EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

APPENDIXB 

FY2005 DRAFT PRIORITY-SETTING DATA 

SHEETS FOR: 

1) EXISTING COVERED PRODUCTS, AND 

2) PRODUCTS IN THE COVERAGE PROCESS AND/OR IN 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

APPLIANCE STANDARDS 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

April 2004 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Table of Contents (Existing Covered Products) 

Product Rulcmaking Priority Page 

Clothes Dryers (Residential)- (Gas/Electric) Standards Low I 

Clothes Dryers (Residential)- (Gas/Electric) Test Procedure Low 2 

Clothes Washers (Residential) Standards Low 3 

Clothes Washers (Residential) Test Procedure Low 4 

Combination Appliances Standards Low 5 

Combination Appliances Test Procedure Low 8 

Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat 

Pornos 65-240 kBtu/hr Standards High 9 

Commercial Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure High JO 

Commercial Air-Cooled Central A/C & Heat Pump, 3 phase <65 kBtu/hr Standards High 11 

Commercial Furnaces Standards Low 12 

Commercial Furnaces Test Procedures High 13 

Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Standards High 14 

Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Test Procedures High 15 

Commercial Water-Cooled A/C & Water-Source Heat Pumps Standards Low 16 

Commercial Water Heaters Standards Low 17 

Commercial Water Heaters Test Procedure High 18 

Cooking Products - Gas & Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and 

Microwave Ovens Standards Low 19 

Cooking Products - Gas & Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and 

Microwave Ovens Test Procedure Low 20 

Direct Heating Equipment including Vented Hearth Products (Gas) Standards Low 21 

Direct Heating Equipment including Vented Hearth Products (Gas) Test Procedure Low 22 

Dishwashers (Residential) Standards Medium 23 

Dishwashers (Residential) Test Procedure Low 24 

Distribution Transformers Standards High 25 

Distribution Transformers Test Procedures High 26 

Electric Motors, 1-200 HP Standards Low 27 

Electric Motors, 1-200 HP Test Procedure Low 28 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Standards I Low 29 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Test Procedure Low 30 

High Intensity Discharge Lamps Determination High 31 

High Intensity Discharge Lamps Test Procedure Low 32 

Lamps, Fluorescent Standards Low 33 

Lamps, Fluorescent Test Procedure Low 34 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Table of Contents (Existing Covered Products) 

Product Rulcmaking Priority Page 

Lamps, Incandescent General Service Standards Low 35 

Lamps, Incandescent General Service Test Procedure Low 36 

Lamps, Incandescent Reflector (Regulated) Standards Low 37 

Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Test Procedure Low 38 

Packaged Terminal A/C & Heat Pumps Standards High 39 

Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Standards Low 40 

Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Test Procedure Low 41 

Pool Heaters, Gas Standards Low 42 

Pool Heaters, Gas Test Procedure Low 43 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact 

Refrigerators Standards Low 44 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Low, med for 

Refrigerators Test Procedure compacts 46 

Residential Central A/C & HP (including Space-Constrained Products) Standards Low 47 

Residential Central A/C & HP (including Space-Constrained Products 

with Test Procedure High 49 the Excention ofDuctlessi 

Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (Ductless) Test Procedure Medium 50 

Residential Furnaces and Boilers Standards High 51 

Residential Furnaces and Boilers Test Procedure Low 52 

Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Standards Low 53 

Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Test Procedure Low 54 

Room Air Conditioners Standards Low 55 

Room Air Conditioners Test Procedure Low 56 

Single-Packaged Vertical Units (SPVU) Standards High 57 

Small Electric Motors Determination High 58 

Small Electric Motors Test Procedure Low 59 

Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters Standards High 60 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Table of Contents (In Coverage Process and/or In Pending Legislation) 

