DOCKETED  
Docket Number:  23-FDAS -01 
Project Title:  Pool Controls Rulemaking  
TN #:  254738  
Document Title:  Final Response to Comments Matrix  
Description:  The document contains the final CEC response to comments 
matrix for pool controls.  
Filer:  Nicholaus Struven  
Organization:  California Energy Commission  
Submitter Role:  Commission Staff   
Submission Date:  2/29/2024 11:13:09 AM  
Docketed Date:  2/29/2024  
 Page  1 of 79   Flexible Demand Appliance Standards for Pool Controls  
Title 20, Sections 1690 - 1697 
Response to Comments  
45-Day comment period: February  24 – April 10, 2023  
Public Hearing: April 11, 2023 
First 15-Day comment period: June 23 – July 10 , 2023  
Second 15-Day comment period: September  1 – 18, 2023  
 
TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249066  SkyCentrics  
3/8/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  
 
Tristan de Frondeville  
Founder & CEO, 
SkyCentrics  
Berkeley, CA  
 1. The first mention of smart grid or open standards  is on page 17. Ironically, it 
is the first in the list of "Data Submittal Requirements" but there is no 
mention of WHICH Smart Grid Open Standards in which  the commission  
has an interest?  But as the first item in the list, it seems important, so 
shouldn't the commission list smart grid open standards in which it is 
interested in having the OEM participate?  The original  2022  release  of this 
rulemaking  spoke  about  the schedule  and also about how there would be 
open standard communication to the pool control. But, as we discussed in 
our initial comments on the rulemaking, the open standard communication 
mention ed in the 2022 document was TCP/IP,  which as SkyCentrics 
submitted at the time, was not a very useful open standard since it allowed 
communication , but it allowed every OEM to have a different instantiation of 
the language/protocol  that they would use, and  the smart grid signals and 
responses that they  might  implement,  which  would  create  a Tower  of 
Babble  situation,  as opposed  to an open standard which creates common 
language/protocols and common signals  and responses.  
 1. Comment acknowledged,  and some changes were made . Staff 
agrees with this comment in part and in response to it added a 
definition of “open standards” to section 1691 (a) in the regulatory 
language proposed in the first 15 -day notice. Staff appreciates 
the other  comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter.  However, s taff is following the development of 
several communication pathways and has determined that at 
least  for now , given the dynamic nature of this communication 
technology, it is best to remain  technology neutral  in the 
regulation and permit the use of communications device s that 
possess  an acceptable minimum communication ability.  
Accordingly, t he regulatory language was amended  in the first 15 -
day notice to include  a list of open standards  but does not 
designate one standard in particular . 
 
 Page  2 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249066  SkyCentrics  
3/8/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  
 
Tristan de Frondeville  
Founder & CEO, 
SkyCentrics  
Berkeley, CA  
 2. All of this sequence of efforts to create a grid -responsive load in OEM 
equipment has already occurred with water heaters over the last 10 years. 
And they ended up implementing an open standard hardware port as the 
best solution. Why the best? Because: You guarantee a minimum signal 
response in all OEM equipment and the ability to communicate to that 
equipment for its entire life, guaranteed You guarantee co mmunication path 
flexibility (wifi, cellular, Lora, powerline carrier, ethernet, etc.). This is critical 
because some electric loads are big enough that they require guaranteed 
access such as that provided by cellular, but other times, the instability but 
free cost of a wifi connection may be suitable. You guarantee competitive 
access to the load. The biggest concern that we have about the current 
rulemaking is that it (a) focuses on a default schedule that is not easy for 
pool control vendors to implement in their distribution channels because 
different states will have different default schedules, and (b) it gives the 
OEMs the ability to monopolize access to the load because the only access 
to the load they may have to provide is their own cloud through wh ich they 
will have monopoly control, with all the inherent issues around monopolies. 
You guarantee the lowest cost method to replace a vendor that is charging 
too much to access that load.  The biggest concern that we have about the 
current rulemaking is th at it (a) focuses on a default schedule that is not 
easy for pool control vendors to implement in their distribution channels 
because different states will have different default schedules, and (b) it 
gives the OEMs the ability to monopolize access to the load because the 
only access to the load they may have to provide is their own cloud through 
which they will have monopoly control, with all the inherent issues around 
monopolies.  
 2. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff incorporates 
its response  to comment er’s previous comment  by reference 
here. Staff appreciates the comments and the examples provided 
by the commenter . Staff is following the development of several 
communication pathways but for now staff will remain technology 
neutral  in the regulation provided that the device possesses an 
acceptable minimum communication ability.  Staff agree that 
implementing FDAS might not be easy for all pool control vendors 
to implement but pool control manufacturers are very innovative 
and have multiple solutions for compliance with a default 
schedule requirement.  Staff agree that under some 
circumstances  access to appliance load using the OEM cloud 
could result in a monopoly control and staff are monitoring the 
topic, however this is currently not the ca se for pool control 
manufacturers since they openly allow other manufacturers to 
control and interface with their product lines. No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response to this comment . 
 
 Page  3 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249549  Clark W Gellings  
4/5/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  
 
Clark  W. Gellings,  P.E. 
3431 Oak  Lane, Morgan  
Hill, CA 95037 
clark.gellings@gmail.com  
 1. General Comments. The Commission should be complimented for 
continued progress toward enabling a truly integrated electric energy 
system in California. An integrated system would  seamlessly integrate 
central and bulk electric power generation; bulk electric energy storage; 
distributed electric power generation and storage (aka, distributed 
generation, and storage resources); and high efficiency, controllable 
electric end use devic es and appliances such as pool equipment. 
Obviously, this development must proceed incrementally. These 
standards are a necessary step. This reviewer has comments related to 
the proposed standard regarding two elements: Flexibility and Safety.  
Flexibility of Pool Pump Controls. The pattern and amount of energy 
consumed by buildings (including electric pool pumps and 
appurtenances) as consumers of electricity is dependent on several 
attributes primarily involving the building and its configuration, specifica lly 
its electrical and thermal characteristics, as well as consumer behavior in 
setting controls and operating equipment. These include: The electric 
energy consuming devices and appliances including pumps, external 
adjustable speed drives, electric heater s as well as how they are 
installed. The energy and environmental controls which are part of the 
pool system and control or influence the operation of the pool system. 
The influence and participation of building owners and occupants. This 
includes how they  set thermostats and controls and how, when and if 
they override and change settings. It also includes basic assumptions 
about the pool demand may respond if there are changes in occupancy, 
incoming make up water temperature, insolation from solar and ambi ent 
conditions.  
 1. Comment acknowledged,  and no changes made . 
 
 Page  4 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249549  Clark W Gellings  
4/5/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  
 
Clark  W. Gellings,  P.E. 
3431 Oak  Lane, Morgan  
Hill, CA 95037 
clark.gellings@gmail.com  
 3. The Commission faces a difficult challenge in creating both “General 
Requirements ” section  169.2 a nd “Appliance Specific Standards section 
169.3.  The difficulty is  in creating standards is to allow the adoption of 
controls which allow nearly unlimited flexibility to enable the  integration  
described  above.  Constraints contained in the proposed  regulation such  
as default operating schedules will need to eventually be replaced by 
dynamic pricing . Also, the proposal  seems  to assume  that pool  pumps  
and ancillary  equipment operate  in only two states:  on and off.  However, 
with the continued availabili ty of variable  speed motors and pumps,  the 
demand can  be variable.  As an example of  future  changes which  should  
encourage  flexibility:  The Federal Government continues to study the 
proposition to modify  appliance efficiency standards  and replace them 
with broader  standards  which  would necessitate enhanced flexibility.  If 
these types of standards proliferate , then a  more  flexible pool  pump 
control  standard may facilitate  adopting such national standards in 
California.  
 
4. Safety  of Pool Pump  Equipment . In an  effort  to be  sure that new pool  
pump and related  equipment  is safe,  the Commission  may wish to  
consider requiring that the National Fire Protection Administration (NFPA) 
standard 70A , (The National  Electrical  Code) requirements  for one and 
two family  dwellings  and NFPA 70B, Standard for Electrical Equipment 
Maintenance be met for all new installations.  In addition, the Commission  
should consider mandating that all electrical devices be labeled by a 
recognized National Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL),  such  as 
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) . 
 3. Comment acknowledged,  and no changes made . Staff agree with 
the commenter that there are some flexibility challenges that come 
with the adoption of standards . Staff agree with the commenter that 
eventually dynamic  pricing will become a significant consideration 
for consumers and standards development , but it currently is not 
deployed widely in the electricity markets . CEC staff appreciates 
the comments and the examples provided by the commenter . Staff 
plan to close ly monitor the first  flexible demand standards and may 
update  the standards  for clarity  or enhanced flexibility  to 
accommodate dynamic pricing once it becomes available . No 
specific  changes to the regulatory language were made in response  
to this comment  as it essentially does not request any.  
 
4. Comment acknowledged,  and no changes made . Staff agree 
with the commenter that new pool pump s and related equipment 
should be safe and comply with  the National Electric Code  and 
NFPA standards but staff has determined that these 
requirements are imposed through building stan dards and 
therefore it is not necessary duplicate  them  here.  Staff will 
monitor pool control equipment that is offered for sale in 
California and will consider requiring electrical dev ices be labeled 
by a National Recognized Testing Laboratory , but these are also 
building code requirements  that need not be duplicated here.  No 
changes to the regulatory language were made in response  to 
this comment.  
 
 Page  5 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249582  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  [underline and 
strikeout as presented in 
comment]  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 1. … we offer the following suggested edits to the February 23, 2023, 
proposed regulatory language as follows: Definitions, Section 1691(b)  
Modifying as follows:  “Pool control” and “pool controls” mean  any 
component or  group  of components,  including  software, that: For integral 
dedicated purpose pool pump controls , has the capability to independently  
schedule the operation and/or  control the start or  stop times of  a pool filter  
pump and  other  pool equipment,  and uses single -phase  AC power  as input 
power;  For other  than integral  dedicated  purpose  pool pump  controls,  has the 
capability  to independently schedule the operation and/or  control the start or  
stop times of  a pool  filter pump,  and uses single -phase  AC power  as input 
power;  or Includes,  but is not limited  to, a pool timer,  pool pump  switch,  heater  
switch,  or direct  load control  switch.  Has the capability  to start or stop the 
operation  of a pool filter pump  and other  pool equipment,  and Uses single -
phase  AC power  as input power.  “Pool control” and “pool controls” exclude 
controls marketed exclusively for uses as a control for  pool filter pumps 
with a rated hydraulic horsepower (hhp) greater than 2.5 hhp.  “Pump 
Priming” means an operation that initiates water circulation by pulling 
water  from the pool into the pool circulation  system  with a duration  time less 
than or equal  to 15.0 minutes . 
 1. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated  in the comment and in response 
to it modified the  definition of “ pool control s” in section 1691(b) in 
the regulatory language proposed in the first 15 -day notice. Staff 
appreciates the comments . In addition, s taff modifi ed the 
proposed language  to remove the time requirement for pump 
priming.  
 
 Page  6 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249582  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Writte n [underline as 
presented in comment]  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 2. Add new definitions  as follows: "Direct load control switches" means a clock 
operated switch device that has the capability and  is used to start or stop the 
operation  of a pool filter pump  and/or  electric  pool heater,  and uses single -
phase AC power  as input power.  "Heater  switch"  means  a clock  operated  
switch  device  that has the capability  and is used to start or stop the operation 
of an electric pool heater, and uses single -phase AC power as input power.  
“Integral dedicated purpose pool pump control” means a  pool pump control 
provided as  an integral  part of a dedicated  purpose  pool pump  control  
supplied  as an integral  part of a dedicated purpose pool pump or a 
replacement dedicated purpose pool pump motor that controls  the pool pump  
motor.  A user interface  or a user interface  that is sold separately,  that controls  
the pool pump  motor; or  an integral  dedicated purpose pool pump control that 
is capable of  being removed from  a dedicated  purpose  pool pump  or a 
replacement  dedicated  purpose  pool pump  motor  for remote  mounting;  is an 
integral  dedicated  purpose  pool pump  control.  "Pool pump switch" means a 
clock operated switch device that has the capability and is used to start or stop 
the operation  of a pool filter  pump,  and uses single -phase  AC power  as input 
power.  "Pool  timer" means  a clock  operated  device that has  the capability  
and is  used to start or  stop the operation of a pool filter pump and/or electric 
pool heater, and uses single -phase AC power as input power.  “Replacement 
dedicated purpose pool pump motor” means an electric motor th at: is single -
phase or polyphase;  has a dedicated purpose pool pump motor total 
horsepower of less than or equal to 5 horsepower;  is marketed for use as a 
replacement motor in self -priming pool filter pump, non -self- priming pool filter 
pump, or pressure c leaner booster pump applications; and  excludes 
polyphase replacement dedicated -purpose pool pump motors capable of 
operating without a drive, and is sold or offered for sale without a drive that 
converts single -phase power to polyphase power.  
 2. Comment a cknowledged and accepted.  Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated in the comment and in response 
to it added definitions for “direct load control switch”, “heat switch”, 
“integral dedicated purpose pool pump control”, “pool pump 
switch”, “pool timer” and “replacement dedicated purpose pool 
pump motor” in section 1691(b) in the regulatory language 
proposed in the first 15 -day notice.  Staff appreciate s the 
comments.  
 Page  7 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249582  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 2a. The modifications  being  suggested  to the definition  of “pool  control”  or 
“pool  controls”  is to better align the regulatory  language  with what we 
believe  is the intent  of the CEC staff report,  in terms  of what products  are in 
and out of scope.  The current  language  is not entirely  clear,  and it is 
imperative that  what is intended  to be in or out of scope  be well-defined  to 
those  who must meet  the regulatory requirements.  
 
2b. Based  on the proposed  modifications  to the definition  of a “pool control”,  
PHTA  is suggesting  several new  definitions  be included  to ensure these 
products  are clearly  defined  as well, to alleviate any misinterpretation  of what 
is being  required. This  includes clarifying  the different  types  of products  that 
are considered  an “integral  dedicated  purpose  pool pump  control”  to alleviate  
any possible  confusion. Then the “replacement dedicated purpose pool 
pump motor” definition comes directly from the CEC Replacement  Pool 
Pump  Motors  regulation  adop ted on January  1, 2021.  
 
2c. Lastly, the suggested modification to the definition of  “pump priming ” is due 
to our  belief  that the time limitation  should  be provided  within  the specific  
default schedule  requirements  and not within  the definition  itself,  as pump  
priming  time can vary by pool. The  intent  of the definition  should  be to define 
what “pump  priming”  is but not include  a subjective  number  within  the 
definition . We refer you to our appliance specific standard comments where 
we add back in a time limitation . 
 2a. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff incorporates its 
responses to PHTA comments 1 and 2 above by reference here. 
Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated the suggested 
edits into an update of the proposed regulatory language  in the 
15-day comment process . 
 
2b. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff incorporates its 
responses to PHTA comments 1 and 2 above by reference here. 
Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated the suggested 
edits into an update of the proposed re gulatory language  in the 
15-day comment process . 
 
2c. Comment acknowledged and accepted , but subsequent 
changes to text make comment moot . Staff incorporates its 
responses to PHTA comments 1 and 2 above by reference here. 
Staff appreciate s the comments but decided to eliminate the 
pump priming requirement from section 1692(b)(2)(C) which 
renders a definition  of “pump priming” unnecessary . 
 
 Page  8 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249582  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  [underline and 
strikeout as presented in 
comment]  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 3. Cybersecurity , Section 1692(c)  Suggest the following modifications : Data 
Protectio n. The connected device shall provide for consumer data protection not 
display  the credential  and personal  data in plaintext  on the user interface . 
Passwords. The connected device shall contain a password  security feature  
that requires a  user to generate  a new means  of authentication  before  access  
is granted  to the device  for the first time, and shall support the use of 
passwords meeting the NERC password strength  requirements listed  below:  
Each  password  shall be a minimum  of six characters.  Each password shall 
consist of a combination of alpha, numeric, and special  characters . Reasoning:  
PHTA members believe these requirements as provided in the proposed 
regulation are too prescriptive  for the intended  scope  of this regulation . We 
suggest  that the CEC simply  indicate  that devices are required to include 
provisions for data and password protections and leave specifics up to 
manufacturers . This will allow  for greater  product  development  and new 
technologies.  Suggest  the following  modifications : Software Update . The 
manufacturer shall have an update policy that informs the consumer how the 
manufacturer will  support  software  updates  and informs  the consumer  that 
the device  is capable  of being  updated  whenever  new vulnerabilities  are 
discovered.  On initial connection  to the internet,  the connected  device  shall 
attempt  to receive  update  notice  from the manufacturer’s  update  service  
and attempt  to download,  verify,  and apply  any available  patches.  The 
manufacturer  shall provide  an estimated  security  expiration  date or end of life 
policy  that informs  the consumer  when  the manufacturer  will be discontinuing  
the connected  ready  device  support . Reasoning: Manufactures should be 
allowed  to maintain their own software update policies . Providing too specific  of 
requirements  can stifle innovation  and limit development  that may produce  
new ways  to offer software updates. At a minimum we suggest removing (5)(A) 
as it is not always best practice to do this upon  initial  connection.  
 3. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff agrees 
with this comment in part and modified the “data” and “software 
update” provision s in section 1692(c) in the first 15 -day notice  for 
the reasons stated in the comment . Staff also eliminated the 
reference to the NERC, but retained the criteria for passwords 
because staff has determined passwords  are essential to 
ensuring security , which is a concern across devices and 
therefore should be uniform across manufacturers.  
 
 Page  9 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249582  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  [underline and 
strikeout as presented in 
comment]  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 4. Suggest the following modifications:  Override Function . The connection 
device shall allow consumer to change the event responses and 
connected device event response  settings at any time. Reasoning: 
There are some device settings that should only be allowed to be 
changed by a pool professional or manufacturer, and not the 
consumer. This is due to both safety and product liability. Therefore, 
the suggested edit is intende d to clarify that the consumer can only 
override demand response settings and not all settings.  
 
5. Suggest the following  modification:  (1) Pool controls shall meet the 
flexible demand appliance standards, testing, marking, and 
cybersecurity requirements enumerated in this section no later than  
three  one years after they are adopted or updated.  Reasoning:  Initially, 
CEC began discussions on flexible demand pool controls simply 
needing a default schedule and requiring that the products be 
connectable. As wo rk on the proposed regulations continued, additional 
requirements  were included that simply will require additional time for product 
development and design , i.e., cybersecurity items. The current proposal that 
pool controls must meet the flexible demand appliance standards no later than 
one year after they are adopted is simply not feasible . Twelve months is not 
adequate due to numerous factors:  continued supply chain  efforts for 
electronics, management of inventory levels, and software development time 
and testing . PHTA members cannot commit to be able to meet the current 
proposed regulation compliance window due to development resources and 
electronic chain constraints. Based on input received from our manufacturers, 
three years  is needed  between effecti ve date and when compliance is 
required. We strongly urge the Commission to consider this request in order to 
have adequate product on the market . 
 4. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment and added  “event response” to the “override” provision 
in section 1692(c) (8) in the first 15 -day notice for the reasons 
stated in the comment. Staff agrees that it would not be 
appropriate to require that consumers be allowe d to change all 
the connected device’s settings  for the reasons stated in the 
comment , but it is appropriate for them to be able to ove rride the 
devices’ event response settings. Staff appreciate s the comments 
and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of the 
proposed regulatory language.  
 
5. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff agrees 
with this comment in part and modified the “effective date” 
provision  of section 169 3(b)(1) to require that pool controls 
manufactured after Septemb er 29, 2025,  meet the standard, for 
the reasons sta ted in the comment. This will give manufacturers 
almost two years after  the CEC  adopted the regulations to 
comply,  which staff has determined is a reasonable comprom ise 
that balances the interests served by the regulation with the 
reasons  advanced by the c ommenter.  
 
 Page  10 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249582  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  [underline as 
presented in comment]  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 6. Suggest the following modification : 2. Pool controls shall support both local and 
remote setup, selection, and update of its operating schedule. Local and 
remote setup, selection, and update shall be possible through a user interface  
or through a smart device app via WiFi or BlueTooth or o ther connected 
means .” Reasoning: The local set up should also include smart device apps  
due to the fact not all devices have user interfaces  that allow control of all 
settings.  
 
