NEMA Currents : General

Congressional Unveiling of Major Energy Savings and Carbon Reduction...

Hansen, Dain — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:22:00 GMT

Do you want to save 4.48-7.95 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon annually (equivalent to removing approximately between 3-5.4 million automobiles annually)?

Do you want to save 25 to 42 Terawatt hours (billion kWh) per year (equivalent to 3 to 6 nuclear power plants or 6 to 10 coal-fired plants)?

Do you want to drive innovation and spur technology?

If you do, see NEMA’s newly unveiled consensus agreement outdoor lighting standard.

Today, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, Senator Pryor, Representative Harman, Representative Upton, NEMA’s President and CEO Evan Gaddis, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the National Resources Defense Council announced a consensus agreement for federal outdoor lighting standards. For the first time ever, pole-mounted outdoor lighting will have federally mandated efficiency standards.

For many months, NEMA has led negotiations with manufacturers, energy advocates, utilities, lighting designers and others to develop thoughtful and thoroughly vetting consensus standards. As you can see from the statistics mentioned, this agreement will have a monumental impact on energy savings, carbon reduction and technological innovation.

Dishwasher Safe Typing

goodwina — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:54:00 GMT

NEMA standards make appearances in a number of places—lighting, medical imaging equipment, motors, and many other product categories.

I recently heard about a surprising use of a NEMA standard—a dishwasher safe, waterproof computer keyboard. The company says the products are manufactured to NEMA 4X specifications. This refers to NEMA 250, Enclosures for Electrical Equipment (1000 Volts Maximum).

I haven't purchased one of the keyboards, so I can't vouch for their ability to, say, protect against ingress of water, but I do like the idea of a way to really clean out the accumulated debris of office life.

Daytime Lamps Not Required

updykec — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:21:00 GMT

In this morning's Federal Register you may not have noticed an item having to do with automobile safety. After eight years, the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a denial of a petition by General Motors to require all cars in the U.S. under 5 tons to have daytime running lamps. DOT, through its own studies, has not been able to find an appreciable safety benefit from drivers having their headlights on at all times during the day. Apparently, the government feels daytime lamps have not turned out to be the great safety innovation we thought they were. And we know that auto companies chafe at any new federal requirements that don't involve baliout funds, so on one level the decision is not surprising. You can read the DOT notice here.

But does this mean I should stop bothering to turn on the lights on my vehicle during the day? At the micro level, I don't think so. Just because the federal government is not going to require every car to shine brightly does not mean I shouldn't be allowed to perceive some additional level of safety -- and peace of mind -- that another car, a bicyclist or a pedestrian will have a greater chance to see my vehicle in time to avoid an accident. And I would appreciate the same chance to see other vehicles too.

The Lesson of Unintended Consequences

golds — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:49:00 GMT

Those of you interested in economic policy who are not familiar with Henry Hazlitt's fable of the broken window, now is the time to learn it. I was reminded of it, and the late, great Hazlitt's wonderful book "Economics in One Lesson," after reading a recent Economist editorial, "Piling On." The fable, and the Economist editorial, both focus on the law of secondary (or unintended) consequences. Simply put, any purposeful action will lead not only to those results that the instigator was trying to achieve, but inevitably to unintended results as well.

When the instigator is Congress, and the purposeful action is economic policy, it can spell trouble for American business. That's because when Congress delves into economic policy to protect one group, it may inadvertently punish that group (and others) as well. Take for example the recent credit card consumer-protection legislation. In enacting this law, Congress is attempting to protect consumers from excessive credit-card fees. But the restrictions may also force banks to slash billions of dollars in available credit to avoid risk. After all, interest rates are simply a tool that lenders use to balance risk, and Congress has removed this tool from the bankers' tool box. So banks will hold onto their money rather than make risky loans.

Most economists predict that if Congress enacts a universal healthcare policy -- which is designed to make healthcare coverage cheaper and thus more accessible -- the restrictions and regulations placed on physicians and hospitals will ultimately make it harder for people to get treated. As noted economist Thomas Sowell observed in a recent column, just ask Britons or Canadians, who typically wait much longer than Americans for surgery or even MRIs in their healthcare systems.

The Economist sees other unintended consequences in upcoming economic policy, such as in climate change legislation:

Under a mammoth carbon-emissions bill now working its way through Congress, 85% of valuable permits to emit carbon dioxide (which might all have been auctioned) will be given away free. This creates a huge new pot of favors for government to hand out, and new incentives for businesses to lobby. It will be costlier to fight climate change, while harder to avoid political favor-trading.

The point is this: While the recent financial meltdown was caused by reckless lending and ridiculous investment practices, Congress and the Obama administration shouldn't take this as an opportunity to overregulate the entire economy. Businesses expect this round of political leaders to tinker with economic policy. But don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Why a Memorial Day?