Product Rulcmaking Priority Page 

Pending 

Battery chargers I external power supplies Legislation Not specified 61 

Battery chargers I external power supplies Test Procedure Not specified 62 

Coverage (and 

Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines Pending Leg.) High 63 

Coverage (and 

Ceiling Fans Pending Leg.) High 64 

Coverage (and 

Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers Pending Leg.) High 65 

Pending 

Gas Unit Heaters I Gas Duct Furnaces Legislation Not Specified 66 

Pending 

Illuminated Exit Signs Legislation Not Specified 67 

Lamps, Incandescent Reflector- ER/BR shaped Coverage High 69 

Pending 

Residential Furnace Fans Legislation Not specified 71 

Residential Furnace Fans Test Procedure Not specified 72 

Coverage (and 

Torchieres Pending Leg.) High 73 

Torchieres Test Procedure High 75 

Pending 

Traffic Signal Modules Legislation Not Specified 76 

Traffic Signal Modules Test Procedure Not Specified 78 

Previously 

unevaluated 

Large Unitary Air Conditioners (:<: 240 kBtu/hr) product Not Applicable 79 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Clothes Dryers (Residential) - (Gas/Electric) 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

I FY 2004 Priority 

Heat Pump Elec. Dryer (5.7 EF) = 4.8 1 

Microwave Elec. Dryer (3.5 EF) = 1.6 

Modulating Gas Dryer (2.8 EF) = 0.06 

Heat Pump Electric Dryer (5.2 EF) = 4.5 

Not available 

I Not available 

I Reduced annual cycles need to be considered, definitions and creation of new 

product class for condensing dryers. 

I DOE regulation of clothes washers. 

DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

I There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating clothes 

dryer standards should be given low priority. 

At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficiency clothes washers, 

which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. 

Significant dryer savings potential has been considered in clothes washer 

rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been 

estimated to be much more cost-effective than thermal extraction. 

New electric dryers advertise 30% reduction in energy usage. 

I Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would 

be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary 

programs. 

I Interested parties believe this is a low priority product. Other DOE standards will 

impose cumulative burden on white goods manufacturers. 

1 All estimates are based on the FY'03 prioritization analysis, with a small adjustment for the 2010-2035 timeframe 

assumed here. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Clothes Dryers (Residential) - (Gas/Electric) 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Test Procedure needs to be changed if there is to be a new standard. 

I Low 

I Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has conducted specialized dryer tests and 

has asked DOE to consider revisions to the test procedure. 

I 

I 

A new product class needs to be defined for condenser dryers; currently there is 

one waiver in effect. Numerous changes that are required prior to a standards 

rulernaking for clothes dryers, including the investigation of the same test cloth 

issues as for the clothes washer rulernaking. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule I DOE does not plan to actively pursue the test procedure further in the next year. 

Rationale for Priority Level I Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Clothes Washers (Residential) 

Priority: Low 

Factors for Priority Setting Assessment 

Energy Savings from 

Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2004-2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2003 Priority 

The Final Rule energy savings equal 5.5 quads over 2004-2030. These estimated 

savings will be achieved through the 2001 Final Rule and do not represent additional 

potential savings from further regulatory action. Required MEF of 1.04 in 2004 and 

1.26 in 2007. 

I The Net Present Value (NPV) is $15.3 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in 1997 

dollars. 

I For period 2004- 2030, 95 million metric tons of carbon and 254 thousand metric 

tons ofNO .. 

I Final Rule issued January 12, 2001. Changes to the test procedure were incorporated 

into the standards rulemaking. 

I DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line 

manufacturers. 

I 

I 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Star program. 

Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. 

manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final Rule - January, 2001 

Final Rule published January 12, 2001. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Clothes Washers (Residential) 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Low 

I 

I 

I 

As part of the January 12, 2001 standards final rule, the Department included 

revisions to the test procedure dealing with the energy test cloth. In the October 

31, 2003 direct final rule, the Department modified the procedure for developing 

the correction factors for new production Jots of energy test cloth by replacing the 

extractor test points at 50 g with 100 g test points. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Piiority Level 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Combination Appliances (Residential) - (Gas/Electric) 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

Combination 

Appliances 

Baseline 

Mid 

efficiency 

Type I: Oil boiler w/ 

tankless coil 

CAE Energy 

0.78 

0.82 (more 

insulation) 

0.85 (subsavings 

(quad) 

0.06 

0.09 

High condensing 

efficiency oil boiler) 

Mid Efficiency total: +0.00 B $US (NPV) 