7. Pump Priming clarification in Section (2)(C)1.c . Suggest the following 
modification : c. automatically operate the pool filter pump at 50 percent of the 
maximum operating speed of the pool filter pump or less during all remaining 
hours and may perform pump priming at any time with a duration time less 
than or equal to 30.0 minute s. Reasoning: The  amount of time it takes to 
properly prime a pump  is specific to the amount of lift needed for that specific 
pump. Some pumps are required to climb five, eight or ten feet. We appreciate 
the limitations the Commission is looking to achieve , but the 15 minutes 
proposed is not adequate . More time is needed  to provide leeway with all the 
types of pumps and pools that exist; 30 minutes is a more reasonable 
maximum number to be provided within the factory default schedule. This 
change to 30 minu tes should also limit the number of pool owners that will 
simply adjust the time, if longer is needed to properly prime their pump . 
 6. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated and modified the “Clock” 
provisions in section 1692(b)(2) in the first 15 -day notice for the 
reasons stated in the comment. Staff appreciate s the comments 
and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of the 
proposed regulatory language.  
 
7. Comment acknowledged and accepted . Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated and eliminated the 15 -minute 
pump priming definition in section for the reasons stated in the 
comment. Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated the 
suggested edits into an update of the propose d regulatory 
language.  
 
 Page  11 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  
 1. The CA IOUs acknowledge CEC’s efforts to establish flexible demand appliance standards 
(FDAS) that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We  encourage the CEC to explore 
flexible demand capabilities that enable appliance communication with local utilities  or third 
parties to harmonize with the grid, while reducing GHG emissions.  The CA IOUs 
acknowledge CEC’s efforts to implement the statutory requirements for flexible demand 
appliance standards within a broader statewide energy policy framework enabling pr ogress 
toward a 100% clean electricity supply that reduces GHG emissions. Senate Bill 49 (SB 49) 
defines flexible demand as the ability to “schedule, shift, or curtail [demand] through direct 
action by the customer or through action by a third party, the l oad-serving entity, or a grid 
balancing authority, with the customer’s consent.” This legislation states that FDAS should 
prioritize appliances with electrical demand “controlled by load -management technology and 
third-party load -management programs.”  Appliances can provide various demand flexibility 
services, including the ability to “shape, shift, shed, and shimmy” loads to support grid needs. 
To better align with SB 49 and provide more benefits to California consumers and the grid,  
we urge the CEC to prioritize  appliance  flexible  demand  capabilities such  as dispatchability,  
third-party communication  with utilities and aggregators, and the ability to shed, shift, and 
modulate demand in response to grid needs, in addition to the goal of reducing GHG 
emissions. These additional appliance characteristics support a balanced and reliable grid as 
California moves toward increasing renewable generation and are essential to realizing the 
goal of GHG emissions from FDAS.  The proposed  standard  for pool control s does not 
ensure  customer  devices  can receive  and act on signals, such as dynamic energy prices, 
GHG signals, and demand response event information . We recommend  the CEC collaborate  
with utilities,  manufacturers,  regulatory  agencies , and other stakeholders (e.g., aggregators) 
to develop processes to transmit rate and demand response information to flexible 
appliances, ensuring that customers receive relevant information based on their rate 
schedule, location, and class.  
 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff agrees 
with this comment  in part and disagrees with it in part. SB 49 
(Public Resources Code (PRC) section 25402(f) (7)) authorizes 
the CEC to adopt flexible demand standards that empower 
customers or other entities with customers’ conse nt to flex their 
electricity use. The statute also provides a wide list of f actors for 
CEC to consider in prioritizing  candidate appliances to be 
subjected to flexible demand appliance  standards  (FDAS) . (PRC 
section 25402(f)( 5).) The pool c ontrols rulemaking falls squarely 
within these parameters and is entirely authorized by  and 
consistent with SB 49.  As noted at page 5 of the Final Staff 
Report , Analysis of Flexible Demand Standards for Pool Controls , 
February 2023 | CEC -400-2023 -001 (Fina l Staff Report)  
supporting this rulemaking: “The staff proposal for pool controls is 
a first step by the CEC implementing its authority under Senate 
Bill 49 to encourage the deployment of flexible demand 
technologies. As the CEC continues this important wo rk, the intent 
is to transform the marketplace, allowing for innovation by industry 
to further develop load flexibility resources, reduce greenhouse 
gases, and advance energy sustainability and grid reliability. ” In 
any event, the proposed regulation  would  require  pool controls to 
be “connected devices” (section 1693(b)(2)) meaning that they 
must “wirelessly communicate via open standards with entities 
outside the device by means of integrated or separate 
communications hardware or software . A device that i s able to 
receive but not send communication is not a connected device. ” 
(Section 1691(a)) . 
 
 Page  12 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager  
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  
 2. CEC’s FDAS should harmonize with other CEC efforts , such as the Load Management 
Rulemaking and the recently created Market Informed Demand Automation Server  
(MIDAS ) database. The CEC recently complete d the Load Management Rulemaking. This 
rulemaking created the California Market Informed Demand Automation Server (MIDAS) 
database and will require utilities to maintain up -to-date rate information in MIDAS. The 
CEC should consider the outcome of this rule making when developing FDAS. For example, 
CEC could require FDAS devices or their manufacturer clouds to  connect to the MIDAS 
Application Programming Interface (API), download relevant rate schedules, GHG signals, 
or price signals, and schedule device oper ation in response to those signals. If the CEC 
does not incorporate these capabilities into the proposed pool control FDAS, at a minimum, 
the CEC should remain receptive to future amendments to the pool control FDAS to 
leverage MIDAS data. The CEC may also  consider a limited waiver process for FDAS that 
allows manufacturers of highly flexible pool controls to waive the appliance -specific default 
operating schedule requirement (section 1693(b)(2)(C)) if the device can connect by default 
to the MIDAS database , access the relevant rate schedule, dynamic price signal, or GHG 
signal for the customer, and schedule operation to avoid high demand processes during 
times with high prices or high GHG emissions . 
 
3. The CA IOUs recommend clarifying the proposed regulatory language to differentiate 
requirements intended for all FDAS appliances from those that apply solely to pool controls.  
The proposed regulatory language contains sections that would, as written, apply to all 
flexible demand appliance standards. G iven that the CEC published this proposed 
regulatory language in the context of  the pool controls rulemaking, we recommend limiting 
this rulemaking to pool controls and moving the relevant proposed regulations to the pool 
control -specific sections. Future FDAS appliances will have different requirements than 
those proposed for pool controls and definitions (e.g., on connectivity) and general 
requirements for those appliances should be considered in future rulemakings. This could 
be achieved by organizing re quirements in the Scope, Definitions, General Requirements, 
and Appliance Specific Requirements sections by appliance type and including only 
requirements common to all appliances as “general” requirements within these sections . 
 2. Comment acknowledged an d no change made . Staff incorporates 
its response to the prior CA IOU comment  1 by reference here. 
CEC is  receptive to future amendments to leverage MIDAS data 
for the pool controls FDAS.  Since the amendments require pool 
controls to be connected devices, they will be able to  access the 
MIDAS database either directly or  by utilizing a third party  service  
provider . See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/proceedings/energy -
commission -proceedings/inactive -proceedings/market -informed -
demand -automation  
 
3. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined  that the proposed 
regulatory language appropriately and clearly differentiates 
between requirements that apply to FDAS generally and those 
that apply  to pool con trols specifically.  Following this comment 
would result in adoptin g needlessly duplicative regulatory 
language  in each particular FDAS rulemaking because there are 
definitions, testing, marking and enforcement provisions that 
appropriately apply to FDAS ac ross the board , as described in the 
staff report . Staff used language to better align with ENERGY 
STAR specifications, however, staff determined an optional 
pathway via a waiver process would add unnecessary complexity, 
is not a simple approach and, consid ering the burdens of 
administering it, would not advance the goals of the program.  
 
 Page  13 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  
 4. The CA IOUs recommend changes to the Scope  requirements of the proposed regulatory 
language. Section 1690 (Scope) applies broadly to all FDAS, not just to pool controls. 
The proposed scope is limited to consumer products, which is appropriate  for pool 
controls given the health and safety requirements of commercial pools. However, it may 
be appropriate for future FDAS to apply to commercial or industrial products , so 
restricting the scope of FDAS to just c onsumer products will not be suitable. We 
recommend striking the consumer product requirement  from the overarching scope and 
creating a pool controls specific scope section that states that the pool control regulation 
is limited to consumer products. In support  of this recommendation  and others  in this letter,  
a table of recommended  changes  to the proposed  regulatory language is included in an  
appendix.  
 
5. The CA IOUs recommend changes to the Definitions in the proposed regulatory language.  
We recommend changes to the “Connected Device” definition  in section 1691(a). The 
current language would apply this definition to all FDAS, not just pool controls. Moreover, 
the text’s ambiguity may invite multiple interpretations. The definition should be clarified  to 
remove extraneous language and enhance clarity and enforceability , e.g., “with or without” 
certain connections or “by means of integrated or separate” equipment.  
 4. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated and made this change via the first 
15-day notice. The consumer products  reference  was removed from 
section 1690 (a), the general s cope provision and was added to 
section 1690(a) (1), the scope provision specific to po ol controls.  
Future FDAS rulemakings may apply to devices that are not 
consumer products. To make this clear, CEC staff removed “as 
consumer products” from the more general scope section of 
subsection (a) and added it to subsection (a)(1) for pool controls, 
which are now defined as “Pool controls  that are consumer products 
designed to use single -phase AC power as input power.” This 
responds to stakeholder comments and sets the desired scope for 
this rulemaking without restricting future FDAS rulemakings only to 
devices that are consumer products.  
 
5. Comment s acknowledged and accepted. Staff a grees with these 
comments for the reasons stated and made the suggested 
changes via the first 1 5-day notice. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits to the connected 
device definiti on into an update of the proposed regulatory 
language.  Section 1691 now defines “Connected device” as  “any 
device that can wirelessly communicate via open standards with 
entities outside the device by means of integrated or separate 
communications hardware  or software. A device that is able to 
receive but not send communication is not a connected device. ” 
Section 1693(b)(2) requires pool controls to be “connected 
device[s]”.  Section 1691(a) defines “Open standards” as 
“standards adopted or published, indivi dually or jointly, by one or 
more of the following organizations: the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI), International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF). ” 
 Page  14 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christop her 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  
 5a. Additionally, we recommend that the CEC create a specific definition for connected 
pool controls to require integrated connectivity  at the time of sale rather than 
allowing “separate” equipment to provide this feature. Moving beyond the current 
connectivity definition, we would support a connectivity definition that requires 
devices to have two -way co mmunication capability  (i.e., both sending and receiving 
information) between the consumer and the grid, utility, or aggregator, instead of 
just the ability to receive signals via one -way communication. Furthermore, the 
definition should focus on functiona lity requirements, allowing connectivity via other 
open and secure protocols that exist today  and that may exist in the future rather 
than TCP/IP compatibility. If the “TCP/IP signal” requirement is maintained, we 
recommend revision to add detail and clari ty. 5a. Comments acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with these 
comments for the reasons stated and made the suggested 
changes via the first 15 -day notice for the reasons stated in the 
comment. Staff appreciates the comments and incorporated the 
sugges ted edits to the connected device definition into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language. Staff incorporates 
its response to comment 5 above by reference here.  Page  15 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  5b. Additionally, we recommend  other changes to the definitions  in section 1691 of the 
proposed regulatory language. To support a requirement for communication based on 
open and secure standards that enable demand flexibility, we suggest adopting the “open 
standards” and “communications” definitions from the United St ates EPA ENERGY 
STAR® Specification for Pool Pumps Connected Product Criteria , which could be 
extended to pool controls. In accordance with SB 49, which states that CEC’s FDAS 
should prioritize interoperable and open -source appliances, we propose that 
comm unication requirements should be based on open and secure standards and allow 
for several operational pathways including device control by third -party aggregators 
enabled by cloud -to-cloud communication between aggregators and utility distributed 
energy re source or demand response management systems.  The ENERGY STAR 
specification has been vetted by a wide variety of stakeholders, and alignment with this 
specification would strengthen the FDAS for pool controls by promoting device 
dispatchability and allowin g connectivity and communication requirements to remain 
flexible for future innovation.  At least two brands offer connected pool pumps that are 
ENERGY STAR -compliant and could therefore also comply with FDAS without additional 
effort. The software -based co mmunications costs of ENERGY STAR connected pool 
pump requirements may be similar to the incremental cost of the CEC’s current proposal. 
The ENERGY STAR specification uses open standards for communication, meeting the 
SB 49 requirement to prioritize intero perable and open -source appliances. Section 4.3 of 
this specification also includes provisions to allow for remote management of devices and 
to provide feedback to consumers on device operation, aligning with the SB 49 
requirement to prioritize appliances with “a user -friendly interface” and a “straightforward 
setup and connection process, such as remote setup by means of an internet website or 
application.” The ENERGY STAR requirements further protect the consumer compared to 
the proposed FDAS TCP/IP conne ctivity requirement, which does not ensure the use of 
open standards. Aligning the proposed regulation with ENERGY STAR requirements 
could result in additional benefits compared to the CEC proposal . If revisions  are made  to 
the proposed  regulatory  language, we  recommend  striking  from the proposed regulatory  
language  definitions  no longer  needed  to support  the pool controls  regulation . 
Predicting future  general  requirements  is difficult,  so we recommend  restricting  the 
definitions  in this standard  to only those  necessary  for pool controls . If it is necessary  to 
move  some  of the regulatory  language  into a “general” section after the adoption of more 
FDAS regulations, those changes could be made at the time  of the new regulation.  
 5b. Comments acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with 
these comments for the reasons stated and made the suggested 
changes via the first 15 -day notice . Staff appreciates the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits to the connected 
device definition into an update of the proposed regulatory 
language.  Section 1691 now defines “Connected device” as “any 
device that can wirelessly communicate via open standards with 
entities outside the device by means of integrated or separate 
communications hardware or  software. A device that is able to 
receive but not send communication is not a connected device.” 
Section 1693(b)(2) requires pool controls to be “connected 
device[s]”. Section 1691(a) defines “Open standards” as 
“standards adopted or published, individua lly or jointly, by one or 
more of the following organizations: the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI), International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO), International Electrotechnical Com mission (IEC), 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet 
Engineering Task Force (IETF).” This better aligns the regulation 
with the Energy Star Program.  
 Page  16 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  6. The CA IOUs recommend changes to the General Requirements  of the propose d 
regulatory language. We recommend the CEC clarify the Cybersecurity 
requirements  in section 1692 (General Requirements). These requirements refer to 
“state laws relating to reliability and cybersecurity” and North American Electric 
Reliability Corporatio n’s (NERC) Critical Infrastructure Protection standards. 
However, the requirements do not cite statutes or specific standards and do not 
incorporate documents by reference . Additionally, we recommend revisions to the 
password requirement . Recommended revis ions are noted in the appendix table . 
 6. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff agrees 
with these comments for the reasons stated and made the 
suggested changes via the first 15 -day notice. Section 169 2(c)(3) 
now provides , “The connected device  shall provide customer or 
consumer data protection for any and all collected personal 
information, consistent with state and federal law. ” The first 15 -
day notice amended Section 1692(c)( 4) to provide , “The 
connected device shall contain a security feature that requires a 
user to generate a new means of authentication before access is 
granted to the device for the first time, and if a plain text -based 
password is used it shall support the use of passwords meeting 
the NERC password strength requiremen ts listed below: (A) The 
device shall support passwords shall be a minimum of six 
characters or longer. (B) The device shall support passwords that 
consist of a combination of alpha, numeric, and special 
characters. ” Staff  appreciate s the comments and inco rporated the 
suggested edits to clarify cybersecurity requirements into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language . Staff does disagree 
with the comment regarding the need to incorporate the NERC 
standards by referen ce. The current language in section 1 692(c)  
is sufficient and complies with the language in PRC section 
25402(f)(2).  
 
 Page  17 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  7. The CA IOUs recommend changes to the Appliance Specific Requirements  for pool 
controls in the proposed regulatory language. We recommend changes to the 
requirements for pool controls in section 1693 (Appliance Specific Requirements). 
For section 1693(b)(2)(A), we recommend a pool controls specific connectivity 
definition . For pool controls the connectivity functionality should be required to be 
integrated into the device rather than be enabled by “separate” equipment . 
Furthermore, adding a requirement that pool controls be  able to communicate using 
open and secure standards  would strengthen the regulation. The CEC could align 
with the publicly vetted ENERGY STAR Specification for Pool Pumps Connected 
Product Criteria , incorporating this communication as a mandatory requirement  or 
as an optional pathway via a waiver process . 
 7. Comment acknowledged and some changes made. Staff agrees 
with this comment in part and disagrees with it in part. Staff 
incorporates its responses to CA IOU comments 1, 3, 4 and 5 above 
by reference here. Staff appreciates the comments and incorporated  
some of the suggested edits into an update of the proposed 
regulatory language. Section 1693(b)(2) now contains a 
communication requirement specific to pool controls. Staff disagree 
with a requirement that only allows for connectivity to be integrated 
into the device and are allowing for product design options to have 
the connectivity component reside integral to the device or in 
separate equipment. Section 1691(a) now aligns with the ENERGY 
STAR specification by defining “Open standards” as “standards 
adopted or published, individually or jointly, by one or more of the 
following organizations: the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Intern ational 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF).”  Page  18 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christop her 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  7a. For section 1693(b)(2)(B) on clock requirements, we recommend adding a 
requirement for pool controls to use their connectivity to sync with local time  without 
using a separate device . The proposed regulatory language requires that pool 
controls that communicate with a separate device “have the ability to automatically 
synchronize their system clo ck to the local time specified by that device.” However, 
there is no explicit requirement to sync with local time for pool controls with 
integrated connectivity that do not communicate with a separate device. The 
addition of this requirement would enhance the regulation’s clarity.  
 
7b. Section 1693(b)(2)(C) proposes a default operating schedule requirement for pool 
controls. This schedule may reduce GHG emissions by promoting load shifting to 
the late morning and early afternoon when GHG emissions from elec tricity 
production are lower. However, shifting operation to a fixed period is not flexible 
enough to accommodate future changes in electricity use patterns , GHG emissions, 
electricity rates, and grid needs. In addition to the default scheduling  requiremen t, 
we recommend the FDAS regulation require pool controls to use open and secure 
communication protocols that enable the device to respond to signals and modify 
operations in response to changing conditions, event signals, and price signals . If 
the CEC mai ntains the proposed regulation, we suggest clarifying the language . 
 7a. Comment acknowledged and accepted . Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons specified in the comment and made 
the suggested changes in the first 15 -day notice. Section 
1693(b)(2 )(B) now provides that “pool controls shall have the 
ability to automatically and continuously synchronize their 
system clock to the local time.”  Staff appreciate s the comments 
and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of the 
proposed regulatory language.  
 
7b. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff agree that 
a fixed period for shifting operation may not be enough to 
accommodate future changes  in electricity use patterns . That is 
why staff have included an open and secure communication 
requirement that will enable devices to respond to changing 
conditions , event signals , price signals  and GHG  signals .  
 Page  19 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  7c. The June 2022 CEC Draft Staff Report Analysis of Flexible Demand Standards for 
Pool Contro ls included an adjustment to the default schedule requirement to account 
for daylight savings time. This adjustment no longer appears in the current 
regulation. We recommend the CEC include a time adjustment to the default 
schedule  to account for daylight savings time , reverting to the proposed regulatory 
language published in June 2022.  
 
7d. We recommend removing the requirement  in section 1693(b)(2)(C)1.c. stating the 
pool control default operating schedule shall “automatically operate the pool filter 
pump at 50 percent of the maximum operating speed of the pool filter pump or less 
during all remaining hours and may perform pump priming at any time.” Prior 
requirements in this section state that high -demand activities must occur between 9 
a.m. and 3 p.m. a nd that no automatic operation should occur between 4 p.m. and 9 
p.m. Given the availability of efficient variable -speed pool pumps, t his additional 
requirement is not necessary to support the intent of the regulation . 
 
7e. As noted above, the CEC could consider a waiver process to waive the default 
schedule requirements for connected pool controls that can by default schedule 
operations by retrieving signals and rate information from MIDAS.  
 7c. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits regardi ng a 
time adjustment to account for daylight savings time  into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language.  When  the pool 
controls “automatically and continuously synchronize  their 
system clock to the lo cal time ” (section 1693(b)(2) (B)(1)(b)  this 
will account for changes from  daylight savings times  to standard 
time and back . 
 
