Title 20 energy standards?

[D.P. Roberts]

There's some info being posted on one of the other forums about the California Title 20 energy standards for hot tubs. While it sounds like the standards might be in the process of being loosened, it sounds like some brands and manufacturers have some tubs that meet the standard (147 brands from 11 manufacturers to be precise). Does anyone know which makes & models currently meet the standard?

[hottubdan]

These are the brands listed:

Artesian
Bullfrog
Cal Spa
clearwater
D1
Hydropool
Master
soft tub
 Thermal
Hot spring
Tiger River

It is a self reporting process.  Others may qualify but don't choose to.

You can download the complete list @ http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products/

[Mendocino101]

I think the reason you do not see more makers on the list is nothing is final and much of the process and standards are still up in the air, Do not be surprised to if the whole program is scraped or put on hold.

[webboy]

I don't believe these energy standards will go away; they will probably become more of the norm in the future..., that being said. There are some huge discrepancies in the data. This exact concept has been hashed out here before.

[Mendocino101]

I don't believe these energy standards will go away; they will probably become more of the norm in the future..., that being said. There are some huge discrepancies in the data. This exact concept has been hashed out here before.

My reason for my statement is that I have spoken to several makers and have asked about this and it appears that at this time there is no conclusive standard and that there is still much research to be be done before a uniform standard will be in place and that it appears to be a long way down the road.

[D.P. Roberts]

I would agree that the standards need to change. For example, there's a bias against smaller spas (if two models have the same circ pump, the larger one is considered to be more efficient since it uses less energy per gallon). The extensive testing looks really expensive too.

However, the table sure shows us some interesting data. For example, look at the R values for the spas listed. Hot Spring (R-25) and Artesian (R-30) top the list, no surprise there. But Bullfrog Spas have an R value of 6.5? And Dimension One has an R-value of 6? That's lower than Thermospas!

[In Canada eh]

However, the table sure shows us some interesting data. For example, look at the R values for the spas listed. Hot Spring (R-25) and Artesian (R-30) top the list, no surprise there. But Bullfrog Spas have an R value of 6.5? And Dimension One has an R-value of 6? That's lower than Thermospas!

My guess on this would be Hot Spring and Artesian are quoting the insulating method while Bullfrog and D1 are using the actual tub measurement

[Mendocino101]

D.P.
you are right about the smaller tubs and this is why there is still much work to be done before it becomes law, I also do not think any of the ratings are being done by a non-competing third party, I think the manufactures simply summit their ratings at this time and this is not to knock any maker it is just that right now it appears that makers are rating spas based on what they feel the interpretation of the standards are. I do not think any spas out there will be a 30 and than a 6 when tested in the same manner.

[Spatech_tuo]

D.P.
you are right about the smaller tubs and this is why there is still much work to be done before it becomes law, I also do not think any of the ratings are being done by a non-competing third party, I think the manufactures simply summit their ratings at this time and this is not to knock any maker it is just that right now it appears that makers are rating spas based on what they feel the interpretation of the standards are. I do not think any spas out there will be a 30 and than a 6 when tested in the same manner.

I was under the impression that the manufacturers were having to send in the individual tubs to be tested before they each pass. We'll definitely be hearing more on this.

I think this might be kind of like the "no smoking inside public places" ban where it started in California a decade ago or so and slowly moves east and north!!

[webboy]

Unfortunately no maker sends their spas in (I believe that will be a cold day in hell when all manufactures would do something like that). The test are done at the manufacturers, where there are to many uncontrolled variables....

[hottubdan]

To me that is the major problem, self reporting.
 :-/

[Spatech_tuo]

Unfortunately no maker sends their spas in [glow](I believe that will be a cold day in hell when all manufactures would do something like that). [/glow]The test are done at the manufacturers, where there are to many uncontrolled variables....

They would do that if California said "Do this or don't sell in our state"!!!

[webboy]

They would do that if California said "Do this or don't sell in our state"!!!

Very TRUE!!

