2010-01-15 Comment proposing additional standards

I have spent many minutes just now trying to find comments in either open for comment matters or prior phases unsuccessfully so far. I did note a few anonymous comments though so don't take the time to fill out again any info to the left. This rule should be featured on the energy star site. It better be climate localized. I hope to confirm this prior to it closing. However I assume it isn't, yet, as I was led here by http://www.standardsasap.org/documents/WH_Q&A_Jan_2010.pdf which complains your not setting things high enough- and I didn't see the region aspect mentioned there but it seems to be the essence of the matter. We currently regulate shower heads for GPM- why not DWH for life consumption? Far more savings would result, and countermeasures would be trivial, if slightly more challenging then with showerheads and faucets. That is after a certain KWH is reached the tank could be engineered to 'fail.' Applications needing more hotwater then resistance can justify (by it's savings up front) would be prompted to purchase heatpumps. Exemptions for very cold climates could be given perhaps but fuel cell etc. technologies for regular domestic residential needs would seem better suited then that. Currently such a rule would allow builders to install a temporary ultra low cost tank that would allow for easy replacement when competition brings down the price very very significantly. Since showering is teh greatest use of the water alternatives to nonrecirculating models for other then the most lavish homes (currently such showers exceed thousands of dollars but have very very large pumps and water fall levels of GPM, butg there is no question as to proof of concept, it's a mainstream item as sold by Kohler etc.) and any cost imposed on the heating system that prevents such a user proved solution MUST be avoided. Pool heaters being placed proximate to the pool needs regulation. Modeling this as compared to the alternative of humidifying the air ... TBC