High Efficiency total: -0.68 B $US (NPV) 

Not available 

Type II: Gas water 

heater w/ fan-coil 

CAE Energy 

0.69 

0.70 (more 

insulation) 

0.83 

(condensing 

water heater) 

savings 

(quad) 

0.01 

0.16 

Total 

energy 

savings 

(quad) 

0.07 

0.25 

ASHRAE 124 (2004) is under review by ASHRAE; once this review is complete, 

DOE can adopt the procedure. The current update introduced several changes (for 

example the water heater function of larger size water heaters is tested under SPC 

118.l(the commercial boilers test procedure) instead of under SPC 118.2(the 

residential boilers test procedure)). 

DOE regulation ofresidential furnaces and boilers; combination appliances are an 

additional class, and - 40% of the energy savings potential may overlap with the 

oil boilers furnace class (a component of Type I combination appliances). 

DOE regulation of water heaters, the new rule became effective on 1/20/2004. 

Large manufacturers and energy advocates favor regulation of these appliances, to 

avoid product switching from more stringently regulated furnaces and boilers 

toward unregulated combination appliances; one small combi manufacturer 

believes that combi systems are already regulated as water heaters and boilers, that 

imposition of more stringent standards would be burdensome, and that significant 

savings are not available. 

Several manufacturers are marketing high efficiency oil boilers (at or above 86% 

AFUE); recently, one major manufacturer discontinued their highest efficiency 

model. Almost all water heaters models (after 1/2004) are at efficiency levels 

which matches or exceeds the mid-efficiency level considered for this analysis. 

Lack of a combination appliance standard may allow sales oflow efficiency 

versions of water heaters and boiler products by calling them combination 

appliances, as baseline combination appliances can be less efficient than the 

individual appliances they replace. 

2 Combined Annual Efficiency (CAE) is calculated per ASHRAE 124 (2004). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

I FY 2004 Priority 

Labeling of an appliance for combination use may not be effective because the unit 

is field assembled and enforcement is problematic. 

I Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would 

be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary 

programs. 

I 

Interested parties believe this is a low priority product. Other DOE standards will 

impose cumulative burden on HY AC manufacturers. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Background Material 

NCI and LBNL jointly created a straw-man estimate of the current combination appliance market to estimate potential energy 

savings and approximate net present value. Further refinements are possible in the future if warranted. 

Type I Baseline Definition 

Mid Efficiency Unit Definition 

High Efficiency Unit Definition 

Annual Sales Volume 

Lifetime 

Product Cost Delta 

Type II Baseline Definition 

Mid Efficiency Unit Definition 

High Efficiency Unit Definition 

Annual Sales Volume 

Product Lifetime 

Product Cost Delta 

Energy Calculation Parameters 

Discount Rate 

GAMA comments, Furnace and Boiler rulemaking, oil boiler 

80% AFUE, 140kBTU Oil Boiler, .49 EF class, 2002; EF rating estimated from tank size, 2000 Water 

Heater Final Rule. 

Space heating function: Generally available mid-efficiency 

84% AFUE (baffles, higher HX area), unit, special vent not generally required. 

combined with 2" of insulation of the tank, 

.54 EF Water heating function: 2000 Water Heater Final Rule, 

slightly higher than 2000 standard level. 

86% AFUE (higher HX area), combined 

with 2" of insulation of the tank, w/ Space heating function: Condensing not generally available 

in the market; 86% AFUE units are, with SS vent required. stainless steel vent, 

.57 EF 

70% of total oil boiler sales, 

90,000 units per year 

18 Years 

+$123 (Mid), +$925 (High) 

75 Gallon/ 75kBTU Gas Water Heater 

combined with fan-coil, 

. 52EF 

Water heating function: 2001 Water Heater rule 

Oil boilers market : assumed I 00% retrofits. Oil boiler 

shipments - 130,000 (Appl.Magazine 2003). Oil-fired water 

heaters - 40,000 (2000 water heaters rule). The differential 

assumed to represent the combination appliances market. 

Appliance Magazine, 2001, p 58-9. 

NCI Estimate. Based on insulation qty & price, HX area 

increase, and stainless steel vent costs (including installation). 