[Tom]

To me that is the major problem, self reporting.
 :-/

I have to disagree with the idea of sending spas in for testing.  Think about the logistics and cost of shipping spas to a central (or even regional) test center.  There are some 140 manufacturers in NA.  Let's say a conservative average of 10 different models per maker, about 1400 different models.  Allow 24 hours to drain an old one, move in a new one, fill it, and bring it up to temperature (assuming that all the units can come up to temperature within that time).  A minimum of 72 hours to test (the Alberta Research Council tests ranged from 60 to 120 hours).   That's 5600 days or over 15 years.  Well, test them 15 at a time and you could do it in one year, 180 at a time and you could theoretically get it done in a month.   Add up  the cost of the facilities, staff, administration-- heck, we could all build our spas with no insulation at all and still save the country money over such a system.    And who would bear the cost of providing and transporting the units?  The manufacturer.   This might prove an excessive burden for smaller outfits.

Note: edited to conform to the 72 hour test period required by Title 20! - Tom

The test are done at the manufacturers, where there are to

• many uncontrolled variables....

It's quite feasible (though expensive for smaller outfits) to make a controlled environmental chamber capable of handling a few units at a time. Obviously, there would have to be standards which those chambers would have to meet.  I think this would easily overcome the above objection.

Another suggested idea: test inspectors.   The manufacturer does the testing; regional inspectors go around periodically and inspect the test facility, review the test procedures, and perhaps validate the most recent results.     With 140 sites, a team of inspectors could do annual inspections.  Foolproof?  Hardly.  But perhaps more feasible than central testing.  Along with this might go penalties for misrepresentation in reported data.

One last thought on the importance of volume.  Which is most energy efficient in standby mode, a spa that uses 484 Watts per hour or one which uses 409 W/h?  Obviously, given  no other information, the second one.  End of story, some might say.

But suppose the first spa is 1500L and the second is 1200L.  You might reconsider your conclusion, as the first one takes roughly 320 Watts/h to maintain the temperature of a cubic meter of water while the second one needs 340 Watts/h to do exactly the same job.    On these (hypothetical) figures, the first spa is more energy efficient.

[hottubdan]

I have to disagree with the idea of sending spas in for testing.  Think about the logistics and cost of shipping spas to a central (or even regional) test center.  There are some 140 manufacturers in NA.  Let's say a conservative average of 10 different models per maker, about 1400 different models.  Allow 24 hours to drain an old one, move in a new one, fill it, and bring it up to temperature (assuming that all the units can come up to temperature within that time).  A minimum of 48 hours to test (the Alberta Research Council tests ranged from 60 to 120 hours).   That's 5200 days or 11.5 years.  Well, test them 12 at a time and you could do it in one year, 144 at a time and you could theoretically get it done in a month.   Add up  the cost of the facilities, staff, administration-- heck, we could all build our spas with no insulation at all and still save the country money over such a system.    And who would bear the cost of providing and transporting the units?  The manufacturer.   This might prove an excessive burden for smaller outfits.


It's quite feasible (though expensive for smaller outfits) to make a controlled environmental chamber capable of handling a few units at a time. Obviously, there would have to be standards which those chambers would have to meet.  I think this would easily overcome the above objection.

Another suggested idea: test inspectors.   The manufacturer does the testing; regional inspectors go around periodically and inspect the test facility, review the test procedures, and perhaps validate the most recent results.     With 140 sites, a team of inspectors could do annual inspections.  Foolproof?  Hardly.  But perhaps more feasible than central testing.  Along with this might go penalties for misrepresentation in reported data.

One last thought on the importance of volume.  Which is most energy efficient in standby mode, a spa that uses 484 Watts per hour or one which uses 409 W/h?  Obviously, given  no other information, the second one.  End of story, some might say.

But suppose the first spa is 1500L and the second is 1200L.  You might reconsider your conclusion, as the first one takes roughly 320 Watts/h to maintain the temperature of a cubic meter of water while the second one needs 340 Watts/h to do exactly the same job.    On these (hypothetical) figures, the first spa is more energy efficient.

Tom,

I value your perspective and opinions.

Trust and verify is the key here.

Currently, as I understand it, there is no verification process.  

Your proposal of inspectors makes sense.