Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Link to proposed revisions
Here is a link to the proposed Title 20 revisions on the CEC website: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008rulemaking/documents/2008-05-15_workshop/other/PGE_Proposal_Informaiton_Template_for_Residential_Pool_Pump_Measure_Revisions.pdf
Proposed revisions to Title 20
At a May 15, 2008 California Energy Commission (CEC) workshop, representatives of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) proposed some revisions the the wording of Title 20 as it applies to residential pool filtration pumps. The intent of these revisions is to clarify, given the benefit of multiple interpretations, the original motive behind the drafting of Title 20.
First, the PG&E team proposes that the wording be changed so that Title 20 explicitly includes replacement motors (as well as entire pumps). In my reading, the current wording already makes this clear, but some have argued that the wording is ambiguous.
Second, the PG&E proposal recognizes that the current two speed timer requirement is, in retrospect, misguided. As the proposed revisions make clear, a two speed timer should only be required when a two speed pump is used. The revisions acknowledge that there are approved cases where a two speed pump, and hence a two speed controler would not be used. For instance, a small single speed pump (of less than 1 hp) would require a timer capable of operating only the one speed pump that it is used with. Additionally, some pools can use multi-speed pumps. These pumps require a compatible multi speed capable controller. The proposed revisions reflect this real world nuance.
I applaud the proposed revisions. I believe that the clarification they would provide would prove useful in getting more contractors and homeowners to follow what I believe is best practice and conform to the intent of the law.
First, the PG&E team proposes that the wording be changed so that Title 20 explicitly includes replacement motors (as well as entire pumps). In my reading, the current wording already makes this clear, but some have argued that the wording is ambiguous.
Second, the PG&E proposal recognizes that the current two speed timer requirement is, in retrospect, misguided. As the proposed revisions make clear, a two speed timer should only be required when a two speed pump is used. The revisions acknowledge that there are approved cases where a two speed pump, and hence a two speed controler would not be used. For instance, a small single speed pump (of less than 1 hp) would require a timer capable of operating only the one speed pump that it is used with. Additionally, some pools can use multi-speed pumps. These pumps require a compatible multi speed capable controller. The proposed revisions reflect this real world nuance.
I applaud the proposed revisions. I believe that the clarification they would provide would prove useful in getting more contractors and homeowners to follow what I believe is best practice and conform to the intent of the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)