Equivalent to the largest residential water heater size 

(GAMA). EF rating estimated from tank size, 2000 Water 

Heater Final Rule . 

2" · d t h t · 1 f 54 EF 2000 Water Heater Final Rule, slightly higher than 2004 mcrease wa er ea er msu a ton, . standard level. 

Condensing Gas Water Heater 

w/ new plastic vent, .86 EF 

100,000 units per year 

9 years 

+$108 (Mid), +$715 (High) 

R=.71 

2 I 4 Heating Days 

64.3 Gallons/hour water load 

7% 

"Market Disposition of High-Efficiency Water Heating 

Equipment", Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1996. 

Estimate that the lowest range from GRI's shipment forecast 

is appropriate, based on industry contacts (GRI Report GRI00/0042, "Low Capacity Gas-Fired Space Heating 

Assessment: Final Technical Report", July 2001). Uncertainty 

is high, as the GRI Report indicates that due to unfamiliarity 

and local code restrictions, market penetration is currently 

limited. If full penetration is achieved, shipments could reach 

500,000 units per year, with proportionally higher energy 

savings. 

2001 Water Heater rule 

NCI Estimate. Based on insulation qty & price, added SS 

heat exchanger and plastic vent(+ installation) 

ASHRAE 124 (2004) 

ASHRAE 124 (2004) test 

National average water load, 2000 Water Heater Final Rule 

2000 Water Heater Final Rule 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Combination Appliances (Residential) - (Gas/Electric) 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Test Procedure needs to be developed if there is to be a new standard. 

I Low 

I 

I Large manufacturers would like DOE to adopt ASHRAE 124 (2002); one small 

manufacturer is opposed to this. 

I 

ASHRAE is in an advanced stage ofrevising ANSl/ANRAE 124/1991 "Methods of 

Testing for Rating Combination Space-Heating and Water-Heating Appliances", 

and the new version of the test procedure standard may be published in October 

2004. Subsequently DOE could adopt the test procedure by referencing ASHRAE 

124-2004. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plan to actively pursue test procedure until ASHRAE approves the 

newly updated ASHRAE 124-2004. 

Given low level of potential savings, low level test priority should continue until 

ASHRAE fully adopts ASHRAE 124-2004. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps, 

65-240 kBtu/hr3 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-

2035 4 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2001) 2008-2035 5 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Commercial Air-Cooled Air Conditioners Only: 

>65 and <135 kBtu/hr >135 and <240 kBtu/hr 

10.5 EER: 0.39 10.0 EER: 0.31 

11.0 EER: 0.70 

11.5 EER: 0.98 

12.0 EER: 1.08 

10.5 EER: 0.53 

11.0 EER: 0.79 

11.5 EER: 1.02 

12.0 EER: 1.09 

Commercial Air-Cooled Air Conditioners Only: 

>65 and <135 kBtu/hr >135 and <240 kBtu/hr 

10.5 EER: 0.57 10.0 EER: 0.51 

11.0 EER: 0.93 

11.5 EER: 1.08 

12.0 EER: 1.02 

10.5 EER: 0.83 

11.0 EER: 1.12 

11.5 EER: 1.24 

12.0 EER: 1.20 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed. 

DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similar to those 

referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. 

Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

None known. 

Immediate adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-1999 standards are estimated to save 0.5 

quad from 2008-2035 with a cumulative NPV of0.9 billion $2001. DOE is 

considerin hi her efficienc standards due to eater ener savin s otential. 

High 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE initiated a rulemaking in FY 2002. The Department expects to publish a 

notice in FY 2004. 

Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant. 

3 DOE is currently performing an analysis of impacts of standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national net-presentvalue, and engineering analyses. 4 Energy savings based on the Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner National Energy Savings spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is 

available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/commercial/ac hp.html 5 Economic impacts based on the Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner National Energy Savings spreadsheet. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page9 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (DOE accepts ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

test procedures for all commercial air conditioner and heat pump products.) 

Priority: High 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Standards set by EP ACT have been amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 as of 

January 12, 2001. 

I Low for most products. 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final Rule should be published in FY 2004. 