7d. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated.  The suggested revisions to 
section 1693(b)(2)(C )(1)(c) were made via the first 15 -day 
notice. Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated the 
suggested edits into an update of the proposed regulatory 
language.  
 
7e. Comment acknowledged . Staff disagrees with this comment. 
Staff determine d that an optional pathway via a waiver process 
would add unnecessary complexity, is not a simple approach 
and, considering the burdens  of administering it , would not 
sufficiently advance the goals of the program.  
 
 Page  20 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249584  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  8. The CA IOUs recommend  additional changes to the proposed regulatory langu age 
to increase clarity and support regulation enforceability.  We recommend changes to 
the proposed regulatory language to remove typos, repeated language, and 
incorrect references , and to ensure internal consistency between sections, e.g., 
Table A -2 uses different wording than the appliance requirements regulatory 
language. For Table A -2, we also suggest requiring manufacturers to list the open 
standards FDAS devices can use for communication. As noted above, the appendix 
contains a table of recommended ch anges to the proposed regulatory language . 
 
9. The CA IOUs recommend the CEC provide  additional information regarding price 
assumptions  used for pool controls. We also suggest the CEC consider sensitivity 
cases for compliant product lifetimes . In the Final  Staff Report Analysis of Flexible 
Demand Standards for Pool Controls, CEC staff used $70 (in 2022 dollars) for the 
incremental cost of the connectivity and scheduling features to make a product 
compliant with the regulation. As noted in Table 7 -2, the ana lysis assumes an 
identical incremental cost for all four proposals: Staff Proposal, Alternative 1 (Load 
Shifting Based on TOU Rate), Alternative 2 (Load Shifting Based on GHG Rate), 
and Alternative 3 (Load Shifting Based on Combined TOU and GHG Rate). We ask 
the CEC to elaborate on why the incremental cost is assumed to be the same 
across these alternatives . Although the staff proposal is highly cost -effective, the 
others offer similar consumer benefits at a similar incremental cost. These 
proposals address  some of the concerns noted in this letter regarding the inflexibility 
of the proposed regulation and the need for appliances to have stronger 
communication capabilities.  The analysis assumes the estimated design lifetime of 
pool controls is ten years. We encourage the CEC to consider a sensitivity analysis  
of this factor to capture potential consumer costs if pool controls fail or need repair 
before the expected parameters or if they exceed this product lifetime. We 
recommend computing costs and benefits f or different life expectancies outside the 
ten-year design lifetime . 
 8. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment and made the necessary changes via the first 15 -day 
notice. Staff appreciates the comments  and the commenter s’ 
attention to detail , and incorporated the suggested edits into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language . 
 
9. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff 
appreciates the comment  and the commenters ’ attention to 
details.  Staff assumed the increm ental cost of the connectivity 
and scheduling features to make a product compliant with the 
regulation would be $70 in 2022 dollars. The physical 
components to build a product  that complies with  the proposed 
regulations  and the alternates are estimated to be much less than 
$70. The software control algorithms use d to control  the proposal 
and Alternate 1  or Alternate 2 or Alternate 3 would all cost a few 
dollars when spread over a large production run. Staff 
approximately tripled the estimated incremental co sts and 
rounded to ensure the very first flexible demand appliance 
standard  was still cost effective in a worst -case economic 
scenario for pool control manufacturers . Regarding computing 
cost and benefits for different life expectancies outside the ten -
year design lifetime, the staff report Appendix provides more than 
enough data for a stakeholder to extrapolate the benefits  related 
to the costs for any year. The staff report focuses on  a basic set 
of data and the analysis for the first year and the full stock 
turnover of the device.  
 
 Page  21 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – 
Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 1. Fluidra  proposes  the following  revision  to the scope  and definitions  of the regulation  
to clarify the  intent  of what  is in scope  and out of scope,  as well as to close  any 
loopholes  that may put manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage.  “Pool control ” 
and “pool controls ” mean any component or group of components, including 
software, that:  For integral dedicated purpose pool pump controls, has the capability 
to independently schedule the operation and/or control the time of day start and 
stop times of a pool filter pumps and other pool equipment, and uses single -phase 
AC power as input power.; or  For other than integral dedicated purpose pool pump 
controls, has the capability to schedule the operation and/or contr ol the start or stop 
times of a pool filter pump, and uses single -phase AC power as input power; or  
Includes, but not limited to, the following equipment - “pool timer”, “pool pump 
switch”, “heater switch”, “direct load control switch” (see definitions).  “Pool control” 
and “pool controls” exclude controls marketed exclusively for uses as a control for 
pool filter pumps with a rated hydraulic horsepower (hhp) greater than 2.5  hhp. 
 1. Comment acknowledged and accepted  with modifications . Staff 
agrees with th ese comments for the reasons stated in them and 
amended the language in section 1691(b) in response during the 
15-day notice process. Staff added definitions for “integral”, “pool 
timer”, “pool pump switch”, “heater switch”, and “direct load control 
switch ”. During a later revision stakeholder feedback was 
incorporated into the final definitions.  Changes to the regulatory 
definitions, with  those  additional changes, are reflected in the final 
adopted regulatory text.  
 
 Page  22 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – 
Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 2. We recommend adding  the following critical definitions : “Integral dedicated purpose 
pool pump control ” and “ integral dedicated purpose pool pump controls ” means a 
pool pump control provided as an integral part of a dedicated purpose pool pump or 
a replacement dedicated purpose pool pump motor, provided with a user interface 
or a user interface that is sold separately, that controls the pool pump motor. An 
integral dedicated purpose pool pump contro l that is capable of being removed from 
a dedicated purpose pool pump or a replacement dedicated purpose pool pump 
motor for remote mounting is considered to be an integral dedicated purpose pool 
pump control. " Pool timer " means a clock operated device tha t has the capability 
and used to start or stop the operation of a pool filter pump or electric pool heater, 
and uses single - phase AC power as input power. " Pool pump switch " means a 
clock operated switch device that has the capability and used to start or  stop the 
operation of a pool filter pump, and uses single -phase AC power as input power. 
"Heater switch " means a clock operated switch device that has the capability and 
used to start or stop the operation of an electric pool heater, and uses single -phase  
AC power as input power. " Direct load control switches " means a clock operated 
switch device that has the capability and used to start or stop the operation of a pool 
filter pump and/or electric pool heater, and uses single -phase AC power as input 
power. "Control other pool equipment " means to provide independently 
programmable or preprogrammed time of day start and stop times of pool 
equipment other than the pool filter pum p. 
 2. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorp orated the suggested edits into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language. Staff incorporates i ts response to 
Fluidra c omment 1 by reference here.  
 
 Page  23 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – 
Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 3. Fluidra agrees with the CEC’s intended In -Scope and Out -of-Scope  devices as 
described in the 23 -FDAS -01 “Final Staff Report for Pool Controls”, summarized in 
Table 5 -1 of that report (illustrated below). We feel that the proposed revisions, 
clarifications, and additional definitions more clearly define  the Pool Control 
devices that CEC intends to  be in scope of this regulation. For example, the 
original CEC proposed wording of the definition of “Pool controls” may have 
exempted “Pool timers” and “Pool Pump and Heater Switch” devices that can be 
used to only control the pool -filter pump, but are intended to be in scope of the 
regulation according to the CEC Final Staff Report. We agree these products 
should be in the scope o f this regulation . 
 
4. Integral pool pump controls may include safety electrical interlocks  that are 
integral onboard  relays  which allow  power to  be supplied  to a device  ONLY  when  
the filtration pump  is running  and providing  water  flow. This is critical  for equipment  
that may pose a  safety  hazard  and/or  damage  to the equipment  if operated  without  
water  flow – such as Chlorinators, Chemical Feeding Equipment, Pressure Cleaner 
Booster Pumps, and Heaters. These integral safety electrical interlocks only allow 
power to be supplied to the  auxiliary  device(s)  when  the filtration  pump  is operating  
at a specific  speed  or flow, and do not independently control the operation, output 
and/or scheduling of the auxiliary equipment, and should not be considered in -
scope pool controls . 
 3. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language.  Staff incorporates i ts response 
to Fluidra ’s comment 1 , above , by reference here.  
 
4. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language.  Staff incorporates i ts response 
to Fluidra ’s comment 1 , above , by reference h ere. 
 
 Page  24 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – 
Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 5. The proposed effective date of 12 months  after rule publication is extremely 
aggressive  and does not allow pool control manufacturer’s the adequate time to 
comply. Although modern pool controls are generally connectable products, 
significant time and resources are needed to update - Product  firmware, Software, 
IOT infrastructure, Product  testing and debugging - - to be in line with the proposed 
FDAS requirements. Unlike the telecommunications industry which  may have  next 
5 generations  of connected  technology  in development,  the pool industry adopts  but 
is not the driver  of new IoT system  development . In order  to ensure  a product 
function properly, reliably, and safely when it launches into the market, responsible 
manufacturers must apply rigorous design verification testing, certification, quality 
control, manufacturer set -up, marketing/ed ucation, and launch. Spread across the 
various system platforms which a manufacturer may offer, the required time and 
resources grows exponentially. A 12-month enforcement date may create a gap in 
the availability of pool controls to the California consume r while pool control 
manufacturers try to catch up to the regulation. Fluidra can submit specific product 
development resources and timelines under confidentiality to the CEC for 
additional reference.  Based  on historical  enforcement  dates  for new Federal  
Department  of Energy  (DOE)  efficiency regulation  which  is typically  ranges  
between  3 to 5 years,  we feel a minimum  3 to 5 years  is not  unreasonable  to allow  
the manufacturers  the adequate  time to develop  pool controls  that will  be safe and 
reliable  for the consumer,  helping  to ensure  the sustainability  of this program for the 
future.  
 
6. Alternatively, CEC may want to consider a phased -in approach  to this FDAS roll 
out. In early stages of this FDAS rule making, CEC had proposed simply a default 
schedule and a requirement  that products  be connectable . Our understanding  from 
CEC  presentations  is that these simple updates got California most of the way 
there with regards to energy demand shift and GHG emissions reductions. These 
small changes can be achieved rel atively quickly by manufacturers of modern pool 
controls . 
 5. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff 
appreciate s the comments and considered the request for 
additional time.  Staff agrees with this comment in part and 
modified the “effective date” provision of section 1693(b)(1) to 
require that pool controls manufactured after September 29, 
2025,  meet the standard, for the reasons stated in the comment. 
This will give manufact urers almost two years after the CEC 
adopted the regulations to comply, which staff has determined is 
a reasonable compromise that balances the interests served by 
the regulation with the reasons advanced by the commenter.  
 
6. Comment acknowledged , considered,  and ultimately rejected . 
Staff appreciates the comments and incorporated the suggested 
edits  for a phased in approach  into an update of the proposed 
regulatory language.  However subsequent stakeholder 
comments  reques ting clarif ying effective da tes result ed in the 
removal of a phased in approach  due to the unnecessary 
complexity that it added to the regulatory language.  Staff 
incorporates it s response to Fluidra c omment 5 by reference 
here.  
 
 Page  25 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – 
Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 7. We would recommend making any required scheduling  to be “selectable ” and not 
the default.  Or simply  requiring  the product  instructions to include the 
recommended California Energy Commission scheduling requirements. Future 
updates  to this rule can then focus  on Flex Demand  communication  and connectivity  
to MIDAS, etc. See illustrative slides below from previous CEC presentations with 
regards to the effects of default scheduling to grid demand and GHG emissions.  
 7. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff appreciate s 
the comments and made edits to the “Default Operating 
Schedule” text during an update of the proposed regulatory 
language. Staff direct s the commenter to the proposed regulatory 
language that s tates “pool controls shall be preprogrammed with 
a preconfigured or default operating schedule”. This language 
allows flexibility for the manufacturer to design a product which 
the consumer can start with the default schedule or configure an 
alternate pers onalized schedule.  
 
 Page  26 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – 
Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 8. Fluidra agrees to keep the connectivity options open  to the manufacturer and utility 
aggregators. We strongly recommend cloud to cloud (API) communication to 
connected equipment. Each manufacturer of connected products already has some 
sort of API infrastructure  in place  which  would  make  this the easiest  and fastest  
transition  for the industry. Fluidra  connected  products  can already  receive  commands  
from our cloud -based  API systems.  External hardware devices such as CTA-2045 
are not necessary and should not be made mandatory.  Can be one of the options  
that a manufacturer  may choose  for connectivity,  not a mandatory requirement . 
 
9. Additionally, we  suggest  the following  update  to clarify that  local set up  includes the 
use of a smart device app via WiFi or Bluetooth  or other connected means. Not all 
equipment and devices have user interfaces with full control of the settings, and 
require the user or pool professional to use a smart device app . Section 16933 
(b)(2)(B)2.  Pool controls shall support both local and remot e setup, selection, and 
update of its operating schedule. Local and remote setup, selection, and update 
shall be possible through a user interface  or a smart  device  application.  
 
10. We also suggest the following revision which addresses pool controls that  are 
marketed to the pool professional and require full programming by the installation 
company. CEC may consider instead  requiring the desired default schedule to part 
of the product literature . Section  16933  (b)(2)(C)  1. Default  Operating  
Schedule. If pool control(s)  are provided  with factory  default  schedules,  
they shall be preprogrammed  with a preconfigured  or default  operation  
schedule  that shall: … 
 8. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and did not include CTA -2045 as a 
mandatory requirement. No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response  to this comment.  
 
9. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorporated the suggested clarifying edits  that 
allow the use of a smart device or other connected means  into 
the proposed regulatory language.  
 
10. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff 
appreciates the comments ; however , staff  did not re quire the 
default schedule to be part of the product literature  because staff 
is con tinuing to develop an optimal approach for product 
literature requirements . Staff encourage manufacturers to include 
information about the default schedule and the benefits of using 
the flexible demand product features. No ch anges to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  27 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249605  Fluidra  
4/10/2023  
45-Day Comment  
Written  [strikeout 
as presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director 
of Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 11. In general, we agree with the need to provide a level of cybersecurity 
protection  to connected products. However, we feel the requirements set forth  
by this ruling are too prescriptive  and should only indicate that a manufacturer 
have a policy for cybersecurity, data protection, and software update 
requirements that meet any Federal, State and/or Local codes. This can be 
left up to the individual manufacturer’s connected products policies and user 
agreements. For example, below are two suggested edits  to the cybersecurity 
section: (4) Passwords . The connected dev ice shall contain a security feature 
that requires a user to generate a new means of authentication. before access 
is granted to the device for the first time, and shall support the use of 
passwords meeting the NERC password strength requirements listed be low: 
(A) Each password shall be a minimum of six characters. (B) Each password 
shall consist of a combination of alpha, numeric, and special characters.  (5) 
Software Update . The manufacturer shall have an update policy that shall 
include informs the consum er how the manufacturer will support software 
updates and informs the consumer that  the device is being capable of updates 
being updated  whenever new vulnerabilities are discovered.  (A) On initial 
connection to the internet, the connected device shall atte mpt to receive 
update notice from the manufacturer’s update service and attempt to 
download, verify, and apply any available patches.  (this is not always the best 
thing to do, should not require automatic download at startup).  (B) The 
manufacturer shall pr ovide an estimated security expiration date or end of life 
policy that informs the consumer when the manufacturer will be discontinuing 
the connected ready device support.  
 11. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff appreciate s 
the comments , agrees with  the need to provide a level of 
cybersecurity , but disagrees that the requirements in the proposed 
regulatory  are too prescriptive.  Accordingly, staff  incorporated 
some of the suggested edits into an update of the proposed 
regulatory language  during the 15 -day modification process . Staff 
maintained  a specific requirement when plain text  passwords are 
used because these types of passwords  are commonplace and 
when not secure create a device vulnerability.  Staff agree that 
automatically attemptin g an update during the initial connection to 
the internet could  be problematic for some and updated the 
requirement to provide the customer or the consumer the ability to 
check for updates when they are ready  to update the device.  
 
 Page  28 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249606  Hayward Pool 
Products  
4/10/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Sam Dose  
Legislative and 
Energy 
Consultant 
Hayward 
Industries, Inc. 
One Hayward 
Industrial Dr.  
Clemmons, NC 
27012  
1-335-712-
9900  
 1. Alignment of Staff Report and Draft Regulation:  As previously communicated, 
Hayward supports  California and the Commission’s efforts  to reduce energy 
demand and lessen greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a statewide flexible 
demand appliance standard (FDAS) for pool controls. We find your draft regulation 
to lack clarity  and alignment with your  published  Staff Report  and support  PHTA 
recommendations  to improve  alignment.  We support recommended definition 
modification as well as the additional proposed definitions.  Effectivity Date:  We are 
concerned with your proposed effectivity date of 12 months  following  final approval  
and public ation.  Our normal  development  cycle  would  be 36-48 months  to allow  for 
validation  of designs  in our labs and in field tests.  In addition  supply chain 
constraints continue to increase lead times, especially for electronic components. 
Some  electronic  component  lead times  continue  to exceed  12 months,  and while  we 
make every effort to mitigate these, it is difficult to guarantee that we would be 
successful for  every  required  purchased  part. We support  PHTA’s  request  for an 
effectivity  date 36 months following adoption . 
 
2. Priming Time:  We appreciate  the CEC efforts to allow off -cycle time to facilitate 
pump priming  by proposing  a 15-minute  allowance.  While  most  pumps  in the market  
today  will be able to meet this requirement, we know that actual primi ng is as much 
a function of pool construction as pump performance.  One critical factor is the 
height difference between the pool water level and the location of the pump.  We 
support PHTA’s recommendation for a 30-minute priming time allowance . 
 
3. Conclusi on: The suggested PHTA modifications to the proposed regulatory 
language are opportunities for further improvement that we urge the Commission 
consider . These recommended  changes  will ultimately  provide  clarity  that is needed  
in terms  of what  is and is not  in scope;  eliminate  requirements  that will stifle 
innovation ; and provide  adequate  time for manufacturers to develop and validate 
products  prior to introduction in the market.  
 1. Comment acknowledged and related changes made . Staff 
incorporates its responses to the Pool and Hot Tub Association’s 
comments by reference here. Staff appreciate s the comments 
and considered the request for additional time. The final effective 
date will give manufacturers almost two years after the CE C 
adopted the regulations to comply, which staff has determined is 
a reasonable compromise that balances the interests served by 
the regulation with the reasons advanced by the commenter.  
 
2. Comment acknowledged and no change necessary . Staff 
appreciate s the comments and incorporated the suggested edits  
via the 15 -day modification process in a way that a specific time 
allowance for pump priming is no longer needed . 
 
3. Comment acknowledged. Staff incorporates its responses to the 
Pool and Hot Tub Association’s comments by reference here. 
Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated many of the 
suggested edits into an update of the proposed regulatory 
language  via the 15 -day modification pr ocess . 
 
 Page  29 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250692  Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
4/11/2023  
45-Day Public 
Hearing  Comment  
Oral 
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 1. Thank you Commissioner and staff. I just wanted us to make a brief 
comment. Jennifer Hatfield. I represent the pool in Hot Tub Alliance in our 
member support California and the commission's efforts to reduce energy 
demand and lessen the greenhouse gas emis sions by establishing these 
statewide flexible demand appliance standards for pool controls. We have 
suggested some modifications to the proposed regulatory language . Those 
were submitted yesterday . And I'll just note we think these are opportunities 
to further improve the language you have that you reviewed today. And we 
just urge you to commission the commission to consider them. We think 
they're ultimately going to provide clarity that is needed in terms of what is 
and isn't in scope. Eliminate requireme nts that it will stifle innovation  and 
provide adequate time for manufacturers to develop the products . So with 
that, I just want to thank you so much for all your hard work on this. We look 
forward to continuing to hopefully provide helpful comments to th e 
commission. And thanks.  
 1. Comment acknowledged . General comment of support and 
notification of written comment  submitted under TN  249582 . 
 Page  30 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250692  Power Networks LLC.  
4/11/2023  
45-Day Public 
Hearing Comment 
Oral 
 
Dr. Bob Cruichshank  
 1. Hello. Thank you very much for pulling this together. And for the prior 
document which we provided comments on, I was curious if the slides have 
already been distributed. I joined a few minutes late and I put that in the chat. 
And then my question is, did you say  that a device has to have two way IP 
connectivity to be considered connected?  … That's great. I think that was in 
the spirit of several comments that were provided on the written version a 
few months ago. Thank you for the clarification.  
 1. Comment acknowledged. The initial  proposed regulatory 
language  did not require two -way communication , and originally 
indicated that just receiving a data packet would be acceptable.  
Staff revised the proposed regulatory language to require two -way 
communic ation based upon similar received comments, consistent 
with this comment.  
 