Buckson, William — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:11:00 GMT

Memorial Day did not start out as a celebration day, a party day, a shopping day or even a time to thank those who have served or who are serving the Nation. It was meant as a time of remembrance and honor for those who had given the ultimate sacrifice in protecting us while in the service of this country. Originally called Decoration Day, specifically for Northern solders killed during our Civil War, it was later expanded after WW1 to include all men and woman who had made the ultimate sacrifice while in the service of our country.

I went to school in Fairfield Conn., where schools were generally named after patriots like Washington, Lincoln, Andrew Warde, Roger_Ludlow, Timothy_Dwight, Roger_Sherman and Nathan Hale, during a time when the town parade and subsequent memorial services on the town green were focal points of this special day.

Lest we forget why we have a Memorial Day holiday, I have included this link to help refresh our memories and perhaps to help explain this special day to those that weren't brought up in the public school systems of the late 40's, 50's and early 60's.

As we eat our barbecue, throw or watch our baseball, enjoy our picnics, or just relax with the family over the long weekend, we need to remember that the liberties we sometimes take for granted, including those fond memories of Memorial Day's past, have been bought and ensured by those who willingly paid the ultimate price.

Home Energy Use - Energy Star Retreating Now?

updykec — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:48:00 GMT

Now that we have entered May, the thermometers are starting to trend upward. In some regions of the country the cooling season has already started while in more northerly climes the heating season is drawing to a close. At the same time, on Capitol Hill the debate is raging on what measures to take to decrease U.S. energy usage and increase U.S. energy efficiency in the face of climate change. It is remarkable and unfortunate that the Environmental Protection Agency stands ready to throw a wrench into residential consumers' efforts to address and manage as much as 50 percent of their own homes' energy usage.

This morning EPA issued and posted on its website a letter to the public -- including manufacturers, distributors, installers, electric utilities, retailers, and other stakeholders in energy efficiency and the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) communities -- announcing its intent to sunset the requirements programmable thermostats currently meet to earn the Energy Star label. If you are not familiar with them (then you must still have an old fashioned dial thermostat): a programmable thermostat automates, at your control, the set-ups and set-backs that strike the balance in your household between energy savings and heating/cooling comfort.

According to my understanding of its current plans, EPA intends to require manufacturers and other Energy Star partners to stop using the label on these products and promotional material by the end of the year. What message does this send to consumers, many of whom are growing more energy conscious and are looking for easy ways to reduce their energy use without disrupting their lives?

On its website, Energy Star states, “Homeowners can save about $180 a year by properly setting their programmable thermostats and maintaining those settings,” which is approximately nine percent of the total heating and cooling bill for an average home. Energy Star also states: “As much as half of the energy used in your home goes to heating and cooling.” At the same time, in its letter today Energy Star states its inability to "confirm any improvement in terms of the savings delivered by programmable thermostats." How is that for inconsistency? And EPA admits it has not made any assessment of what removal of the Energy Star label will do to energy efficiency efforts by retailers, consumers and others who have invested much in the program. What is clear is that no energy is going to be saved by ending Energy Star labeling for these products. If more data is needed, let’s work together to figure out how to get it.

For their part, NEMA manufacturers have been writing new technical requirements for programmable thermostats that should be used as a basis to allow Energy Star lableing of products to continue. In addition, NEMA and other groups have told EPA they want to continue to work with the Agency to maintain this valuable program. We hope a broad stakeholder meeting will be convened next month. But by then, under EPA's schedule, all stakeholders should be taking steps to retreat from the program. Does this make sense to you?

Let's continue the current Energy Star labeling and work together to get new data and new requirements in place to help consumers meet their goals and our country meet its goals for energy savings.

The American Public and Capitalism

golds — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:55:00 GMT

American business may be in more trouble than it presently thinks.

I'm not talking about the economic collapse, which has manufacturers and other businesses on edge, wondering when we'll see a light at the end of the tunnel. And I'm not talking about the emergence of an activist Congress, whose leaders are talking about such bogeys as higher corporate tax rates, elimination of secret union ballots, and a cap and trade system that may add substantially to the cost of to doing business.

No, I'm talking about the American public's loss of faith in capitalism -- as evidenced in a recent survey on Rasmussen Reports. According to the survey of 1000 adults, barely over half (53%) of Americans think capitalism is better than socialism. Twenty percent think socialism is better and 27% simply aren't sure. The age group that is most split is the under-30 generation -- 37% favor capitalism, 33% favor socialism, and 30% don't know.

In other words, this survey suggests that a substantial portion of the voting public doesn't believe in our economic system anymore. Americans are understandably frustrated by marketplace corrections that ruin their retirement savings and their jobs. But in trying to fix some breaks in the system, we shouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. After all, our remarkably high standard of living -- from food, sanitation, and medicine to transportation, higher education, and national defense -- stems from our ability to create wealth. And the government doesn't create wealth -- only our free enterprise system can do that. To believe otherwise could, of course, lead to public policies that damage American business's abililty to create jobs and invest in research.