Rationale for Priority Level 2004 Priority Setting 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 10 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Commercial Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 3 phase, <65 kBtu/hr 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2004 -

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Energy Savings:6 

SEER 12 standard level = 2.17 

SEER 13 standard level= 2.9 

NPV, billions of$1998: 

SEER 12 = 1.1 

SEER 13 = (0.71) 

Carbon emissions reduction: 

SEER 12 = 34 million tons 

SEER 13 = 43 million tons 

DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similar to those 

referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. 

The California Energy Commission has energy efficiency standards in place (CEC 

Appliance Energy Regulations, 2003). Possible State and regional environmental 

regulation (e.g. air quality). 

None known. 

EPA phase out ofHCFC refrigerants. 

High 

DOE has initiated work in support ofrulemaking. 

Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

6 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 11 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Commercial Furnaces 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2005-

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

0.57 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 

I Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

I DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similar to those 

referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. 

j Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

I 

None known. 

I Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final Rule published January 12, 2001. 

Rationale for Priority Level Standards set by EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No 

further action. 

7 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HV AC Standards, see 65 FR 30929 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 12 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Commercial Furnaces 

Priority: High 

Test Procedure 

Standards set by EPACT have been amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90. I as of 

January 12, 2001. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Low 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final rule should be published in FY2004. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 13 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2004-

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Energy Savings:8 

0.28 for small and large gas-fired boilers (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

1999 levels, Max NPV) 

NPV, billions of $1998: 

0.2 for small and large gas-fired boilers (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

1999 levels, Max NPV) 

Carbon emissions reduction: 

4 million tons Cover analysis period for small and large gas-fired boilers (to go 

be ond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels, Max NPV) 

DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similar to those 

referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. 

Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

None known. 

Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999, which would save an 

estimated 0.064 quad for small and large gas-fired boilers from 2001-2030 

(ASHRAE 90.1-1999 relative to EPCA). DOE will consider higher standards 

above 90.1 for additional energy savings. 

Data included in the Screening Analysis only covers estimated energy savings for 

gas-fired packaged boilers. No analysis has yet been conducted for oil-fired 

acka ed boilers. 

High 

DOE has initiated work in support ofrulemaking. 

Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HV AC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

8 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 14 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

Priority: High 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

I Standards set by EPACT are being amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90. l 

I High 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final rule should be published in FY2004. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 15 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Commercial Water-Cooled Air Conditioners & Water Source Heat Pumps 

(Products for which DOE adopted ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2005-

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

0.69 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 

I Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed, however, 

energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits 

that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

I DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similar to those 

referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. I EPA phase-out ofHCFC refrigerants. 

I 

None known. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final Rule published January 12, 2001. 

Standards set for water-source water-cooled and evaporatively cooled commercial 

air conditioning and heating equipment by EPACT were amended to adopt revised 

ASHRAE 90. l. 

9 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 16 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Commercial Water Heaters 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2005-

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

o.o?1° 

I Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed, however, 

estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

I DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similar to those 

referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. 

I 

I 

None known. 

I Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final Rule January 2001. 

Standards set by EPACT have been amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1-

1999 levels for gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters 

10 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 17 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Commercial Water Heaters 

Priority: High 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Standards set by EP ACT have been amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 as of 

January 12, 2001 

I Low 

I ASHRAE is in process of revising (SPC 118.1 ). Will include heat pump water 

heaters. 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final rule should be published in FY2004 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 18 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Cooking Products-Gas and Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and 

Microwave Ovens 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2010 - 2035 II 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 12 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Gas Ranges 

(Ovens+ Cooktops): 

Electronic Ignition: 0.4 

High efficiency: 0.7 

Gas Ranges 

(Ovens+ Cooktops): 

Electronic Ignition: 0.6 

High efficiency: -3.1 

Not available. 

Electric Ranges 

Covens+ Cooktops): 

High efficiency: 1. 7 

Electric Ranges 

COvens + Cooktops): 

High efficiency: -5.7. 

Final Rule published October 3, 1997. 

DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

None known. 