 Page  31 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250692  Fluidra  
4/11/2023  
45-Day Public 
Hearing Comment 
Oral 
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director of 
Regulatory Compliance  
2882 Whiptail Loop 
#100  
Carlsbad, CA 92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 1. Hello and thanks for the opportunity here. Just want to say we have 
submitted written comments along with PHTA , which we fully support their 
comments  as well. We agree with the approach , so of the pool automation 
system or pool controls being what we want to target and not just a pool 
pump controller. This assures the appropriate operation of all pool equipment 
and the safety of the pool. I would just encourage the CEC as they read 
through our comments if they want to reach out directly to manufacturers to 
get clarity on exactly what the comment means. If there's any questions, 
concerns, please reach out to us or happy to answer those questions to 
make sure it's understood.  And ultimately,  we want to help provide a rule 
that's meaningful and enforceable . Thank you.  
 1. Comment acknowledged . General comment of support and 
notificatio n of written comment submitted under TN  249605 . 
 
 Page  32 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
249610  SkyCentrics  
4/11/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Tristan de 
Frond eville  
Founder & 
CEO, 
SkyCentrics  
Berkeley, CA  
 1. SkyCentrics  would  like to thank  Fluidra  for making specific  comments  on connectivity.  
In particular, they say: "Fluidra agrees  to keep  the connectivity  options open  to the 
manufacturer  and utility aggregators.  We strongly  recommend  cloud  to cloud  (API)  
communication  to connected equipment.  Each  manufacturer  of connected products 
already has some  sort of API infrastructure  in place  which would make this the 
easiest  and fastest transition for  the industry.  Fluidra connected  products can 
already receive commands from our cloud - based API systems.  External hardware 
devices  such  as CTA-2045  are not necessary and  should  not be made  mandatory.  
Can be one of  the options that a  manufacturer  may choose for connectivity,  not a 
mandatory requirement."  SkyCentrics would like to  point out  to the commission  that 
no manufacturer  has ever provided a  CTA-2045 EcoPort  as a standard issue on their 
product without  a mandate . Manufacturers  are quite happy  to provide  API access  to 
their products  because  then (a) they don't  have  to make changes to their  hardware , 
which they generally like to avoid doing  and (b) it means that at  scale,  they have 
monopolized the access  to their devices, without any competition being  possible.  It 
means that there is  no other way to provide price and carbon signals to the devices.  
The competition  and the utilities also  have  no guaranteed access to  an alternative 
communication path  then that chosen by  the OEM. In most cases  that will be  Wi-Fi. 
Utilities have a lot of issues with  customers  keeping  their devices on  Wi-Fi when they 
change their password  and they incur  operations  costs  to put them back  on. They 
would like  alternative  choices  when possible, which a hardware CTA -2045  EcoPort 
guarantees.  Historically, utilities have had trouble with this model  because they have  
to negotiate con tracts with  every manufacturer.  They are  also susceptible  to 
manufacturers randomly  end-of-lifing access  to their API . Some  utilities  have  told us 
that they prefer  to have one CTA -2045 module maker  to work with, then to  have  to 
negotiate contracts with every OEM  and then integrate with every different  API, and 
to date,  there has never been an API  standard for utility signals.  
 1. Comment acknowledged. No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response  to this comment.  Staff disagrees with this 
comment for the reasons advanced in PHTA’s May 9, 2023,  
comment below. Staff incorporates its responses to this 
commenter’s first comments on the 45 -day notice here.  
 
 Page  33 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250072  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
5/9/2023  
45-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of  
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 1. Connectivity . PHTA  strongly  supports  and encourages  the CEC  to keep  connectivity  
means  in this rulemaking  flexible to provide manufacturers options on how 
compliance can occur and allow for future innovation. It has been suggested that 
the rule should require a CTA-2045 communication port ; however, specific to pool 
controls, this is problematic. Unlike a wate r heater, pool equipment is installed 
outdoors, and we are not aware of any weatherproof CTA -2045 port on the market.  
Mandating any specific type of connectivity means will limit future technology . 
However, an external hardware device such as a CTA -2045 po rt can be an option 
that a manufacturer  may choose.  This would  allow  future  considerations  and 
research  to determine, for example, if a weatherproof CTA -2045 port can be 
developed. If the CEC were to require only  a CTA-2045  port, the length  of time 
required  for the research  and product  development would drastically increase the 
amount of time needed before manufacturers could possibly attempt to comply. 
Whereas manufacturers of connected products on the market today already have 
some sort of API infr astructure in place, which will make the transition less time  
consuming  (although  as our previous  comments  stated,  additional  time from what  is 
currently proposed is needed to comply with the current proposed requirements).  
 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff agrees 
with this comment. No changes to the regulatory language were 
made in response  to this comment  because it does not seek any  
– the regulatory language proposed by staff has not mandated 
any specific type of connectivity,  which ali gns with this comment . 
 
 Page  34 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250967  Inex 
Recreation 
Corp.  
7/7/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Mathew 
Whalen  
4001 Via Oro 
Ave 
P.O. Box 1440  
Long Beach, 
CA 90801 -
1440  
(310) 549 -5400  
 1. Pool filter pumps  supplied  with storable  pools  currently  comply  with the DOE regulations  and 
include  a timing  system  that automatically  starts  and stops  the pump  after a user 
defined  run time.  These  timing systems  are self-contained  and are not WiFi,  Bluetooth,  
or radio  connected  devices . We would  like to offer the following  comments  on the 
revised  proposed  rule. “Pool  Control”  and “Integral”  Definitions . The 15 -day proposed  
language for  what  constitutes a  pool control  is not only a  significant departure from  
what  was previously  published,  but also contrary  to the table  in the February  23, 2023,  
staff report and  previous  conversations  the pool industry  has had with staff.  The 
primary  concern  is regarding controls that  may be integral to  a pool pump appearing 
to now  fall under the scope of  this rulemaking . Based  on previous  rulemaking  
documents,  we understood  integral  controls  to be out of scope  and we are  not aware  
of any pool industry  comments  to the CEC  implying  this should  be changed.  Further, 
the current proposed definition lacks  clarity,  which will cause interpretation issues for 
those required  to comply  with this rulemaking.  As drafted  it could  be interpreted  to impact  
many  products that we do not believe  was the CEC’s  intent,  such as capturing  small storable  
pool sand  and cartridge filters  that have a basic built -in digital  timer  that turns  the pump  on 
every  24 hours  and turns  it off after the preset  run time. This significant  change  will add 
additional  costs  to the products  that previously  did not fall under  the definition  of “pool  
control”.  The amount  of time required  to design,  pilot, certify  (the addition  of a Wi-Fi 
module will require FCC certification and privacy related controls), and tool for 
manufacturing the new module  will take at least  36 months.  
 
2. We believe September 2024 is not enough time for us to be prepared considering this 
significant change in scope of what falls under a “pool control.” The lack of clarity within 
the definition will only further increase the time needed to comply, as manufac turers 
obtain product specific clarity from the CEC on what will have  to comply  before  
proceeding  with new product  designs.  
 1. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff agrees 
with these  comments  related to definitions  and incorporated Pool 
and H ot Tub Associations edits  that clarify scope  into an update 
of the proposed regulatory language  via the 15 -day modification 
process . As described in the staff report , staff determined 
creating an exception for a storable pool pump controller would 
be a lost opportunity for consumers when it comes to managing 
their electricity bills and avoiding GHG emissions therefore the 
comment to create an exclusion was not accepted . 
 
2. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff 
appreciates the comments  and agrees in part and modified the 
“effective date” provision of section 1693(b)(1) to require that 
pool controls manufactured after September 29, 2025,  meet the 
standard, f or the reasons stated in the comment. This will give 
manufacturers almost two years after the CEC adopted the 
regulations to comply, which staff has determined is a 
reasonable compromise that balances the interests served by the 
regulation with the reasons  advanced by the commenter.  
 
 Page  35 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250967  Inex 
Recreation 
Corp.  
7/7/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Mathew 
Whalen  
4001 Via Oro 
Ave 
P.O. Box 1440  
Long Beach, 
CA 90801 -
1440  
(310) 549 -5400  
 3. In addition, the Pool & Hot  Tub Alliance (PHTA) previously provided a  definition  for 
an “integral dedicated purpose pool pump control”, but the new definition being 
proposed for “integral” does not connect to the rulemaking, as the term is not used within 
the revised proposed language. Based on all the above,  we strongly urge the  CEC to 
rever t to the original  intent  of what  is covered  under a pool control  and consider  the 
definition  suggestions  PHTA  previously  provided  in their April 10, 2023,  comments,  
as follows: Replace  the current proposed  definition  of “pool  control”  with the following  
language: “Pool  control”  means  any component  or group  of components,  including  
software,  that: For integral dedicated purpose pool pump controls, has the capability 
to independently schedule the operation and/or  control  the start or stop times  of a 
pool fi lter pump and  other pool  equipment,  and uses  single -phase  AC power  as input  
power; For other  than integral  dedicated  purpose  pool pump  controls,  has the capability  
to independently schedule the operation and/or control  the start or stop times  of a 
pool filter pump,  and uses  single -phase  AC power  as input  power;  or Includes,  but is 
not limited  to, a pool timer,  pool pump  switch,  heater  switch,  or direct  load control  switch.  
 
4. Replace  the definition  of “integral”  with the following  definition:  “Integral  dedicated  purpose  
pool pump  control”  means  a pool pump  control  provided  as an integral  part of a dedicated  
purpose pool  pump  control  supplied  as an  integral  part of a dedicated  purpose pool pump  
or a replacement  dedicated  purpose  pool pump  motor  that controls  the pool pump  motor.  
A user interface  or a user interface  that is sold separately,  that controls  the pool pump  
motor;  or an integral dedicated  purpose pool  pump  control  that is capable  of being  
removed  from a dedicated  purpose pool pump  or a replacement  dedicated  purpose  pool 
pump  motor  for remote  mounting;  is an integral dedicated  purpose  pool pump  control.  
 
5. Intex also suggests the CEC  include a definition of “independently schedule ” to clarify that 
only connected pool controls are within the scope of the rule:  “Independently Schedule” 
means the capability to communicate via a data connection to an external device or 
devices, for purposes of reading, adjusting, or interrupting the operation of the controlled 
device.  
 3. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Staff 
appreciate s the comments and incorporated the intent of the 
suggested edits into an update of the proposed regulatory 
language.  Staff did modify language  to align more with  the 
original intent of what is covered  under a pool control as 
suggested ; however , staff did not use  the exact language as 
proposed by the commenter. Staff incorporates its response to 
the Inex Recreation Corp.  comment  1 above, here.  
 
4. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted  because staff did 
not replace the definition of integral ; however , staff  did modify  the 
proposed regulatory language to address the commenter concern  
with the definition using an alternate approach . Staff appreciate s 
the comments and incorporated the sugg ested edits  removing the 
need to have a definition for the word “integral”  into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language.  Staff incorporates its response 
to the Inex Recreation Corp. comment 1  above, here.  
 
5. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted  because  a 
definition of “independently  schedule ” was not added. Instead 
staff determined that removing the word “independently ” in the 
description of pool control  would provide the needed clarity 
without requiring  an additional definition . Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits  removing the 
word “independently” from “ independently schedule”, adding 
clarity  into an update of the proposed regulatory language.  Staff 
incorporates its response to the Inex Recreation Corp. co mment 
1 above, here.  
 
 Page  36 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250987  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 1. PHTA suggests  the Commission take the entire Energy Star definition of “open 
standards”  and not just part of it, to ensure consistency and prevent confusion. In 
addition, per the CEC’s June 29, 2023, email providing PHTA clarification on what 
constitutes an open standards communication, we would encourage the same l ist 
of examples provided t o us be included in the definition itself . This will provide 
clarity and guidance that can be extremely useful to those required to comply with 
this rulemaking . Replace  the current  proposed  “open  standards”  definition  with the 
following  language : “Open  standards”  means  a communication  with entities  outside  
the CPPS  that use, for all communication layers, standards:  Included  in the Smart  
Grid Interoperability  Panel  (SGIP)  Catalog  of Standards, and/or  Included  in the 
National  Institute  of Standards  and Technology  (NIST)  Smart  Grid Framework 
Tables 4.1 and 4.2, and/or  Adopted by the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) or another well - established international standards organization such as 
the International Organization  for Standardization  (ISO) , International  
Electrotechnical  Commission (IEC), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet Engineering 
Task Force (IETF).  Examples  would  include,  but not be limited  to, Wi-Fi, Zigbee,  
and Bluetooth.  In addition, if the following links can be provided within the 
rulemaking or within any forthcoming  guidance,  this could  also be helpful,  as they 
are the same  links Energy  Star provides for Items 2 and 3 above, respectfully:  
https:// www.nist.gov/programs -projects/smart -grid-national -coordination/catalog -
standards , http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/NIST_Framework_Release_2 -
0_corr.pdf  
 1. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff 
appreciate s the comments and incorporated the  intent of the  
suggested edits  us as much as possible from the ENERGY STAR 
definition  into an update of the proposed regulatory language.  
Section 1691(a) defines “Open standards” as “standards adopted 
or published, individually or jointly, by one or more of the 
following organizations:  the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU), In stitute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF).” This better aligns the regulation with the Energy Star 
Program , to the extent staff has determined necessary.  In 
particular , the regulation names the larges t, most established 
standards setting organizations  but declines to include direct 
references to individual po rtions of the standards or product 
names which can change over time.  
 
 Page  37 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250987  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 2. Radio Broadcast Data System Receivers . This is another area of the 15 -day 
proposed language that marks a substantial new requirement that previously did not 
exist in prior proposed language nor was requested by indust ry or the California 
Investor -Owned Utilities. Simply put, this came as a surprise to industry considering 
the February 23, 2023, staff report determined not to include FM connectivity. The 
change appears based on one stakeholder comment, without inquiring  from industry 
if this was something currently done or could be achieved. A January 1, 2027, 
compliance requirement is  not adequate time , first and foremost due to the fact no 
industry manufacturer currently produces products with a radio broadcast data 
system receiver. Considering the industry has not even attempted such a design, 
there may be many technical pitfalls and difficulties that would have to be overcome 
or that may simply not work with current products. Initial assessments have 
concluded that th ere are possible security concerns with such a requirement, for 
instance. Further there are a lot of unknowns regarding reliability and good 
communication when using a radio broadcast data system receiver . Our preliminary 
evaluation is FM is not a practical application for pool control products , but even if it 
is found to be technically feasible, the time and costs to redesign all current 
products are underestimated. What is cited as the cost to do so is a small portion of 
what the total  cost will be to a manufacturer. In  the end, 15 days  is simply  not 
enough  time for industry to  do the due diligence  to know  all the issues  that may exist 
and what  that may mean  in terms of cost and time to comply. PHTA suggests the 
CEC remove this requirement in the f inal regulation . If it is something the 
Commission  wants  to consider  in the future,  we would  request  time for a thorough  
discussion with industry prior to making it a future requirement. Considering 
additional products will be added to the flexible demand program, an FM receiver 
could be added at a later date, if found to be a practical application for pool controls . 
 2. Com ment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments , agrees with them for the reasons stated in the 
comment  and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language  that eliminated the option for 
using radio broadc ast data system receivers  in the second 15-
day modification process . In that process, t he definition of “Radio 
broadcast data system receiver” or “radio data system receiver” 
was deleted from section 1691(a) and the option to use them as 
communication devi ces was deleted from section 169 3(b)(6). 
References to “Radio broadcast data system receiver” or “radio 
data system receiver” were also deleted from the consent 
provisions of section 1694(e).  
 
 Page  38 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250987  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 3. Compliance  Date.  PHTA supports the addition of the connected ready option  for 
devices manufactured on or after  September  13, 2024 . Industry  concern  with the 
January  1, 2027,  compliance  date is that by removing the con nected ready option 
consumers who have built their pool pad based on that  option  and have  a 
centralized  control  platform  will now in effect  be penalized  or they will simply 
hesitate to purchase new products. This is because PHTA interprets the January 1, 
2027, requirements to mean that even if a consumer already has a connected pool 
pad, but they want to now replace or upgrade a piece of equipment, they must pay 
again for something they already have due to the requirement  it must be a 
connected device and not simply connected ready.  PHTA suggests  the 
Commission add a provision to allow the sale of “connected ready” pool controls  
for pool owners that already have th e separate components necessary for 
connectability, as consumers should not pay more for components they already 
have purchased.  Perhaps  the Commission  can work  with the utilities  to determine  if 
the consumer is using the flexible demand program with their  connected ready 
device, allowing an exemption from having to purchase this unnecessary device.  
 3. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff 
proposed inclusion of provisions for “connected ready”  pool 
controls in a n early revision of the proposed regulatory language, 
however received commentary on those provisions led staff to 
subsequently  remove  reference to “ connected ready” products 
and instead modify the effective date for requiring connected 
devices.  Staff determined that t he widespre ad availability of 
modern IoT device technology has decreased  costs to connect 
devices , such that the cost to make a device be connected is a 
relatively small fraction of the overall cost to consumers.  Staff 
appreciates the comments and has added time to t he original 
compliance date via the 15 -day modification process, making it 
now September  2025, which is nearly two years after the 
Commission adopted the regulation at its. The final effective date 
plus the rulemaking duration results with almost three yea rs, but 
significantly longer that the one year that was first proposed. 
Staff agrees with this comment in part and modified the “effective 
date” provision of section 1693(b)(1) to require that pool controls 
manufactured after September 29, 2025,  meet the s tandard, for 
the reasons stated in the comment. This will give manufacturers 
almost two years after the CEC adopted the regulations to 
comply, which staff has determined  is a reasonable compromise 
that balances the interests served by the regulation with t he 
reasons advanced by the commenter.  
 
 Page  39 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250987  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 4. Clock  Requirements  and Smart  Devices.  The 15 -day language would require both 
local and remote set up, but most controls come with a simple interface, and it is 
within the smart device application, the remote set up, that the  more  
comprehensive  controls  and options  exist.  An application  on a smart  device  should 
be an approved user interface and should be considered local set  up if it is going 
through Bluetooth . To not interpret a smart device application as a means for local 
set up is stifling the way technology is trending and what consumers want to use. 
Consumers do not want to have to go out to their pool pad to control th e various 
equipment, rather, they want to be able to do so not only from the comfort of their 
living room, but also from afar. Further, if a smart device application is not 
considered local set up, manufacturers will have to add these more comprehensive  
controls  to the pump  itself,  which  will have  additional  costs  not accounted  for in the 
staff analysis and in most cases, these added functions will not be utilized. PHTA 
suggests that a “smart device application” be added to (B)2 to provide the needed 
clarit y. To do otherwise  is contrary  to where  the market  is going  and only adds  cost 
to the consumer that is not warranted . 
 4. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and incorporated the intent of the 
suggested edits into an update of the proposed regulatory language 
via the 15 -day modification process for the reasons stated in the 
comment. Section 1691 now provides this definition of “Connected 
device” means any device that can wirelessly communicate via open 
standards with e ntities outside the device by means of integrated or 
separate communications hardware or software. A device that is 
able to receive but not send communication is not a connected 
device. Section 1693(b) requires pool controls to be connected 
devices.  Sectio n 1693(b)(2) was modified via the second 15 -day 
notice and the local setup requirement was eliminated for the 
reasons specifie d in the comment . 
 
