California Energy Commission

[Water Boy]

I went and checked it today, and noticed there have been some new spas added to the list since the last time I checked it, including Arctic Spas(Blue Falls Manufacturing.)

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/excel_based_files/Pool_Products/

There are some very interesting numbers on the R values for the spas and for the cover R values. According to their tests, they are saying that the Artesian and Coast spas have the best R values, where as D1 has one of the lowest.

I know this test is not scientific by any means, especially since someone here once posted that the tests are self reported, but I find it interesting to say the least to see where the TP spas stack up against the FF spas for R value. At the same time, there have been posters on here before that think that this list is the end all be all of energy efficient spas.  

I tried to figure out where I could find how they determined a spas R value, but I couldn’t find that. I also noticed some spas have stars by them, but again, I couldn’t find what that detailed.

[Spatech_tuo]

Those are self reported numbers and those R values are from who knows where.

Check out how D1 has spa R values of 6 for all their spas (not counting swim spas), Master has 12.8, Clearwater has 20 and Artesian has 22. Those R values are all over the board yet they all report similar standby watts. What does that tell you?

[Summitman]

Those are self reported numbers and those R values are from who knows where.

Check out how D1 has spa R values of 6 for all their spas (not counting swim spas), Master has 12.8, Clearwater has 20 and Artesian has 22. Those R values are all over the board yet they all report similar standby watts. What does that tell you?

Exactly,

This proves what many have said all along, the CEC admission standards are a joke.  

[Vanguard]

Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.

[MarKee]

Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.

I agree.  

[Water Boy]

Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.

I know of at least one company that had third party testing done a few years back!

The problem is everyone that didnt sell that brand automatically discredited as BS. So I guess some people wont believe anything, even when it is in writing from a third party!

I agree that the CEC is pretty much a joke, especially seeing some of the R values of certain spas. But, I do know for a fact that there are salespeople of the world selling spas based off of this report. There was a dealer on here a while back that said he would show customers this report and if the spa they were looking at wasn’t on there, it was the end all be all. Now, most of the spas out there today are on that list, but there are still several that aren’t. It really kind of defeats the purpose of having this list when manufactures can self report there data. They make it sound so strict that spas and appliances have to meet these standards, but yet they are self reported from the manufactures. Why don’t they just add every spa to the list and call it good!

[Spatech_tuo]

Exactly,

This proves what many have said all along, the CEC admission standards are a joke.  

It’s not the standards that are a joke but the manner in which the data is captured, by the spa company itself.

It's sad that a few of the companies on that report whose spas regularly get complaints for energy efficiency will use that report to their benefit. I've even seen it touted by someone on this site as verification of a certain brand that I wonder about. I'm still hopeful that eventually this may become the start of something that will be require verification and may even be tightened. We shall see.

[Summitman]

It’s not the standards that are a joke but the manner in which the data is captured, by the spa company itself.

It's sad that a few of the companies on that report whose spas regularly get complaints for energy efficiency will use that report to their benefit. I've even seen it touted by someone on this site as verification of a certain brand that I wonder about. I'm still hopeful that eventually this may become the start of something that will be require verification and may even be tightened. We shall see.

The key to my statement is "admission".  They let these companies self report, I have no problem with the bar they have set, I have a problem with how the spas are tested.

[Eco_Spas]

Until they come up with verifiable standards and require third party testing, the CEC certification is useless.

There was a third party test done in Aug 08, at the University of Polytechnics California. Only 27 manufacturers showed up and this is why:  I couldnt post the entire file so if you want it I will email it to you
Table 1: Summary of (nontemperaturenormalized)
test results
Spa
Tested Volume (gal)  Stand[ch8208]by Power (Watts)          % above or below
                                Measured         Allowable
A          185                 141                    162                    -13%
B          264                 163                    206                    [ch8208]21%
C          398                 197                    271                    [ch8208]27%
D          282                 320                    215                     49%
E           440                338                    289                      17%
F           200                218                    171                      28%
G          300                192                    224                      [ch8208]14%
H          150                 190                    141                      34%
I           370                249                    258                        [ch8208]3%
J           334                479                    241                       99%
K          142                  81                    136                      [ch8208]40%
L          220                  95                     182                      [ch8208]48%
M         300                 119                    224                      [ch8208]47%
N         235                 277                    190                        46%
O         345                 330                    246                       34%
P         247                 238                     197                       21%
Q         439                437                     289                        51%
R         296                411                     222                        85%
S         293                318                     220                        44%
T         150                 140                    141                          0%
U         470                 304                    302                          1%
V         350                 136                    248                        [ch8208]45%
W        382                 226                     263                       [ch8208]14%
X         422                 313                     281                        11%
Y         200                 270                     171                        58%
Z         260                 223                     204                          9%
AA       219                 251                     181                         38%

[Eco_Spas]

As you can see only 9 spas actually passed CEC standards and 3 of them  K, L, and M are Softtubs with no heater. Now maybe you can see why so few people know about this "third party" test.

[Water Boy]

There was a third party test done in Aug 08, at the University of Polytechnics California. Only 27 manufacturers showed up and this is why:  I couldnt post the entire file so if you want it I will email it to you
Table 1: Summary of (nontemperaturenormalized)
test results
Spa
Tested Volume (gal)  Stand[ch8208]by Power (Watts)          % above or below
                                Measured         Allowable
A          185                 141                    162                    -13%
B          264                 163                    206                    [ch8208]21%
C          398                 197                    271                    [ch8208]27%
D          282                 320                    215                     49%
E           440                338                    289                      17%
F           200                218                    171                      28%
G          300                192                    224                      [ch8208]14%
H          150                 190                    141                      34%
I           370                249                    258                        [ch8208]3%
J           334                479                    241                       99%
K          142                  81                    136                      [ch8208]40%
L          220                  95                     182                      [ch8208]48%
M         300                 119                    224                      [ch8208]47%
N         235                 277                    190                        46%
O         345                 330                    246                       34%
P         247                 238                     197                       21%
Q         439                437                     289                        51%
R         296                411                     222                        85%
S         293                318                     220                        44%
T         150                 140                    141                          0%
U         470                 304                    302                          1%
V         350                 136                    248                        [ch8208]45%
W        382                 226                     263                       [ch8208]14%
X         422                 313                     281                        11%
Y         200                 270                     171                        58%
Z         260                 223                     204                          9%
AA       219                 251                     181                         38%

Eco,

Could you please email that to me. Please check your PM's. Thanks!

[Spatech_tuo]

As you can see only 9 spas actually passed CEC standards and 3 of them  K, L, and M are Softtubs with no heater. Now maybe you can see why so few people know about this "third party" test.

I believe what you are saying is that this was a third party test to set a baseline so manufacturers could see where they were. They then had to go get their product up to the standards but what I know is the final numbers were self reported, not through this third party.

From those numbers I see letters D, J, N, Q, R, S, Y ... all failed miserably yet I'll bet some of those made it on the passing list. Sure they could have made changes but until that final list is third party tested what does this initial third party test really show other than many had a LOT of work to do and while I'm sure some changes were made ...

[Eco_Spas]

This Cal-Poly test was done after most of the self reported results.

[Spatech_tuo]

This Cal-Poly test was done after most of the self reported results.

So if this test was done AFTER the self reported CEC numbers it shows those self reported numbers were fudged a bit some. Big shocker.

[Shaamus]

I guess natural gas is the future of heating hot tubs.  A lot of tubs did pass because the APSP has negotiated with PG+E for a decrease of 10-20% in the amount of energy tubs get charged during the test (http://www.apsp.org/188/index.aspx).