But all is not lost. In another survey late last year, a Rasmussen Report showed that, by switching the words "capitalism" to "free market" and "socialism" to "government managed economy," the pollsters found overwhelming support for ... capitalism. Maybe we do get it after all.

Misinformation at a California Conference

Kohorst, Mark — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:28:00 GMT

This week I flew to the West Coast to make a presentation on behalf of several NEMA sections at a solid waste management industry conference. The morning after my arrival, I took the opportunity to stroll the conference exhibit hall, where a number of waste industry product and service providers were manning display booths, handing out literature, and chatting with colleagues and potential clients. I was unfamiliar with most companies in the hall, but recognized one as perhaps the most widely known waste management firm in the US. I was therefore dismayed when I came across a hand-out on the company's table that stated: "Batteries are hazardous waste and do not belong in the trash or recycling. They need to be disposed of at a hazardous waste facility or through (the company's disposal program)"

This is not only inaccurate, it is reckless and irresponsible. It serves no purpose to mislead consumers into believing that common, household AAA, AA, and 9 volt batteries represent a threat to their health or the environment. NEMA and the members of its dry battery section expend substantial time and effort countering this sort of misinformation. The fact that it is being disseminated in a public forum by such a large and influential industry presence is discouraging and suggests the industry needs to remain vigilant at getting its message out. Consumers have enough real hazards to worry about - they don't need irrational fears hoisted on them as part of a marketing campaign.

For the record, I relayed my concerns to the employee manning the exhibit booth (a marketing staffer) and intend to follow up shortly with company officials. Anyone seeking accurate information about characteristics of household batteries, including disposal practices, can find it by accessing www.nema.org, or by contacting Mark Kohorst at NEMA (mar_kohorst@nema.org, 703-841-3249).

What Hasn’t Changed in 82 Years

goodwina — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:09:00 GMT

Cleaning out the files last Friday yielded an illuminating find--a 1927 copy of The National Electrical Manufacturers Association: A Brief Outline of its Function and Purpose (in the picture below, note the autographed instruction to return this to file).

So what's changed since 1927, the year of Show Boat, the expulsion of Leon Trotsky, and the Spirit of St. Louis? (And three years before my grandfather was born.)

The electrical and medical imaging industry has certainly made incredible leaps and bounds. What hasn't changed, though, is NEMA's utility to industry and focus on standardization, technology, and excellence.

I've outlined my favorite highlights from the publication, staying true to the original commas, capitalization, and grammar:

On Technology:

"Forty-five years ago there was no science, no art and no industry for the production, distribution and use of electricity. Today electricity is used by about 200 millions of the people of the world, and in our United States, 315 thousands of human beings make a living in attending to the creating of equipment whereby its marvels are performed."
"To achieve this purpose [of quality electrical service] the members of the Association are interested in finding new products; they want to improve and make more of the products which are already developed and working; and so to make unpopular and unprofitable the manufacture of poor equipment and faulty apparatus. To do this will require initiative, clear thinking, and standardization."

On Statistics:

"Facts, ‘our scarcest raw material,' are increasingly necessary to round out production schedules, costs, sales effort and capital expenditure. Statistics are the searchlights of business--they clearly show the road, its obstacles, condition and slope."

On Standardization and Cooperation:

"The manufacturer and user of electrical and radio equipment is faced with the practical necessity of building and operating apparatus not only according to preference, but with regard to electrical ordinance, central station power supply, underwriters' requirements and interchangeability of parts. Through Nema the combined experience and judgment of the group is focused on these problems, enabling a quick and practical solution which gives consideration to the many important factors involved." Note: When I read this section, I immediately thought of Smart Grid.
"In actual fact, the Association is a pooling of intelligence in engineering, in counsel and in human associations."

Kepler Telescope blast-off – Technology is the engine of growth

Winstanley, Gerard — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:54:00 GMT

Over the weekend the Kepler telescope was launched into space to hunt for earth-like planets. So who was this space craft named for? The name Kepler is familiar to me because it is the name of my printer at work – being a slightly nerdy, technology-based trade association NEMA names it meeting rooms and printers after scientists, engineers and inventors. Johannes Kepler was a 17^th century astronomer who developed the mathematics of planetary motion.

During a recession it is a timely reminder that economic progress over the centuries has been fueled by technological development. Most scientists and engineers are not celebrated or remembered in our history texts, but their contributions have been responsible for the vast improvement in the quality of our lives. They have not been responsible for the current economic crisis; the pipeline of scientific development has not run dry. New, innovative ways of producing energy, curing diseases, increasing crop yields and doing more with less will continue to the developed and provide the growth for the future.

It’s worth honoring these scientists and engineers; whether it’s a spacecraft or a printer that is named after them.