 Page  40 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250987  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 5. Section  1694.  Customer  and Consumer  Consent . The 15-day language  adds  new 
sections  (b)-(e) that may not be applicable  to pool controls. We understand this 
section is ultimately for all products that fall under flexible demand standards and is 
not intended to be specific to pool controls, but as written there are concerns with 
how pool controls must respond , as follows: Is  the intent whether  the pool control  can 
start/stop  and/or  change  the schedule  of its own operation or is it that the pool control 
be capable of starting/stopping and/or changing the operation or schedule of the 
specific equipment? Equipment could be the pool filter pump, pressure cleaner 
booster pump (PCBP), and/or an electric pool heater, for example. Is the intent 
whether the pool control can provide the operation status and programmed  schedule  
of the pool control  itself or is it that the pool control  should  be capable of providing the 
operation status and programmed schedule of the specific equipment (i.e., pool filter 
pump, PCBP, and/or electric heater)?  Is the intent  whether  the pool control  can 
provide  a transmission  representing  the real -time power draw of the pool control itself 
or is it that it must be capable of providing the data of the real -time power draw of the 
specific equipment it is controlling?  Is the intent whether the pool control is capable of 
starting/stopping and/or changing  the schedule  of its own operation  or is it that the 
pool control  can start/stop and/or change the operation or schedule of the specific 
equipment it is controlling?  Using item (d) for a more detailed example of our 
concerns, we understand this is requiring the real -time power draw to be reported, 
but the power draw for the actual pool control is minimal. If the intent is to ascertain 
the power draw of the products the pool control is controlling,  how would  a pool 
control  know  what  other  equipment  is hooked  up and runnin g, and how to estimate its 
consumption and be able to report back?  The power draw and other requirements  in 
these new subsections make sense if the appliance is a connected washing 
machine , for instance, as you are specifically looking for the  information  from the 
washing  machine.  In the case  of a pool control,  it can be controlling a multitude of 
equipment and it is not feasible for that to be reported . Therefore, PHTA 
recommends the Commission consider an exception for pool controls to these 
specific requirements . Alternatively, we request the Commission clarify how this 
would work where potentially the pool control is connected to multiple pieces of 
equipment.  
 5. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. In response to 
this comment and for the rea sons stated in it, section 1694 was 
modified in the 1 5-day modification process. In that process, 
subsections (c) -(e) were stricken and section 1694 (b) was 
amended to read as follows: “(b) Appliances that are connected 
devices and are subject to this Artic le shall be capable of 
receiving, acting upon, and responding to authorized remote 
requests via a communication link, that schedule, shift, or curtail 
appliance operations with customer or consumer consent. At a 
minimum, the appliance shall be capable of a cting upon and 
responding to authorized signals received via a communication 
link requesting: (1) the start or stop of operation; and (2) 
changes to equipment operation or schedule. ” Staff appreciate s 
the comments and incorporated the intent of the suggest ed edits  
to create flexibility  into an update of the proposed regulatory 
language . 
 
 Page  41 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250987  Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jennifer 
Hatfield  
Government 
Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, 
PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards 
and Codes  
 6. Pool controls are the first product to be regulated under the flexible demand 
standard program and we urge the CEC to not rush a rulemaking  that in this latest 
15-day language has substantive new requirements and many areas that are unclear 
and could cause  interpretation  issues . This in turn will negatively  affect  the program  
itself,  the consumers  and the manufacturers who are trying to comply with an 
ambiguous rule. The suggested PHTA modifications  to the latest proposed regulatory 
language are opportuniti es for further  improvement  that we strongly  urge the 
Commission  consider  before issuing a final rule.  
 6. Comment acknowledged. The CEC agrees with this comment 
and worked closely with participants to address issues during  the 
rulemaking process , as shown by the multiple published revisions 
to the proposed regulatory language and this response to 
participant comments . 
 
 Page  42 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250988  National 
Electrical 
Manufacturers 
Association  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Alex Baker  
Director , 
Regulatory 
Affairs  
 1. NEMA and its members who manufacture dedicated purpose pool pump motors 
(DPPPM) support  the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) e ﬀorts to reduce 
energy consumption from pool pumps operating at unnecessarily high levels through 
establishing ﬂexible demand appliance standards  (FDAS) for pool controls.  
Unfortunately, the proposed deﬁni tion of “pool control” and “pool controls” would 
unintentionally  include DPPPM within scope , thereby requiring motors that were not 
designed or intended to be used to control the entire  pool system to comply with the 
FDAS for pool controls. As a result, consumers would be forced to purchase an 
entire  pool pump system in situations  where a replac ement DPPPM would su ﬃce. 
Since DPPPM are not designed to function  as pool controls, by unintentionally  
including them within the scope of the pool control deﬁni tion, CEC would 
inadvertently eliminate DPPPM products from the marketplace.  In the le tter 
submi tted by the Pool & Hot Tub Alliance (PHTA) on April 10, 2023, P HTA proposed 
the following modiﬁca tions to the pool control(s) deﬁni tion. NEMA supports this 
proposed language, since it would exclude DPPPM from the scope of the deﬁn ition. 
DPPPM should not be  included as a pool control that must be a communicating  
device.  
 1. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment for the reasons stated in it and made modifications in 
the second 15-modification process in response to it. The first 
was to define DPPPM in section 1692(b) as follows: “Dedicated -
purpose pool pump motor” has the meaning specified in 10 CFR 
431 Subpart Z (2021). Staff appreciate s the comments and 
incorporated the suggested edits for pool control scope into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language.  The final version of 
section 1692(b) also now contains this definition: “Pool control” 
means equipment with the capability to star t, stop, or otherwise 
control the operation of a pool filter pump and includes, but is not 
limited to, a pool timer, pool pump switch, heater switch, direct 
load control switch, or any component or group of components, 
including software, that has the capa bility to schedule the 
operation or control the start or stop times of a pool filter pump. 
Pool controls may control other pool equipment in addition to a 
pool filter pump. 1. “Pool control” excludes: (A) controls marketed 
exclusively for use as a control for pool filter pumps with a rated 
hydraulic horsepower (hhp) greater than 2.5 hhp; or (B) safety 
interlock or shutoff controls; or (C) controls integral to a single 
pool filter pump or pump motor that are capable of controlling 
only that pump or motor.   Staff disagrees with this comment in 
relation to DPPMs and does not believe the modified reg ulation 
would prohibit their use or exclude them from the marketplace.  
 
 Page  43 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  1a. The CA IOUs appreciate the CEC’s revisions  to the proposed flexible demand 
appliance stand ards for pool controls that align with recommendations in prior CA 
IOU comments.  We support changes made to the proposal  to strike the consumer 
product requirement from the overarching regulation scope and to specify a 
consumer product scope for pool contr ols. 
 
1b. Additionally, we support the addition of definitions  and requirements in alignment 
with the U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR® Specification for Pool Pumps Connected 
Product Criteria. We support  the requirement for the use of open standards and 
bi-directional  communication  in connected devices, as well as the requirement for 
connected devices to be able to respond to user authorized remote requests  and 
to be able to report power demand, with user consent.  
 
2. The CA IOUs do not support  the addition of a requirement for pool controls to 
contain radio broadcast system receivers , and we request that the CEC remove 
the requirement from this rulemaking. This prescriptive requirement does not 
allow for the evolution of future broadcast method ologies as technology 
progresses. Furthermore, there is insufficient time  and limited information in the 
rulemaking documents for stakeholders to vet the new requirement.  
 1a. Comment acknowledged. Staff appreciate s the comments and 
support for the changes  made in response to previous comments . 
 
1b. Comment acknowledged. Staff appreciates the comments and 
support for changes made in response to previous comments.  
 
2. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and incorporated the suggested edits into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language  that eliminated the option for 
using radio broadcast data system receivers in the second 15-
day modification process. In that process, the definition of “ Radio 
broadcast data system receiver” or “radio data system receiver” 
was deleted from section 1691(a) and the option to use them as 
communication devices was deleted from section 1693(b)(6). 
References to “Radio broadcast data system receiver” or “radio 
data system receiver” were also deleted from the consent 
provisions of section 1694(e).  Staff made these changes because 
it agrees with the reasons advanced in this comment and other 
similar comments that including radio broadcast data system 
receivers  in the regulation is premature at this point in that staff 
and stakeholders have not had suffici ent time to analyze the 
technical feasibility and cost effectiveness aspects their use.  
 
 Page  44 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  3. Although radio broadcasting is briefly mentioned as a means of connectivity in the Final 
Staff Report,1 the report does not provide sufficient information on the feasibility of 
using radio broadcasting for widespread transmission  of demand flexibility sign als in 
the future, where other connectivity options such as the internet or cellular connectivity 
are currently being used to provide demand flexibility information to appliances.2 For 
example, the technical feasibility of using radio broadcasting to trans mit demand 
flexibility information in the future may be affected by the ongoing transition from 
traditional analog radio to hybrid and digital radio signals with higher data rates  that will 
be more suitable for ancillary uses like utility load management.3  The Staff Report and 
Supplementary Staff Analysis do not clarify whether analog or digital broadcasting data 
will be required , or if the transition to digital radio signals and receivers could result in 
stranded assets if devices are installed with equipm ent that does not work with future 
radio broadcasting signals.  Additionally, the cost information for radio receiver chips  
provided in the CEC’s Supplemental Staff Analysis would benefit from additional 
vetting . Unlike internet connectivity, which is alrea dy implemented in several pool 
control products on the market, no major manufacturers provide a pool control product 
that includes a radio receiver in addition to internet connectivity, so more analysis is 
needed  to determine the full costs of adding this feature . A full cost analysis should 
also include consideration of the CA IOUs’ cost to support demand flexibility signaling 
using radio broadcasting systems. Furthermore, the CEC has also not provided a 
means of verification to show that radio receivers c an work  as intended during pool 
equipment operation or that data can be received reliably in an environment with radio 
frequency noise , as variable -speed electric motors have been shown to interfere with 
radio frequencies.4 Given this uncertainty, a test m ethod for radio -enabled  pool 
controls should be provided for products to demonstrate their ability to receive and act 
on data received via radio broadcast . Because redesigning products to ensure clear, 
repeatable receipt of radio signals in proximity to po ol pump motors and other pool 
equipment may require costs that exceed the radio communication chip costs 
presented in the Supplemental Staff Analysis, the provided information is not sufficient 
to support the proposed radio receiver requirement.  Since the additional radio receiver 
requirement would add cost to FDAS -regulated appliances, and lacking analysis on the 
technical feasibility of this option, we request that the CEC remove the requirement for 
mandatory radio broadcast data system receivers from thi s rulemaking . In future 
appliance specific FDAS rulemakings, the CEC should explore communications 
options for customers without internet or cellular connectivity and should more 
thoroughly justify the technical feasibility and cost -effectiveness of propos ed options in 
published rulemaking documents.  3. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with 
these  comments,  and the radio requirements were  removed  
during  an update of the proposed regulatory language  in the 
second 15-day modification process.  Staff incorporates its 
response to CA IOU c omment 2 above by reference here . 
 Page  45 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor  
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  3a. The CA IOUs support  FDAS requirements for secure, bi -directional, reliable, and 
open -standard based communication  that allows devices to receive and respond to 
demand flexibility signals from the CEC’s Market I nformed Demand Automation 
Server (MIDAS) as well as utilities or authorized third parties. As noted in our prior 
comments, the CEC’s Load Management Rulemaking will require utilities to 
maintain up -to-date rate information in the new MIDAS database. The CE C should 
incorporate the Load Management Rulemaking’s requirements  into FDAS, for 
example, by requiring FDAS -regulated devices  (or devices via their manufacturer 
clouds) to connect to the MIDAS  Application Programming Interface, download 
relevant rate sche dules, greenhouse gas (GHG) signals, or price signals, and 
schedule device operation in response to those signals. The CEC could also 
consider a limited waiver process  for FDAS that allows manufacturers of highly 
flexible pool controls to waive the applian ce specific default operating schedule 
requirement  (section 1693(b)(2)(C)) if the device or its software can connect by 
default to the MIDAS database , access the relevant rate schedule, dynamic price 
signal, or GHG signal for the customer, and schedule ope ration to avoid high 
demand processes during times with high electricity prices or high GHG emissions.  
 
3b. We recommend revising the appliance specific requirements  to state that pool 
control connectivity should be capable of being used to respond to remo te requests  
to modify the operation of equipment controlled by the pool control (e.g., the pool 
filter pump or heater) in response to changing conditions or load management 
signals, with consumer consent.  
 
3c. Regarding the “connected device” and “connecte d ready device” definitions , as 
noted in prior comments, w e recommend addressing appliance connectivity 
separately for each appliance rather than setting requirements across all FDAS in 
the pool controls rulemaking.  For example, the “connected device” defi nition 
specifies a requirement for wireless communication, but this requirement may not 
be universally applicable across all appliances as some appliances may use a 
wired connection for communication. The CEC could address this concern by 
limiting the defi nition in this rulemaking to “connected pool control” while 
addressing connectivity for other appliances in future rulemakings. The proposed 
“connected device” and “connected ready device” definitions could additionally be 
redrafted for clarity, for exampl e, by removing the definition for “connected device” 
embedded within the “connected ready device” definition.  3a. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . The 
proposed language would allow , but not require, pool controls to 
connect to the MIDAS interface ; a waiver process would be  
burdensome and  unworkable at this point  and not serve the 
goals of the program.  Staff appreciate s the comments and 
incorporated the suggest ions regarding secure, bi -directional, 
reliable and open -standard communication  ideas  into the 
proposed regulatory language  via the 15 -day modification 
process.  
 
3b. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff  agree s with this 
comment and made the suggested change.  
 
3c. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff  
agrees with this c omment and has determined that it is more 
desirable in the regulation to generally define what it is for an  
FDAS to be connected  or connected ready and evaluate this 
requirement on a case -by-case basis in future FDAS 
rulemakings  as provided in the final proposed regulatory 
language . Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated 
some of the suggested edits.  
 
 Page  46 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  3d. As described in the Final Staff Report, pool controls control the operation of a 
variety of pool equipment including but  not limited to pool filter pumps. Section 
1694 (Customer and Consumer Consent) states that connected appliances shall 
be capable of res ponding to authorized remote requests and reporting their own 
real-time power draw. Because pool controls operate a variety of pool equipment 
outside of the controls themselves, more clarity is needed  beyond the language in 
the Customer and Consumer Consen t section to explain if the control and 
reporting features  would apply to just the pool control or also to equipment 
operated by the pool control, such as the pool filter pump . 
 3d. Comment acknowledged and accepted.  Staff agrees with this 
comment. Section  1693(b)(6) was redrafted and now provides: 
“(C) Pool controls shall be capable of communicating their current 
operating status, at a minimum meaning whether the device is 
operating or not operating the pool filter pump, and their stored 
schedule. (D) Pool  controls that are capable of communicating 
additional information, including but not limited to real -time power 
draw, shall do so only to authorized entities and only with 
customer or consumer consent.”  Section 1694(b) was redrafted 
and now provides “Appl iances that are connected devices and 
are subject to this Article shall be capable of receiving, acting 
upon, and responding to authorized remote requests via a 
communication link, that schedule, shift, or curtail appliance 
operations with customer or cons umer consent. At a minimum, 
the appliance shall be capable of acting upon and responding to 
authorized signals received via a communication link requesting: 
(1) the start or stop of operation; and (2) changes to equipment 
operation or schedule. ” Staff appreciate s the comments and 
incorporated the suggested edits into an update of the proposed 
regulatory language  through the 2nd 15-day modification 
process .  These modifications clarify and explain that the features 
described are features of the pool controls, not o f the equipment 
operated by the pool control such as the pool filter pump.  
 
 Page  47 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment 
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  3e. The CA IOUs support the addition of requirements for open standards -based and 
bi-directional communication capability in the “connected device” definition . We 
also support the addition of requi rements in section 1694 (Customer and 
Consumer Consent) that would ensure that communication features can be used 
to respond to remote signals and to transmit energy use information with user 
consent. While the proposed appliance specific flexible demand a ppliance 
standards for pool controls require both device connectivity and a default 
operating schedule, the appliance specific standards do not specify how pool 
controls should use the required connectivity for demand flexibility . The CEC 
should clarify th e requirements  within the appliance specific standards section to 
ensure that pool controls can use connectivity features  to receive and respond to 
load management signals.  
 3e. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments and incorpor ated the suggested edits into an update of 
the proposed regulatory language. Staff agrees with this 
comment and modified section 1691(a) to read: “Connected 
device” means any device that can wirelessly communicate via 
open standards with entities outside t he device by means of 
integrated or separate communications hardware or software. A 
device that is able to receive but not send communication is not a 
connected device.” The modified definition of a “Connected 
device” coupled with appliance specific commun ication 
requirements added during the second 15 -day modification 
process, Section 1693(b)(6) clarify the communication of minimal 
load management capabilities. Staff incorporates its response to 
Comment 3d by reference here.  
 Page  48 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment 
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas 
and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  4. Given the future ramifications of this rulemaking, the CA IOUs recommend  that the 
CEC provide stakeholders with adequate time and information to vet the proposed 
regulations. The proposed regulatory language in the pool controls rulemaking will 
have ramifications for future FDAS since, as written, many sections in the 
proposed regulation will apply to all future FDAS . Therefore, it is critical that the 
CEC give relevant stakeholders sufficient time and information to properly vet the 
proposed FDAS . We request that the CEC update the Staff Report Analysis of 
Flexible Dema nd Standards for Pool Controls to reflect the changes to the 
regulation scope made throughout the rulemaking process so that stakeholders 
have access to the full justification for the proposed regulations.  
 
4a. As noted in our prior comments, future FDAS -regulated appliances will have 
different requirements than those proposed for pool controls, and definitions and 
general requirements for those appliances should be considered in future 
rulemakings . The CEC could simplify the regulation by limiting this rul emaking to 
pool controls and addressing requirements for other appliances in future 
rulemakings. This would allow relevant stakeholders the opportunity to engage 
more fully with the standards development process.  
 4. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff has ensured  
that stakeholders have been afforded adequate time and 
information to vet the proposed regulations. This is reflected in the 
quality of stakeholder comments and the many changes to the 
proposed regulation s that have been made in respons e to them. 
Staff has provided sufficient justification for the regulatory text and 
therefore, staff declines to update the staff report . The scope of the 
regulation is now realigned to the final staff report.  
 
4a. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined  that the proposed 
regulatory language appropriately and clearly differentiates 
between requirements that apply to FDAS generally and those 
that apply to pool controls specifically.  Staff has taken this 
approach to  avoid  duplicative regulatory language in each 
particular FDAS because there are definitions, testing, marking 
and enforcement provisions that appropriately apply to FDAS 
across the board.  Furthermore, diverse stakeholders , including 
those outside  the pool controls market,  have been notified and 
have engaged in the rulemaking process.  
 Page  49 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment 
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and 
Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  5. The CA IOUs recommend additional changes to the proposed regulatory language 
to increase clarity and support regulation enforceability. We offer the following 
recommendations to improve regulation clarity. The revised “pool control” definition in 
section 1691(b) departs from the prior definition described in the Final Staff Report, 
which specified that “Staff defined the scope to include devices that control the pool 
filter pump and at le ast one other piece of electric pool equipment like the electric pool 
heater, pressure cleaner booster pump, or chlorinator” (Final Staff Report, p. 45). The 
revised definition states that pool controls “may,” but are not required to, control other 
equipme nt – implying that pool controls integral to a pool pump that do not control 
other equipment are now within scope. The Staff Report and Supplemental Staff 
Analysis do not discuss why the scope has been redefined to now include pool 
controls that only contr ol the pool pump given prior industry technical feasibility 
concerns for health and safety if pump operations change without corresponding 
changes to equipment operations downstream of the pump. We recommend reverting 
to the definition of pool controls des cribed in the Final Staff Report or otherwise 
providing clarity on the feasibility of regulations using the expanded definition.  
 
5a. The revised regulatory language includes a new requirement for pool controls to 
support local setup “via a user interface”  in section 1693(b)(2)(B)(2). Since pool 
controls will be required to have connectivity features, the additional requirement for a 
local user interface will not be appropriate for all pool control products, and the CEC 
has not demonstrated the necessity of  this new requirement. The requirement  
may add unnecessary additional costs for consumers, as some products rely on an 
application or cloud based user interface for product setup making the additional local 
interface redundant. We recommend revising the re quirement to allow for both local 
and remote setup options for pool controls.  
 
5b. Throughout the proposed regulatory language, “customer” and “consumer” are 
used inconsistently including the use of both terms in some sections and the use of 
one term or the other in other sections of the regulation. We recommend clarifying the 
language t o use standardized terminology as appropriate for the regulation throughout.  
 5. Comment acknowledged and some changes made. Staff made 
modifications to the definition of “pool control” addressing multiple 
comments in the final proposed regulatory language  in section 
1691(b), including adding language that excluded the equipment 
requested by this comment.  
 
5a. Comment acknowledged and no changes made. Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined that there is utility to the 
customer to be able to ma nually control the equipment, especially in 
cases where internet connectivity is unavailable/disrupted. Manual 
controls are also a method for consumers to control when the device 
operates and thereby flex their energy use. Absent manual controls, 
customers  who do not own smart devices or have stable access to 
the internet would not be able to effectively flex their energy use. No 
changes to the regulatory language were made in response to this 
comment.  
 
