210.11(C)(3) Exception

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

This is bizzar. Isn't the CEC legal and enforceable California code? Nobody tells me anything.

Edit: By the way, wasn't it 40 lumins per watt? Has it changed simply to insure that a different technology doesn't answer the requirement?

Sometimes I just hate the freaks that run things here.

[ April 09, 2005, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[gndrod]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

Hang in there Sam, I was referring to the CEC Energy conservation site. I received online termination in Dec. 04.

The CEC is still there to take hard earned money. It is hard to find an incandescent above 18 lpw. (low volt halogen) The 40 lpw applies to 15W or less but an off-shelf spiral 15W gives a 60 lpw output.

The fluorescent high efficacy still applies to kitchen, bath rm, laundry-utility and garage (and throw in motion sensors if not HI-e if I read the CEC 2005 compliance requirements correctly) effective Oct 1, 2005.
Even line volt tracks are not high efficacy according to 130(c)3 2005. (impacts the low V xfmr units too) Oh well, like I thought, expect two or 4 pin requirements next cycle.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.11(C)(3) Exception

I'm still looking for 2001.

Edit: It get the impression from a couple state sites that it would be there but somehow they're not all that organized and I can't find it.

Edit: I see, they're gonna crank us up to 60 lumins per watt. At least the stuffs not very expensive.

[ April 10, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: physis ]