coordinate with what's going on down there.

[Mendocino101]

Just to add to my earlier post, what the CEC did with pool motors was to mandate that starting next year all new pools and refurbished pools must have a multi speed pump on them but the heaters are not regulated and again I think the spas got thrown into the mix as at the time it might have seem to be a logical and easy add on.

[D.P. Roberts]

DP, could you cite the article, please?  Since the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency in presently working to develop energy standards for Canadian hot tubs, I'm interested.  Thanks!

Here you go: http://www.poolspanews.com/2007/091/091title20.html

Tom - the Canadian system is mentioned in the article as well - if Canada has its own system, and it differs from California's system, that's a problem. Plus, lots of states are adopting the California standards, in whole or part, which means 50 different standards here. It could be a mess. I agree, though, that a basic standard is needed - as the article says, a hot tub immediately becomes the biggest energy hog in the house.

[D.P. Roberts]

I was just looking at D1's web site and noticed that they have energy usage guide for each of their tubs - based on "California Energy Commission Protocol". It shows the testing parameters, and monthly cost estimates at various electric rates.

[Tom]

Here you go: http://www.poolspanews.com/2007/091/091title20.html

Tom - the Canadian system is mentioned in the article as well - if Canada has its own system, and it differs from California's system, that's a problem. Plus, lots of states are adopting the California standards, in whole or part, which means 50 different standards here. It could be a mess. I agree, though, that a basic standard is needed - as the article says, a hot tub immediately becomes the biggest energy hog in the house.

Thank you.  That's the same article I cited, with a shorter URL.

Canada doesn't have its own regulations just yet.  According to Renata Mortazavi, quoted in the article, the next step is a task force to determine appropriate testing standards and procedures.  This group will consist of members from government, science, industry, manufacturers, consumers groups, and other interested parties.   One difference between our proposed standards is at the OEE is suggesting an ambient test temperature more appropriate to our climate.

This is the first time I've been involved in the regulatory process and it's quite interesting.

[WannaSoakNow]

Sounds very resonable...Query, who pay's for the regional inspectors?