5b. Comment acknowledged and no changes made. Staff di sagrees 
with this comment and has determined that retaining the use of 
“customer” and “consumer” adds clarity to the regulation, makes 
clear that regardless of a person’s status as a purchaser/user of an 
FDAS appliance or customer of a load -serving entity,  the ability of 
both groups to flex their electricity usage is key to FDAS 
requirements. It also provides clarity in interactions with other laws 
that may use either or both of these terms. If these definitions need 
to be modified in future rulemakings, st aff will revisit them then. No 
changes to the regulatory language were made in response to this 
comment.  Page  50 of 79    
TN# Author  Comment  Response  
250991  California 
Investor 
Owned 
Utilities  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment 
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, 
Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and 
Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher 
Malotte  
Sr. Manager, 
Codes and 
Standards  
Southern 
California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE 
Manager 
Customer 
Programs  
San Diego Gas 
& Electric 
Company  5c. In several instances (e.g., within requirements for Cybersecurity, Customer and 
Consumer Consent, and Data Submittal – Table A -2) the proposed standard includes 
requirements for “co nnected devices” but no similar requirements are listed for 
“connected ready devices.” The regulatory language should be updated to include 
similar requirements for “connected ready devices” to follow when they are connected 
to ensure that these devices me et the same standard as connected devices.  
 
5d. We recommend changes to the proposed regulatory language to address 
typographical errors, add  missing references, and ensure internal consistency between 
sections (e.g., requirements in Table A -1 and Table A-2 use different wording than the 
corresponding requirements in other sections of the  proposed regulatory language).  
 
Appendix:  Recommended Editorial Changes to the Proposed Regulatory Language . 
The appendix to this letter contains a table of additional r ecommended  editorial 
changes to the proposed regulatory language.  The CA IOUs appreciate the opportunity 
to provide these comments regarding the CEC Rulemaking on  Flexible Demand 
Appliance Standards for Pool Controls. We thank the California Energy Commiss ion 
for its consideration. We look forward to the next steps in the process.  
 5c. Comment acknowledged and no changes made. In the second 
15-day language, staff  remove d reference to “connected ready” 
products ; therefore , no changes to the regulatory langua ge were 
made in response to this comment.  
 
5d. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment and made the necessary changes via the second  15-day 
notice. Staff appreciates the comments and the commenters’ 
attention to detail, and incorporated the suggested edits into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language . 
 
Appendix . Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with 
this comment and made the necessary changes via the second 15 -
day notice. Staff appreciates the comments and the commenters’ 
attention to detail, and incorporated the suggested edits into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language.  
 Page  51 of 79    
TN# Auth or Comment  Response  
251002  Fluidra  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director 
of Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 1. As a member  of the Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  Fluidra  fully supports  and endorses  
the comments jointly  submitted  by the Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  (PHTA).  
2. Fluidra  proposes  the following  revisions  to the definitions  in order  to clarify  the 
intent  of what is  “in scope”  and “out of scope”,  as well as to close  any loopholes  
that may put manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage.  “Pool Control” means 
equipment with the capability to start, stop, or otherwise control the operation of 
a pool filter pump and includes, but is not limited to, a pool timer, pool pump  
switch,  heater switch, direct load control  switch, or  any component or  group  of 
components,  including  software,  that: has the capability  to independently 
schedule the operation or control the start or stop times of a pool filter pump. 
Pool controls may control other pool equipment in addition to a pool filter pump.  
“Pool control” excludes controls marketed  exclusively for use as a control for  pool 
filter pumps  with a rated  hydraulic  horsepower  (hhp)  greater  than 2.5 hhp, and 
excludes safety interlock or shutoff controls , and excludes integral pool filter 
pump controls that do not have the capability of independently  scheduling  the 
operation  or control  of other  pool equipment  in addition  to the pool filter pump.  
 
3. Fluidra  also recommends  the addition  of the following  definition : “Integral pool 
filter pump control ” means a pool pump control provided as an integral part of a 
dedicated purpose pool filter pump or a replacement dedicated purpose pool 
filter pump motor, provided with a user interface or a user interface that is sold 
separately, that controls the pool pump motor. An integral dedicated purpose  
pool pump control that is capable of being removed from a dedicated purpose 
pool pump or a  replacement dedicated purpose  pool pump  motor  for remote  
mounting  is considered  to be an integral dedicated purpose pool pump control.  
 
4. Fluidra agrees  that integral pool filter pump controls not capable of controlling 
other pool equipment should not be included in the scope  of FDAS. Including 
these pool pump controls would be a significant change to the scope of this 
ruling,  and in our opinion,  would  not be a practical  and economically  justifiable 
solution. The industry standard for a connected pool pad is through the  use of 
pool controls, otherwise known as pool automation systems.  1. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments.  Staff in corporates its responses to PHTA’s comments 
by reference here . 
 
2. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff  made 
modifications to the definition of “pool control” addressing multiple 
comments  in the final proposed regulato ry language in section 
1691(b) , including adding language that excluded the equipment  
requested by this comment . 
 
3. Comment acknowledged and changes made . Staff appreciates  
the comments and incorporated the suggested edits into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language.  Now section 
1691(b) contains the following language  that excludes from the 
definition of pool controls : “(C) controls integral to a single pool 
filter pump or pump motor that are capable of controlling only that 
pump or moto r.” 
 
4. Comment acknowledged and change made . Staff appreciate s 
the comments and incorporated the suggested edits into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language.  Now section 
1691(b) contains the following language that excludes from the 
definition of pool controls : “(C) controls integ ral to a single pool 
filter pump or pump motor that are capable of controlling only that 
pump or motor.”  
 
 Page  52 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251002  Fluidra  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director 
of Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 5. Pool filter pumps and their  integral controls should only be required to be  
“connected ready  devices ”. It would  be wasteful to force a consumer to pay 
additional costs for connectivity hardware/software when the pool controls on their 
pool pad are already compliant to the requiremen ts of a “connected device” 
transceivers unreliable and impractical on a pool pump. One of the primary 
reasons separate Pool Controls are the widely adopted method for connectivity.  
 5. Comment acknowledged. Staff disagrees with this comment. 
Staff determin ed that Pool Controls shall be connected devices. 
The widespread availability of modern IoT device technology has 
decreased costs to connect devices where the cost to make a 
device be connected is a relatively small fraction of the overall 
cost to consumer s. Staff notes that pool pumps or filters  sold with 
pool pads or similar controls are compliant with proposed 
connectivity requirements , and that replacement dedicated 
purpose pool pump  motors  are not subject to the proposed 
requirements.  Because the cost of manufacturing connected 
devices has  declined significantly over time, coupled with the fact 
that consumers who purchase connected devices will 
immediately be able to remotely control their energy use, 
requir ing the pool controls to be connected devices better 
achieves the goals of the regulation t han connected -ready 
devices which require additional steps on the part of the 
consumer  to connect and control them remotely.  
 Page  53 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251002  Fluidra  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director 
of Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 6. “Open standards” – We support the addition of all widely adopted and used open 
standards and application layer , and propose the suggested updates  to the open 
standards definition. “Open  standards”  means  a communication  with entities  
outside  the CPPS  that use, for all communication layers, standards : Included in 
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and/or Included in the Smart Grid 
Interoperability Panel (SGIP) Catalog of Standards, and/or Included  in the National  
Institute  of Standards  and Technology  (NIST)  Smart Grid Framework Tables 4.1 
and 4.2, and /or Adopted  by the American  National  Standards  Institute  (ANSI)  or 
another  well- established international standards organization such as the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical 
Commission (IEC), Internation al Telecommunication Union (ITU), Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF). Additional  examples  include,  but not be limited  to, Wi-Fi, Zigbee,  and 
Bluetooth . 6. Comment acknowledged, and no change made. Staff 
appreciates the comments and incorporated many of the 
previously suggested edits into an update of the proposed 
regulatory language. Staff added this definition of open standards 
to section 1691(a): “Open st andards” means standards adopted 
or published, individually or jointly, by one or more of the 
following organizations: the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), International Organization for S tandardization (ISO), 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU), Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF).” (The Internet Engineering Task Force i s the organization 
that adopts/publishes HTTP standards.) Staff found that 
reference to the SGIP Catalog of Standards would be redundant 
with direct reference to the entities that adopt the standards 
published in the catalog, and could potentially cause co nfusion. 
Staff also found that selecting some adopted standards to use as 
examples and not selecting others could be misleading and 
cause confusion regarding which standards are and are not 
“open standards”.  Page  54 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Respo nse 
251002  Fluidra  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director 
of Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 7. FM radio receivers have never been used for communication of pool products , as 
far as we know,  and the practicality  and reliability  of this technology  for use on pool 
controls  is unknown . Furthermore, we are unaware of any widespread adoption by 
utilities for this method of communication for Appliance Flexible Demand. Being  a 
brand -new technology  to our industry,  manufactures  will need  to consider  all 
aspects of  safety,  reliability , cybersecurity,  IoT infrastructure,  coding,  FCC 
emissions,  etc. for these  FM receivers. There would be several expected and 
unexpected challenges  to make this technology work, and with a compliance date 
of 3 years , this is a significant addition to the de velopment manufacturers will 
need for compliance to this FDAS Rule Making. Fluidra  recommends  removing  
this requirement  to this round  of rulemaking  for Pool Controls. If  in the future  this 
type of technology  is widely  adopted  as a practical,  reliable,  and sole source of 
communication for utilities and the associated flexible demand appliances, CEC 
can revisit this requirement with further input and discussion from industry, 
utilities, and all relevant stakeholders. At this time the addition of this requirem ent 
would be premature.  7. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments, agrees with them for the reasons stated in the 
comment and the radio requirements were removed during an 
update of the proposed regulatory language during the 15 -day 
modification process.  
 
 Page  55 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251002  Fluidra  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director 
of Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail 
Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 
92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 8. As previously  stated,  we disagree  with the additional  requirement  of a radio  
broadcast data system receiver . Additionally, pool owners should still be able to 
purchase “connected  ready  devices ” for their existing  pool pad after 2027.  For 
example,  if a pool owner already owns connected pool controls that are compliant 
to the 2027 CEC “connected device” requirements, then they may not need to 
spend the money to repurchase compatible connectivity hardware for their 
upgrades.  The nature of pool controls in our industry is to have these systems be 
modular, compatible, and  upgradeable. Often  a pool owner  will upgrade  their pool 
controls and pool equipment to the latest generation of controls which still 
supports their existing connected  pool pad system.  They  should  be able to do this 
without  wasting  money  on connectivity  hardware  which  they may already  have  that 
is already  CEC  compliant.  The hardware for connectivity in pool controls is 
typically a modular system/component which manufacturers make compatible 
across their line of equipment. It is imperative that  these  continue  to be allowed  to 
be sold separatel y, with the require ment  that pool controls  are a “connected  ready  
device”.  Fluidra  suggests  the following  revision  to this clause.  Pool controls 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2027, shall be connected devices , or 
connected  ready  devices  compatible  with separable  hardware  and/or software that 
meet the requirements of a connected device.  
 
9. The use of portable smart device , such as a smart phone, tablet, or laptop for 
BOTH local and remote  setup is extremely  common in  modern pool  equipment  
controls . The onboard appliance user interface may be a simple on/off control, 
and the user must connect  via Bluetooth  for example  to schedule,  program,  and 
use the complete  features of a connected pool control. This is commonplace in our 
industry, and the use of a smart device  should be allowed  for both local and 
remote setup and scheduling of a device.  Not recognizing  the use of a smart  
device  as an acceptable  and practical  means of local setup would be a step 
backwards.  Suggest  the following  update  to item 2. (a) Pool controls  shall support  
both local and remote  setup,  selection, and update of its operating schedule via a 
user interface. Local and remote  setup,  selection,  and update  shall be possible  
through  a user interface.  The user interface for local setup shall be integrated into 
or supplied with the control, or via a smart device such as smartphone, tablet, or 
laptop  for installation at the same location or premises as the control.  
 8. Comment acknowledged and partially accepted. Radio broadcast 
data system receiver requirements were removed following public 
comment. Staff incorporates its response to Fluidra comment 7 
above, by reference here. Staff determined following review of 
received public commentary and available technical material that 
Pool Controls shall be connected devices. The widespread 
availability of modern IoT device technology has decreased costs 
to connect devices where the cost to make a device be 
connected is a relatively small fraction of the overall cost to 
consumers.  
 
9. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff 
appreciate s the comments and incorporated language that 
accommodates  the suggested edits into an update of the 
proposed regulatory language.  Section 1693(b)(2) was modified 
in the 15 -day modifi cation pr ocess to read: “2. Pool controls shall 
provide local manual control of the pool filter pump start and stop 
operations, and the start and stop operations of any controlled 
electric pool heaters or pressure cleaner booster pumps that rely 
on the cir culation provided by the pool filter pump for their 
operation. 3. Pool controls shall also support setup, selection, 
and update of its operating schedule via a user interface. a. The 
user interface may be located on a separate device able to 
communicate wi th the pool control via a wireless communications 
format. ” 
 
 Page  56 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251003  Hayward Pool 
Products  
7/10/2023  
First  15-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Sam Dose  
Legislative and 
Energy 
Consultant 
Hayward 
Industries, Inc.  
One Hayward 
Industrial Dr.  
Clemmons, NC 
27012  
1-335-712-
9900  
 1. Hayward  Industries  supports  the comments  submitted  by the Pool and Hot Tub 
Alliance , (PHTA),  and offer the following additional comments for your 
consideration : 
 
2. Hayward supports PHTA comments  and suggestions to align with the existing 
Energy Star  definition as well  as the  inclusion  of additional  specific  language  with 
examples  that would  be beneficial  to all parties. As referenced by the email 
clarification from the CEC to PHTA received on June  29, 2023, examples would 
include, but not be limited to, Wi -Fi, Zigbee, and Bluetooth.  
 
3. Hayward  is in agreement  with the CEC  proposed  revisions  to the Pool Control  
Definition.  We believe  it adds the needed clarity to the products the CEC would 
consider to be defined as a pool control and support the inclusion and adoption into 
this regulation . 
 
4. We agree with PHTA  that this is an area of the 15 -day proposed language that 
marks a substantial new requirement  that previously  did not exist in prior proposed  
language  nor was  requested  by industry  or the California Investor -Owned Utilities. 
Simply put, this came as a surprise to industry considering the February 23, 2023,  
staff report determined not to include FM connectivity . The  change appears based 
on one stakeholder  comment,  without inquiring from industry if this was something  
currently done or could be achieved . 
 1. Comment acknowledged. Staff appreciate s the comments and 
incorporated many of the suggested edits into an update of the 
proposed regulatory language , as discussed above . Staff 
incorporates by reference its responses to comments by the 
PHTA here.  
 
2. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciate s the 
comments and partially incorporated the suggested edits into an 
update of the proposed regulatory language . Staff determined  
that including specific examples is not required since 
technologies may be come outdated  however the regulation is  
written to allow  the evolution of compliant technologies . 
 
3. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment. Staff appreciate s the comments and incorporated 
many of the previously suggested edits into an update of the 
proposed regulatory language  through the 15 -day modification 
process . 
 
4. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments, and the radio requirements are removed during an 
update of the proposed regulatory language.  
 
 Page  57 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251003  Hayward Pool 
Products  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Sam Dose  
Legislative and 
Energy 
Consultant 
Hayward 
Industries, Inc.  
One Hayward 
Industrial Dr.  
Clemmons, NC 
27012  
1-335-712-
9900  
 5. There are too many unknowns with the application of this technology to make a 
January 1, 2027, compliance  requirement  practical  or feasible.  As noted  by PHTA, 
no industry  manufacturer  currently produces products with a radio broadcast data 
system receiver. Hayward  agrees  with the PHTA  suggestion  that the CEC  remove  
this requirement  in the final regulation.  
 
6. Hayward  supports  the PHTA  comments  and urge the CEC  to not rush a rulemaking  
that in this latest 15 - day language has substantive new requirements and many 
areas that are unclear and could cause interpretation issues. This in turn will 
negatively affect the program itself, the consumers and the manufact urers who are 
trying to comply with an ambiguous rule. The  suggested  PHTA  modifications  to the 
latest  proposed  regulatory  language  are opportunities  for further improvement  that 
we strongly urge the Commission consider before issuing a final rule . 
 5. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment and incorporates its response to comment 4 above by 
reference here. Staff appreciates the comments, and the radio 
requirements are removed during an update of the proposed 
regulatory languag e. 
 
6. Comment acknowledged and some changes made . Staff 
incorporates its responses to PHTA’s comments by reference 
here. Staff agrees with this comment and has determined that 
stakeholders have been afforded adequate time and information 
to vet the proposed regulations. This is reflected in the quality of 
stakeholder comments and the many changes to the proposed 
regulation that have been made in response to them.  
 
 Page  58 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251157  e-Radio 
USA  
7/10/2023  
First 15-Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jackson 
Wang  
President & 
CEO   
e-Radio USA 
Inc. 
303 Twin 
Dolphin 
Drive, 6th 
Floor  
Redwood 
City, CA 
94065  
 1. e-Radio are pleased to see  pool pump FDAS language regarding the optional 
inclusion of FM technology  to 2026 and mandate beginning in 2027. This 
approach is consistent with Title 24 PCT language from 2007, which enacted 
would have provided Califo rnia with GWs of flexible loads desired today . 
 
2. e-Radio supported the initiative by EPRI to create a plug and play standard for 
appliances communication. Their early design of this concept won a 2015 CES 
“Technology for a Better world” award and was first to achieve ECOPORT 
certification for our Univers al Communication Modules. e -Radio believe then and 
now CTA -2045 can greatly facilitate device manufacturers , technology providers 
and systems integrators to literally “plug in” various communication technologies to 
enabled flexible demand appliances . 
 
3. In some devices such as the EV, the FM (RDS -HD) receiver is already integrated 
in most brands/models as it already pass data to the in vehicle data bus (CAN etc.) 
for screen display etc., the databus is also already connected to the charge 
controller. Ther efore, In most if not all cases, software only modifications are 
needed for FM  enabled flexible demand responsive charging. We published an 
IEEE paper with a major EV OEM on this concept in 2012. E -Radio believe 
technical standards institutions such as ISO  and the IEC have a place to help 
propagate this solution in response to a common global problem . 
 
4. As most of the radio broadcast infrastructure already exists, e -Radio believe the 
California statewide network of FM radio stations can provide coverage g reater 
than 95/95  (%population/%operations) specifications can be built in as little time as 
6 months. As there are well over 1000 FM stations currently operating in 
California, < 10% participation of local stations is needed to meet 95/95.  
 1. Comment ack nowledged. Staff appreciates the support, but 
notes the requirements were eventually removed from the final 
regulatory language . 
 
2. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment  – the final language proposed by staff 
allows but does not mandate use of CTA -2045  (i.e., connection of  
a communications module to a device through a CTA -2045 
connector  as a method of complying with connectivity 
requirements).  Staff incorporates its response to comment 1, 
above, by reference here.  
 
3. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
apprecia tes the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  Staff incorporates its response to  e-
Radio  comment 1, above, by reference here.  
 
4. Comment acknowledged and no change s made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  Staff incorporates its response to e-
Radio comment 1, above, by reference here.  
 
 Page  59 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251157  e-Radio 
USA  
7/10/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  
Written  
 
Jackson 
Wang  
President & 
CEO  
e-Radio USA 
Inc. 
303 Twin 
Dolphin 
Drive, 6th 
Floor  
Redwood 
City, CA 
94065  
 5. The combination of a low -cost radio receiver chip, which due to “software defined 
radio” or SDR technique is relatively simple and flexible to deploy and leverages 
an existing California statewide RDS/HD transmitter network promises a low if not 
the lowest possible overall capital and operating costs  to achieve greater than 
95/95 real world population coverage.  
 
6. FM radio technology has been proven in multiple field studies in  California  and 
other states and countries over the past 2 decades. For example the BPA 2008 
Water Heater project, which the positive results from the FM -IP (FM broadcast – IP 
device reporting) hybrid field tests led to the mandate of CTA2045 communication 
specificat ions for water heaters sold in Washington and Oregon states today . 
 
7. FM broadcasting is inherently equitable as everyone  and everything could receive 
authenticated info for free. e -Radio believe there is an opportunity to create a 
corporate entity such t hat public interests are inherently aligned and protected via 
corporate governance as transparency and accountability would be built in, while 
flexible enough to enable investments to form effective Private -Public -Partnerships 
(PPP).  
 
8. e-Radio also fores ee PPP to provide technical guidance and assistance to various 
device OEMs , systems integrators and with resources to assist other jurisdictions 
rollout their markets such that emissions are reduced and the integration of 
renewables is fast tracked everywh ere. 
 5. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  Staff incorporates its response to e-
Radio comment 1,  above, by reference here.  
 
6. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  Staff incorporates its response to e-
Radio comment 1, above, by reference here.  
 
7. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  Staff incorporates its response to e-
Radio comment 1, above, by reference here.  
 
8. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the examples provided by the 
commenter. No changes to the regulatory lan guage were made in 
response  to this comment.  Staff incorporates its response to e-
Radio comment 1, above, by reference here.  
 
 Page  60 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
251658  Xperi Inc  
8/17/2023  
First 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Michael C. Spi llner 
Senior Vice 
President, Deputy 
General Counsel  
 
Xperi Inc . 
2190 Gold Street  
San Jose,  CA 95002  
1-408-519-9100  
 1. We propose that digital radio broadcasting over the FM band should be 
considered as a standard  for efficient data delivery, providing cost ‐effective 
distribution of information in a one ‐to‐many broadcast  data service.  1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments. No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response  to this comment . Staff incorporates its 
response to e -Radio's comment 1, above, by reference here.  
 
 Page  61 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252208  Jerome Gilbert  
9/11/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Jerome Gilbert  
Project manager, 
Fleximax Degetel  
 1. ...it’s recommended that FM broadcast technology , proven in both the U.S, 
Europe and around the world, be included  for the intelligent energy 
management of flexible demand responsive appliances...  
 
2. ...I ask that the FM broadcast systems be reinstated  in the final version of the 
Appliance Standards for Pool Controls . 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments. No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this comment.  Staff 
incorporates its response to e -Radio's comment 1, above, by 
reference here.  
 
2. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments  and will continue to analyze the FM 
broadcast technology  for use in FDAS. No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
Staff incorporates its response to e -Radio's comment 1, above, 
by reference here.  
 
 Page  62 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252299  Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP 
of GR, Standards and 
Codes  
 1. PHTA suggest the following change: “Connected Device”  means any device 
that can wirelessly communicate via open standards with entities outside 
the device by means of integrated or separate communicated hardware or 
software. A device that is able to receive but not send communications is 
not a connected device.  
 
2. We simply ask that it be assured there is nothing elsewhere  within this new 
proposed regulation for flexible demand appliance standards that would be 
incons istent with and therefore conflict with how California Civil Code  
Section 1798 .140(v) defines personal information . 
 
3. Add (D) Manually operated on/off switches , circuit breakers and similar 
devices that are only able to turn the pool filter pump on or off are not 
considered a pool control . 
 
4. Add new definition “Safety interlock or shutoff controls”  means equipment 
intended to allow and interrupt power to pool equipment to prevent damage, 
operation, or startup in an unsafe condition without the means to otherwise 
control or schedule the operation of a pool filter pump . 
 1. Comment acknowledged and  no changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response to th is comment.   No changes 
were necessary given that the definition  in section 1691(a) is 
almost identical to the language suggested and  now reads: 
“Connected device” means any device that can wirelessly 
communicate via open standards with entities outside th e device 
by means of integrated or separate communications hardware or 
software. A device that is able to receive but not send 
communication is not a connected device.  
 
2. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff review ed 
definitions in California Civil Code and determined the proposed 
regulations  are not in conflict with the definition commenter cites . 
Section 1691(a) includes this definition: "Personal information" 
has the meaning specified in California Civil Code Section 
1798.140(v).  
 
3. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff has 
determined  the current text is clear and the suggested changes 
are unnecessary  – circuit breakers and other general purpose 
manual circuit -level switches do not initiate or manage pool 
equipment behavior  and are not designed, marketed or sold as 
such . No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response to this comment.  
 
4. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff has 
determined  the current text is clear and the suggested changes 
are unnecessar y – the ordinary meaning of phrase “safety 
interlock or shutoff control”  is sufficiently clear and specific that a 
regulatory definition would create more confusion than it avoids . 
No changes to the regulatory language were made in response to 
this comment . 
 Page  63 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252299  Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Jennifer Hatfield  
Government Affairs 
Consultant  
Pool & Hot Tub 
Alliance  
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP 
of GR, Standards and 
Codes  
 5. PHTA strongly encourages the Commission to not tie an effective or 
compliance date to the Department of Energy’s  (DOE) dedicated purpose 
pool pump motor (DPPPM) rule.  
 
6. ...it is critically important to both manufacturers and consumers the 
Commission consider a four -year effective date from adoption  by the 
Commission. Two years is simply not adequate.  
 5. Comment a cknowledged and no change made. Staff incorporates 
its responses to other comments regarding the effective date by 
reference here. The identified date, while coinciding with the DOE 
DPPPM rule, is not otherwise associated with the requirements of 
the DOE r ule and does not create any regulatory conflicts. No 
changes to the regulatory language were made in response to this 
comment.  
 
6. Comment acknowledged and no change made. Staff 
incorporates its responses to other comments regarding the 
effective date by reference here. Staff has determined the current 
effective date is sufficient and the suggested changes are 
unnecessary. No changes  to the regulatory language were made 
in response to this comment.  
 
 Page  64 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252304  Hayward Pool Products  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Sam Dose  
Legislative and Energy 
Consultant Hayward 
Industries, Inc.  
One Hayward Industrial 
Dr. 
Clemmons, NC 27012  
1-335-712-9900  
 1. Hayward  Industries  supports  the comments  submitted  by the Pool and 
Hot Tub Alliance,  (PHTA),  and offer some additional comments for your 
consideration:  
 
2. Hayward agrees and supports the PHTA comments and suggests that 
the term “wireless” be removed  from the “Connected  Device”  definition  
below.  Removal  of “wireless”  maintains  the intent  of the device being able 
to communicate via open standards without the constraints on the 
method of communication that could restrict other current, such as 
ethernet and potential future technologies that are capable of otherwise 
meeting the “Co nnected Device” requirements.  
 
3. Hayward  agrees  and supports  the PHTA  comments  which  includes  an 
additional  exclusion  for manually operated  switching  devices . 
 
4. We also  support  the need  to add a definition  for Safety  Interlock  or 
Shutoff Control  
 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments . Staff incorporates its responses to the 
comments submitted by the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance by 
reference here . No changes to the regulatory language were 
made in response to this comment.  
 
2. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment.  Ensuring a wireless communication option is 
available in all pool controls removes the burden of needing to run 
a network cable to the pool control or other future FDAS 
appliance to enable connectivity , and prevents a case where the 
absence of a preexisting wire thwarts the connectivity of the 
control . As noted in other comments, especially from PHTA,  
wireless connectivity is very common in the pool controls industry.  
No changes to the regulatory language were made in response to 
this comment.  
 
3. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined that addin g an exclusion 
for manually operated switching devices could create an 
unwarranted loophole in the regulations and thwart its purpose.  
No changes to the regulatory language were made in response to 
this comment.  
 
4. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined that the term safety 
interlock and shutoff control are commonly understood and do not 
require definitions in the regulation . No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  65 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252304  Hayward Pool Products  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Sam Dose  
Legislative and Energy 
Consultant Hayward 
Industries, Inc.  
One Hayward Industrial 
Dr. 
Clemmons, NC 27012  
1-335-712-9900  
 5. In addition, Hayward supports the CEC direction to remove 
“independently” from the Pool Control definition . If independently  were  to 
remain,  controls  that the CEC  intends  to include  in this regulation could 
possibly be excluded.  
 
6. Hayward agrees and supports the PHTA comments and encourages that 
the Commission does not tie the effective or compliance date  of this 
regulation to publication of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) dedicated 
purpose pool pump motor (DPPPM) rule. The DOE rule and this CEC 
proposed rule are separate business streams and there are no significant 
substantive links between the two regu lations to justify an alignment of 
effective or compliance date or an appreciable benefit to manufacturers of 
such a link. Manufacturers cannot commit design resources to developing 
compliant products until the final FDAS regulation has been published.  If 
this regulation were tied to the DOE rule and that rule issues prior  to the 
CEC  regulation,  manufacturers  would  not be provided  the complete  time 
allotted  by the CEC to design, test, and manufacture compliant products. 
Hayward recommends that the effective  and compliance date for this 
regulation be based on the date the Commission adopts the final rule for 
the Flexible Demand Appliance Standards for Pool Controls.  5. Comment acknowledged. Staff agrees with this comment and had 
previously stricken the word “independently” from the definition of 
“pool control” in the second 15-day modification process.  
 
6. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment. Section 1693(b)(1) proposed that the effective 
date be, “the earlier o f either the compliance date of the federal 
energy conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool pump 
motors with motor total horsepower from 1.15 THP to 5 THP or 2 
years after adoption by the Energy Commission”. As DOE has 
now published in the Federal  Register a compliance date of 
September 29, 2025, which is earlier than October 18, 2025. In 
the final language, staff replaced the language with the specific 
date “September 29, 2025”. This alignment does not create any 
regulatory conflict. Staff incorpo rates its response to PHTA 
comment . 
 
 Page  66 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor 
Owned Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & 
Electric Company  
 1. The CA IOUs appreciate the CEC’s revisions  to the proposal and support 
changes to the proposed regulatory language  that align with 
recommendations in prior CA IOU comments.  
 
1a. The CA IOUs appreciate the CEC’s efforts to revise the proposal  to 
include recommendations put forth by the CA IOUs in prior comments on 
FDAS for pool controls . 
 
1b. We strongly  support  the removal  of the radio  data system  definition  from this 
proposal  and the removal  of the requirement  for pool controls  to contain  radio 
broadcast  data system receivers . 
 
1c. Additionally,  we support  moving  the operating  status communication 
requirements  to the appliance -specific requirements section to clarify how these 
requirements  are applicable  to pool controls . 
 
1d. In the pool control  definition,  we support  the exclusion  of pool  pump  controls  
that are integral  to a single  pool filter pump  and that only control  that device  and 
the exclusion of safety interlock shutoff devices. These exclusions help to address 
the health and safety concerns expressed in previous stakeholder comments.  
 
1e. We also appreciate changes to several proposed definitions  in the standard that  
align with prior CA IOU comments and  believe  that these changes  will increase  
the clarity  and enforceability  of the regulation . 
 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff appreciates 
the comments and the opportunity to work with stakeholders to 
refine the regulatory proposal. No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
1a. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments and the opportunity to work with stakeholders to refine 
the regulatory proposal. No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response to this comment.  
 
1b. Comment acknowledged and ac cepted. Staff appreciates the 
comments. The language referenced in the comment was 
removed in the second 15 -day notice. No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
1c. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment and appreciates the support.  No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
1d. Comment acknowledged and accepted. Staff agrees with this 
comment and appreciates the support. No changes to the 
regulat ory language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
1e. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff agrees 
with this comment and appreciates the support.  No changes to 
the regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  67 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor 
Owned Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & 
Electric Company  
 2. The CA IOUs propose changes t o the Definitions in the proposed regulatory 
language. We propose changes to definitions in section 1691 to improve 
regulation clarity. The “connected device” definition states that connected 
devices “can wirelessly communicate.” Per the Rules of Construct ion in 
section 1690.1, “shall” is used for mandatory provisions while “may” is 
permissive. The use of “can” in this definition is ambiguous as it does not 
align with these terms, so its use in the definition could be clarified.  
 
2a. Furthermore,  as stated  in prior comments,  although  this definition would apply to 
future FDAS, a requirement for wireless communication may not be universally 
applicable across all appliances as some appliances may use a wired connection for 
communication.  Therefore,  we recommen d striking  the word “wirelessly”  from the 
connected  device definition  to allow flexibility for future FDAS appliances to 
connect via other means . 
 
2b. We recommend striking the “connected ready” device definition  from the proposal. 
The proposal does not require  pool controls  to be connected  ready  devices  so 
this term has no regulatory  impact.  The removal  of the definition  would  allow  for 
this definition  to be more  thoroughly  vetted  in any future FDAS  rulemaking that  
may require  this functionality in  devices . 
 
2c. Additionally,  we would  recommend striking  references  to “connected  ready”  
devices where they appear  elsewhere  in the proposed regulatory  language,  
including  in sections  1694  and 1696.  
 
2d. We recommend  removing  the new definitions  for “consumer”  and “customer ” 
that were  added  in the revised CEC proposal. The  use of the two terms 
throughout the proposal is sufficiently clear without the added definitions. The 
new definitions are relatively narrow and may not be suitable for all future FD AS. 
The FDAS  definitions  for these  terms  also differ from other  commonly  used 
definitions  for these  terms, which could create confusion. Removing these 
definitions and allowing for interpretation of these terms  as they are commonly  
used  would  be sufficient  for the purposes  of this regulation . 
 2. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff appreciates 
the comments but disagrees. Staff has det ermined  the regulatory 
language is sufficiently clear on this matter, and the wording is 
intentional: “shall” and  “may” are directive, whereas “can” (as 
used here) is descriptive. No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response to this comment.  
 
2a. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . If in the future 
another FDAS requires a change , staff is able to  address that 
change during that rulemaking process.  No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
2b. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined that maintaining the 
definition of “connected ready” is necessary , for example,  to 
differentiate between compliant and non -compliant products. 
Also, future FDAS may employ the “connected ready” definition . 
No changes to the regulatory language were made in response  to 
this com ment.  
 
2c. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and incorporates its response to comment 2b 
above by reference here.  No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response  to this comment.  
 
2d. Comment acknowledg ed and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined  that retain ing the 
definitions adds clarity to the regulation  and makes clear that 
regardless of a person’s status as a purchaser /user  of an FDAS 
appliance or customer of a load -serving entity, the ability of both 
groups to flex their electricity usage is key to FDAS requirements . 
It also provides clarity in interactions with other laws that may use 
either or both of these terms. If these definitions need to be 
modified in future r ulemakings, staff will revisit them then. No 
changes to the regulatory language were made in response  to 
this comment.  
 Page  68 of 79    
TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor 
Owned Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California 
Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & 
Electric Company  
 2f. The “pool control ” definition  could be clarified to reduce ambiguity and reduce 
redundancy  in the language. The current definition nearly duplicates the 
statement that pool controls have the “capability to start, stop, or otherwise 
control the operation of a pool filter pump” by additionally stating that they 
include equipment that “has the cap ability to schedule the operation or 
control the start or stop times of a pool filter pump.” The definition could be 
clarified by reverting to the definition proposed in the 45 - day language 
proposal — which did not include controls integral to a single po ol filter pump 
that control only that pump — while maintaining the added exclusion for 
safety interlock equipment. Therefore, the proposed definition for pool 
control would read:  
“Pool  control”  means  any component  or group  of components  including  
software  that: 
(1) Has the capability  to start or stop the operation  of a pool 
filter pump  and other  pool equipment,  and 
(2) Uses single -phase  AC power  as input power.  
“Pool  control”  excludes:  
(A) controls  marketed  exclusively  for use as a control  for pool 
filter pumps  with a rated hydraulic  horsepower  (hhp)  
greater  than 2.5 hhp; or 
(B) safety  interlock  shutoff  controls.  
 
2g. We recommend  modifying  the definition  of “pool filter pump ” to align with the 
definition of “pool filter pump” used in 20 CCR § 1602 and 10 CFR 431.462. 
Alternatively, the “ pool filter pump” definition could be removed  from this 
regulation and users could then refer to these preexisting related standards 
to define this term. The definition in the proposed regulatory language 
departs from the well-understood meaning of this term, and the phrase 
“other type of end -suction pump motor for the purpose of circulating pool 
water through a filter or strainer” is undefined and unbounded. This 
ambiguous language creates the risk of including unintended products in 
this regulation . 2f. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff has 
determined  that the current definition is clear and the suggested 
changes are not necessary . It is not clear to staff that reverting 
to the prior definition resolves more issues than it reintroduces , 
or that doing so would be responsive to the other comments that 
have shaped this definition during the rulemaking proceeding. 
No changes to the regulatory language were made in response  
to this comment.  
 
2g. Comment acknowledge d and no changes made . Staff 
disagrees with this comment and has determined  the differences 
in the proposed definition are necessary for the FDAS program  – 
staff finds that the definitions in the noted sections of appliance 
efficiency standards relied heav ily on the term “basket strainer”, 
and staff’s proposed definition is intentional in not relying on that 
term or feature as critical to whether a product is a pool filter  
pump . No changes  to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  69 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor Owned 
Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company  
 3. The CA IOUs propose changes t o the General Requirements in the 
proposed regulatory language.  We support the CEC’s inclusion of 
cybersecurity provisions  in this regulation to help ensure secure data 
transmission and protection of consumer data . 
 
3a. We note that the data protection req uirement in section 1692(c)(3)(A) is 
more restrictive than the requirements in the California Consumer 
Privacy Act of 2018 and may stifle innovation in products. Products may 
have legitimate reasons to collect personal information that is unrelated 
to the function of a device; for example, products may offer user - 
accessible storage of personal information, or they may collect data for 
research purposes with user consent. We recommend removing the 
restriction in section 1692(c)(3)(A)  on information collection or transmission 
for uses other than the function of the device and instead deferring to the 
Consumer Privacy Act for permissible treatment of personal information.  
 3. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the support . No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response  to this comment.  
 
3a. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined  that the proposed  
change would adversely impact consumer data security  and 
privacy. Staff notes that the provision applies to data collected 
by the device  itself, and does not apply to data collection via 
phone or tablet applications (including applications that also 
allow for control of pool equipment). Staff finds that the benefit of 
preventing miscellaneous personal information from being 
unnecessarily housed in the device outweighs the desire of 
some entities to use the pool control device  for unrelated data 
gathering . No changes to the regulatory lang uage were made in 
response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  70 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor Owned 
Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second  15-Day Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company  
 4. The CA IOUs propose changes to the Appliance Specific Requirements  
in the proposed regulatory language.  We recommend clarifying changes 
to the effective date  in the appliance -specific requirements for pool 
controls in section 1693(b)(1). Tying the effective date of this standard 
to the compliance date of a federal standard outside the control of this 
rulemaking does not provide manufacturers or consumers with certainty 
on when the effective date for this standard  will be. To improve clarity 
and provide certainty for users of this standard, we recommend striking 
the following language:  “with respect to products manufactured on or 
after the earlier of either the compliance date of the federal energy 
conservation standards for dedicated purpose pool  pump motors with 
motor total horsepower from 1.15 THP to 5 THP or”.  Instead, we 
recommend that the CEC maintain the following provision:  “Effective 
date. The standards for pool controls shall be effective 2 years after 
adoption  by the Energy Commission.”  
 
4a. Additionally, the clock requirements in section 1693(b)(2)(B)(2) now 
require a “local manual control”  that can start and stop operations of the 
pool filter pump and any controlled electric pool heaters or pressure 
cleaner booster pumps. We note that t his provision may necessitate an 
added cost for products without this feature. This feature is not 
necessary to enable demand flexibility, which can be provided by other 
means given that a user interface for operation is required in 
1693(b)(2)(B)(3).  There fore, we recommend that this requirement be 
removed from the proposal.  
 4. Comment acknowledged and no change made . Section 
1693(b)(1) proposed that the effective date be, “the earlier of 
either the compliance date of the federal energy conservation 
standards for dedicated purpose pool pump motors with motor 
total horsepower from 1.15 THP to 5 THP or 2 years after 
adoption by the Energy Commission”. As DOE has now 
published in the Federal Register a compliance date of 
September 29, 2025, which is earl ier than October 18, 2025. In 
the final language, staff replaced the language with the specific 
date “September 29, 2025”.  This date is clear and the suggested 
changes are unnecessary. No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this com ment.  
 
4a. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determined that there is utility to the 
customer to be able to manually control the equipment, 
especially in cases where internet connectivity is 
unavailable /disrupted . Manual controls are also a method for 
consumers to control when the device operates and thereby flex 
their energy use. Absent manual controls , customers who do not 
own smart devices or have stable access to the internet would 
not be able to effectively flex their energy use . No changes to 
the regulatory language were made in response to this 
comment.  
 
 Page  71 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor Owned 
Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company  
 5. The CA IOUs propose changes to the Data Submittal Requirements  in 
the proposed regulatory language.  The data submittal requirements in 
section 1696 now allow for the submission of a range of “possible” 
answers  rather than clearly stating “permissible” responses  for 
appliances to comply with the standard.  Changing the  data submittal 
requirements from “Permissible Answers” to “Possible Answers” creates 
ambiguity  as to what is required and may lead manufacturers to attempt 
to certify non -compliant products. We recommend aligning the 
construction of the data submittal req uirements  with the structure used 
for appliance efficiency standards (i.e., 20 CCR § 1606 Table X) such 
that the data submittal requirements clearly reflect requirements for 
products to be certified under the standard. This change would entail 
restricting responses for Table A -1, Table A -2, and Table B -1 to 
“Permissible Answers” and including only permissible responses in the 
listed responses within these tables.  
 5. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff disagrees 
with this comment and has determi ned it is unnecessary because 
the requirement is clear  and will not lead manufacturers to certify 
non-compliant products. The table lists responses that can be 
submitted ; it must be possible  for manufacturers to submit truthful 
information about their products even if it results in a determination 
that the product does not meet minimum  requirements , and thus 
“possible” was found to be a more accurate term than “permissible” . 
No changes to the  regulatory language were made in response to 
this comment.  
 
 Page  72 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252306  California Investor Owned 
Utilities  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day Comment  
Written  
 
Patrick Eilert  
Manager, Codes & 
Standards  
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 
Christopher Malotte  
Sr. Manager, Codes and 
Standards  
Southern California Edison  
 
Kate Zeng  
ETP/C&S/ZNE Manager 
Customer Programs  
San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company  
 6. The CA IOUs put forth recommendations for future FDAS rulemakings.  
The CA IOUs  appreciate the CEC’s efforts  to draft California’s first flexible 
demand appliance standards.  For future FDAS rulemakings, we urge 
the CEC to prioriti ze appliance flexible demand capabilities such  as 
dispatchability,  third-party  communication  with utilities and aggregators, 
and the ability to shed, shift, and modulate demand in response to grid 
needs, in addition to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions . 
 
6a. The CA IOUs support FDAS requirements  for secure, bi -directional, 
reliable, and open -standard based communication that allows devices 
to receive and respond to demand flexibility signals from utilities, 
authorized third parties, or th e CEC’s Market Informed Demand 
Automation Server (MIDAS).  
 
6b. As noted in prior comments on this topic, the CEC’s  FDAS should 
harmonize with other CEC or state efforts , such as the CEC load 
management standards that will require utilities to maintain up-to- date 
rate information in the MIDAS database . 
 
6c. The CEC should  incorporate the load management standard requirements 
into future FDAS rulemakings  by requiring FDAS -regulated devices (or 
devices via their manufacturer clouds) to be able to connect to the 
MIDAS application programming interface, download relevant rate 
schedules, GHG signals, or price signals, and schedule device 
operation in response to these signals.  
 
6d. We recommend the CEC collaborate with utilities, manufacturers, regulatory 
agencies, and other stakeholders (e.g., aggregators) in the development of 
future FDAS to ensure that the standards are consumer -friendly, that 
they support a balanced and reliable grid, and that they r ealize the goal 
of reducing GHG emissions via demand flexibility . 
 
6e. Specifically, we suggest that the CEC  form a workgroup  to engage with 
stakeholders early in the development of future rulemakings and 
engage in a robust pre -rulemaking process to vet the scope and 
standards of future proposals.  
 6. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the support and comments. Staff agrees that it is 
important to prioritize  future FDAS rulemakings and will 
continue to do so according to the criteria set forth in PRC 
25402(f). No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response  to this comment.  
 
6a. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the suppo rt and comments . No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
The proposed regulation addresses these issues.  
 
6b. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments . No changes to the regulatory 
langua ge were made in response  to this comment.  The 
proposed requirement for pool control connectivity allow pool 
controls to connect to MIDAS.  
 
6c. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments . No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this comment.  The 
proposed requirement for pool control connectivity allow pool 
controls to connect to MIDAS.  
 
6d. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comment  and will work continue to work with all 
of the stakeholders on future FDAS rulemakings . No changes 
to the regulatory language were made in response  to this 
comment.  
 
6e. Comment acknowledged  and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments  but notes that they are not directed 
to the proposed regulatory action . No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  73 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252850  California Investor 
Owned Utilities  
10/18/2023  
Adoption Meeting 
Comment  Oral 
 
Mark A latorre 
Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company  
 1. I'm with PG&E, but I am here to speak on behalf of the California IOUs in 
total. And I’d like to thank -- we appreciate the CEC’s efforts  to put forth 
California's first flexible demand planning centers to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions and support a clea n and reliable grid.  We support flexible demand 
appliance standards requirements  for secure, bidirectional, reliable and open 
standard base communication that allows devices to receive and respond to 
demand flexibility signals from utilities, authorized th ird parties, or the CEC’s 
market informed demand automation server. Further, we recommend that the 
CEC collaborate early and often  with utilities, manufacturers, regulatory 
agencies and other stakeholders in the development of future flexible demand 
applia nce standards to ensure that the standards are consumer friendly. And 
that they support a balanced and reliable grid. And that they realize the goal 
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a demand flexibility. So we thank 
the CEC for the opportunity to co mment on this topic and look forward to 
continued involvement in future rulemakings.  Thank you.  
 1. Comment acknowledged  and no changes made . Staff appreciates 
the comments  and the opportunity to work with stakeholders to 
refine the regulatory proposal . No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response  to this comment.  
 
 Page  74 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252850  Fluidra  
10/18/2023  
Adoption Meeting 
Comment  Oral 
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director of 
Regulatory Compliance  
2882 Whiptail Loop #100  
Carlsbad, CA 92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 1. I’m with Fluidra, a pool equipment manufacturer.  And we appreciate the 
opportunity  to participate  in the rulemaking process. As a leading 
manufacturer of connected pool controls, we support the efforts to move 
the industry into the energy efficient future with flexible demands 
standards . And we have made several comments, proposals, and  
requests for clarifications on the proposed regulation in an effort to make a 
very practical, effective, and meaningful pool control standard.  These 
written comments have already been submitted for public records, so I 
won't go through them all now.  But there are two key points I wanted to 
emphasize on this final proposal . One, an enforcement date of 2025 is way 
too fast for our industry . Though many of the regulations IoT 
requirements may seem rudimentary, and standard on connected devices 
like cell phone s, computers, smart TVs, remember we're not Apple or 
Google who have five generations of technology already developed and 
ready to obsolete what's currently in the market.  We're pool control 
manufacturers and our IoT resources are limited. Federal DOE rule s have 
given us four or five years compliance date for a new rule.  We believe 
that is a much more practical timeline for industry to develop, test, validate 
certify, and launch a new generation of pool controls.  We don't want 
quality problems plaguing our consumers in response  to precipitous 
deadlines. And two, we believe the final rule should allow for both 
connected, and what you define as connected ready devices,  to comply 
with this final rule.  A connected ready device is something that is readily 
connec table via separate hardware.  In our industry that means either Wi -
Fi connection through the LAN or RS 45 LAN port on a on the pool control 
itself. Some consumers may not choose to connect their pool product.  
They don't have to connect it, so they don't hav e to spend the money for 
this additional hardware as long as it's ready to be connected.  For those 
who choose to have it, I think that meets the intent and the spirit of the rule 
and won't burden the consumer.  Manufacturers make more money by 
forcing the c onsumer to buy, but I think that's the wrong approach. And we 
appreciate it, so I think we look forward to further presentation.  Thank 
you. 
 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments and the values the opportunity to work 
with stakeholders to refine the proposal. No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment. 
Staff disagrees with this comment to the extent that it requests a 
longer compliance period. The “effective date” provision of 
section 1693(b)(1) to require that pool controls manufactured 
after September 29, 2025,  meet the standard, was designed in 
response to comments like this, for the reasons stated in those 
comments.  This will give manufacturers almost two years after 
the CEC adopted the regulations to comply, which staff has 
determined is a reasonable compromise that balances the 
interests served by the regulation with the reasons advanced by 
the commenter. Staff als o disagrees with this comment regarding 
the “connected ready” issue.  Staff determined that Pool Controls 
shall be connected devices. The widespread availability of 
modern IoT device technology has decreased costs to connect 
devices where the cost to make a  device be connected is a 
relatively small fraction of the overall cost to consumers.  No 
changes to the regulatory language were made in response to 
this comment.  
 
 Page  75 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252850  Pool & Hot Tub Alliance  
10/18/2023  
Adoption Meeting 
Comment  Oral 
 
Justin Wiley, PHTA VP of 
GR, Standards and Codes  
 1. And I'm with the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance or PHTA. We represent more 
than 3,600 company members and over 11,000 individual members 
nationwide, including manufacturers. One of which you just heard from, a 
pool pumping equipment controls. PHTA has a long hi story working with 
the California Energy Commission and looks forward to the opportunity to 
continue our relationship during the inaugural implementation of flexible 
demand appliance standards. Our goal is to provide consumers a quality 
product and user ex perience that is compliant and supports the California 
in the Commission's effort to reduce energy demand and lessen 
greenhouse gas emissions. During this rulemaking process, we've greatly 
appreciated CEC staff and their willingness to work with us to inco rporate 
suggestions we submitted  in our April and July round of comments. We 
also submitted comments on the second 15 -Day proposed regulatory 
language suggesting further improvements. For the entirety of those 
suggestions, I’d refer the Commission to our c omments dated September 
18. But in the remaining time, I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight a 
request for additional time to design, test, and manufacture compliant 
market ready products . The average product development time for 
manufacturers is a pproximately four years  with a limited number of 
compliant products or products on the market. We're asking the 
Commission to consider that four year effective date . This four year date 
development timeline was recently recognized by the Department of 
Ener gy in their dedicated purpose pool pump motor rule for this small 
motor category where few compliant products currently exist. We're 
simply asking for the same consideration. In conclusion, we value the 
hard work and countless hours that CEC staff has put into writing and 
refining the proposed rule as we pivot toward the implementation process 
for the first round of flexible demand appliance standards. PHTA 
appreciates the opportunity to work with CEC on issues that may arise. 
Thank you very much for your a ttention.  
 1. Comment acknowledged and no changes made . Staff 
appreciates the comments  and the values the opportunity to work 
with stakeholders to refine the proposal . No changes to the 
regulatory language were made in response  to this comment.  
Staff disagrees with this comment  to the extent that it requests a 
longer compliance period . The “effective date” provision of 
section 1693(b)(1) to require that pool controls manufactured 
after September 29, 2025,  meet the standard, was designed in 
response to comments like this, for the reasons stated in th ose 
comment s. This will give manufacturers almost two years after 
the CEC adopted the regulations to comply, which staff has 
determined is a reasonable compromise that balances the 
interests served by the regulation with the reasons advanced by 
the commenter.  No changes to the regulatory language were 
made in response to this comment.  
 
 Page  76 of 79   TN# Author  Comment  Response  
252679  Ryan Todd  
10/23/2023  
Post Adoption 
Meeting  Comment  
Written  
 1. The text of new 1690(a) or  1693(b)(1) does not actually  say that ONLY  pool 
pumps compliant with this article are allowed for  sale (after  certain date).  The 
text says the  article "applies  to... types", it  but does  not expressly prohibit  sale of  
other types. Perhaps this nuance  is intentional.  If the CEC  wants to prohibit  
sale of less efficient po ol pumps, this language  does  not expressly  say that. 
 1. Staff objects to this comment because it was submitted  after the 
Commission adopted the Pool Controls FDAS at its Octo ber 18, 
2023,  Business Meeting. Without waiving this objection, Staff 
responds as follows.  Staff directs the commenter’s attention to 
section 1697(a) which provides: “(a) Compliance and Enforcement. 
(1) Any unit of any appliance subject to this Article may be sold or 
offered for sale, rented, imported, distributed or leased for use in 
California regardless of the physical location of the seller and 
includes, without limitation, transactions conducted over telephone 
or the internet, only if it complies with the requireme nts of this 
Article, including, but not limited to the following: (A) the appliance 
appears in the most recent active FAD established pursuant to 
section 1695(c) of this Article; (B) the manufacturer has: 1. tested 
the appliance as required by section 1693  of this Article; 2. marked 
the unit as required by section 1693 of this Article; 3. for any 
appliance for which there is an applicable standard in section 1693 
of this Article, certified under section 1695(a) of this Article that the 
appliance complies wi th the standard; (C) the unit has the same 
components, design characteristics, and all other features that 
affect flexibility, as applicable, as the units that were tested under 
section 1693 of this Article or for which information was submitted 
under sect ion 1695(a) of this Article; and (D) for any appliance for 
which there is an applicable standard in section 1693 of this Article, 
the unit complies with the standard. (2) The Executive Director and 
Energy Commission may take any action authorized by statut e or 
Energy Commission regulations to address or prevent any violation 
of this Article.”  No changes to the regulatory language were made in 
response to this comment.  Page  77 of 79    
TN# Author  Comment  Response  
253568  Fluidra  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
Late comment due to 
improper filing 
[underline as 
presented in 
comment]  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Directo r of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail Loop 
#100  
Carlsbad, CA 92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 1. Fluidra proposes the following revisions to the definitions in order to clarify the 
intent of what is “in scope” and “out of scope”. Integral pool filte r pump control 
or pump motor control  Fluidra suggests to keep the definition of “integral” as 
shown below. “Integral”, when used with respect to pool controls, means 
controls that are an integral part of a pump or pump motor. Integral controls 
may be capable of being removed and may be sold separately from the pump 
or pump motor. The term is used in the proposed exclusion “(C) controls 
integral to a single pool filter pump or pump motor that are capable of 
controlling only that pump or motor.” The definition serves to clarify the intent 
of the scope, and also clarifies that the integral pump motor control is 
removable for remote mounting and replacement. This is critical for 
installations with limited access to the pool pump, a user can mount the pool 
pump control in a more safely accessible l ocation proximate to the pump. 
Also, being able to replace an inoperable pump control, instead of the entire 
motor/pump assembly, is an important cost saving benefit for consumers.  1. Staff objects to this comment because it was not timely.  Without 
waivin g this objection, staff responds as follows. Staff appreciates 
the comments and the values the opportunity to work with 
stakeholders to refine the proposal . No changes to the regulatory 
language were made in response to this comment . Staff determined 
a reg ulatory definition of integral was not needed because the plain 
language use of integral provides the needed clarity. Staff 
previously included a definition for “integral”; however, during a 
subsequent revision staff incorporated stakeholder feedback into 
the final definitions and the regulatory definition of integral was 
removed reasons identified in and in response to those comments 
and because staff determined the definition was not necessary 
because it is commonly understood in the industry.  Page  78 of 79    
TN# Author  Comment  Response  
253568  Fluidra  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
Late comment due to 
improper filing  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail Loop 
#100  
Carlsbad, CA 92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 2. Pool Control  Fluidra  supports  the PHTA  proposed  definition  of “Pool  control”.  – 
With regards  to the original  CEC  proposed  language,  there  is concern  that 
CEC is making “Pool controls” and “Pool pump controls” synonymous. In 
other words, anything that controls a single pool filtration pump is within the 
scope of the regulation which may or may not be the intention. In  previous ly 
submitted  comments  and discussions  with CEC,  Fluidra  and PHTA 
expressed the importance of using “Pool Controls”, also known as “Pool 
Automation”  systems,  for the purposes  of Flexible  Demand  due to critical  
safety and liability concerns of altering and/or interrupting the pool filtration 
pump without  consideration  to the rest of the pool equipment.  In addition  to 
the Pool Filtration Pump, Pool automation systems are designed to talk to 
the other critical equipment on a pool pad such as water chemistr y 
analyzers, chemical feeders, chlorinators, and heaters which rely on water 
circulation for safe operation and maintaining water chemistry. A controller 
that only talks to the filtration  pump,  and no other  piece  of pool equipment,  
may present  safety  and l iability  risks when  used  for Flexible  Demand.  We 
remind  CEC  to consider  these practical safety concerns as the final language 
for this regulation is being considered.  PHTA  proposed  definition  of “Pool  
control”: “Pool control” means equipment with the capability to start, stop, or 
otherwise control the operation of a pool filter pump and includes, but is not 
limited to, a pool timer, pool pump switch, heater switch, direct load control 
switch, or any component or group of components, including  software,  that 
has the capability  to schedule  the operation  or control the start or stop times 
of a pool filter pump. Pool controls may control other pool equipment in 
addition to a pool filter pump. 1. Pool control excludes: (A) controls marketed 
exclusively for u se as a control for pool filter pumps with a rated hydraulic 
horsepower (hhp) greater than 2.5 hhp; or (B) safety interlock of or shutoff 
controls; or (C) controls integral to a single pool filter pump or pump motor 
that are capable of controlling only tha t pump or motor; or (D) Manually 
operated on/off switches, circuit breakers and similar devices that are only 
able to turn the pool filter pump on or off are not considered a pool control . 
 2. Staff objects to this comment because it was not timely. Without 
waiving this objection, staff responds as follows. Staff agrees with 
most of this comment. Staff appreciates the comments and 
incorporated many of the previously suggested edits into an update 
of the proposed regulatory language through the 15 -day 
modification process. However, staff has determined that the 
addition of (D) is unnecessary and confusing because the term 
“pool control” necessarily includes manual switches and the like.  
 Page  79 of 79    
TN# Author  Comment  Response  
253568  Fluidra  
9/18/2023  
Second 15 -Day 
Comment  Written  
Late comment due 
to improper filing  
 
Philip Escobedo  
Fluidra – Director of 
Regulatory 
Compliance  
2882 Whiptail Loop 
#100  
Carlsbad, CA 92010  
1-800-822-7933  
FluidraUSA.com  
 3. COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS  Fluidra suggests the following edit to 
the communication requirements Section 1693 (b)(2)(A).  (A) Communication 
Requirements. 1. Pool controls shall be conne cted devices or connected 
ready devices. Pool controls, or Pool Automation Systems, can be modular 
systems with the means for connectivity being separable hardware. Being 
able to sell these systems separately is important to consumers and the life of 
these  products because it allows a consumer who already has a connected 
pool pad to upgrade their pool automation system without the need to 
repurchase the connectivity hardware they already have. In addition, as 
communication protocols and reliability are upda ted, a consumer can 
purchase the most up to date connection hardware separately. Or if a 
consumer does not wish to connect their pool automation system, then they 
do not need to spend the money to purchase hardware they will not use. So 
long as the system is “connected ready”, we believe this meets the intent of 
this regulation . Section  1693  (b)(6)(C)  Communication  Fluidra  requests  further  
clarification  on requirements  for communication  capabilities.  Request  
definition  for “operating  status”  -- On/off?  Power  Consumption? Speed?  
Request  clarification  on “stored  schedule”.  Only the current  operating  schedule, 
or all schedules within the pool control? Section  1694  (b) Fluidra  requests  
further  clarification  on the communication  link capabilities: Request definition 
for “shift Request definition for “curtail” -- On/off? Turn down pump? Turn off 
heater? Reduce overall power consumption of all pool equipment? Request 
clarification on “changes to equipment operation or schedule”. What kind of 
operating changes  will be necessary via communication link?  
4. EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE DATE Fluidra fully supports PHTA’s suggest to 
not tie the effective compliance date to the Federal DOE pool pump motor 
rule. These are two distinct product/business streams that do not need  to be 
tied together for purposes  of this regulation.  Fluidra also supports and agrees 
with PHTA’s estimated development timeframe of four years  to develop, 
qualify, test, certify, and launch new products into the marketplace. We urge 
CEC  to consider this when finalizing an effective compliance date.  3. Staff objects to this comment because it was not timely. Without 
waiving this objection, staff responds as follows. Staff proposed 
inclusion of provisions for “connected ready” pool controls in an early 
revision of the proposed regulatory language, however received 
commentary on those provisions led staff to subsequently remove 
reference to “connected ready” products and instead modify the 
effective date for requiring connected devices. Staff determined that 
the widespread availability of modern IoT device technology has 
decreased costs to connect devices, such that the cost to make a 
device be connected is a relatively small fraction of the overall cost 
to consumers . Staff objects to the remainder of the comm ent 
because it is not specifically directed at the proposed regulation, or 
the procedures followed in adopting it. Without waiving this objection 
staff responds as follows. Staff has determined  that the regulatory 
language is sufficiently clear and will fo ster stakeholders’ innovation.  
4. Staff objects to this comment because it was not timely. Without 
waiving this objection, staff responds as follows. Staff appreciates 
the comments and the values the opportunity to work with 
stakeholders to refine the proposal . Staff disagrees with this 
comment to the extent that it requests a longer compliance period. 
The “effective date” provision of section 1693(b)(1) to require that 
pool controls manufactured after September 29, 2025, meet the 
standard, was designed  in response to comments like this, for the 
reasons stated in those comments. This will give manufacturers 
almost two years after the CEC adopted the regulations to comply, 
which staff has determined is a reasonable compromise that 
balances the interests s erved by the regulation with the reasons 
advanced by the commenter. No changes to the regulatory language 
were made in response to this comment.