Microwave Ovens: 

High efficiency: 0.3 

Microwave Ovens: 

High efficiency: -4.7 

For gas cooking products, pilotless designs may require installation of an electrical 

outlet. Loss of consumer utili if loss of electrical ower. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule For electric cooking products including microwave ovens, DOE issued a Final 

Rule that did not add new standards - September 8, 1998. 

For gas cooking products, DOE does not plan to pursue a rulemaking in FY 2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings for electric cooking products including microwave ovens 

have a high economic burden to consumers. 

Potential energy savings for gas cooking products are low. 

11 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis of cooking products conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. 

The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 12 Economic impacts are based on an updated analysis of cooking products conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 19 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Cooking Products-Gas and Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and 

Microwave Ovens 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Test Procedure was changed prior to Final Rule for energy efficiency standards for 

electric cooking products. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued- October 3, 1997. 

Rationale for Priority Level Test procedure was recently updated. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 20 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Direct Heating Equipment including Vented Hearth Products (Gas) 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 

2010 - 2035 13 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 16 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

· Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Direct Heating Equipmentli~ 

Electronic Ignition: 0.1 

Elec. Ignition + High efficiency: 0.2 

Direct Heating Equipment: 

Electronic Ignition: -0.2 

Elec. Ignition+ High efficiency: -0.5 

Hearth Products~~ 

Electronic Ignition: -0. l 

Hearth Products: 

Electronic Ignition: -1.2 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed. 

Final Rule published May 12, 1997. 

None known that will impact product. 

None known. 

Fuel switching. 

Rural communities use for backup heating during power outages. Utility concern 

with electronic ignition. 

Hearth products are relatively new. Recent shipments data show shipments of 

hearth products approaching one million. As hearth products gain wider 

acce tance in future, otential ener savin s ma be si nificant. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in FY 2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are low and their achievement would be an economic 

burden to consumers. 

13 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis of direct heating equipment conducted for DOE's FY05 priority 

setting . The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment 

Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 14 Direct heating equipment includes: wall furnaces, floor furnaces, and room heaters. 15 Hearth products include: fireplaces, fireplace inserts, gas stoves, and decorative gas logs. 16 Economic impacts are based on an updated analysis of direct heating equipment conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. 

The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

web site. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 21 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Direct Heating Equipment including Vented Hearth Products (Gas) 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Test Procedure was changed as a result of a standards rulemaking analysis 

conducted in 1994. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued May 12, 1997. 

Rationale for Priority Level Test procedure was recently updated. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 22 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Dishwashers (Residential) 

Priority: Medium 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Best Available (as listed in ENERGY STAR®) (1.19 EF) = 2.2 

Current ENERGY STAR® Dishwasher (0.58 EF) = 0.5 

I Not available. 

I Not available. 

I Test procedure was recently revised to better reflect energy consumption for new 

technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles. 

I DOE regulation for energy efficiency of other white goods for full line 

manufacturers. I Not Available. 

Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. Adaptive control 

(soil sensing) dishwashers. ENERGY STAR® program. Various state- and 

utility-level programs. 

Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing of 

dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordable models (contract 

housing). Possible increase in standby energy consumption from displays. End 

user tendency to pre-treat dishes, which impacts energy consumption. 

Medium 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level FY 2004 priority level. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 23 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Dishwashers (Residential) 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I 

New test procedure in effect as of February 2004 that incorporates soiled dishes 

and reduces the number of average-use cycles per year. 

I Efforts underway to harmonize international test procedures should include 

dishwashers. 

I 

I 

New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic. Stand-by losses due to 

displays. Time delay before reported Energy Factors match new test procedure. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level Final rule published August 29, 2003 (68 FR 51887), amending test procedure. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 24 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Distribution Transformers17 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative 2010-2035 

(Quads) 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

4.63 - 12.16 quads for both liquid-immersed and dry-type transformers, based on 

scaled energy savings and extrapolated shipments scenario from the ORNL 

Determination Analysis, 1997. 

Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

Need to publish a test procedure before Notice of Proposed Rule for the standard. 

There is no national efficiency standard. Some States have adopted NEMA TP-1 

as a minimum efficiency standard or required purchasing standard. 

NEMA recommends adopting its TP-1 standard, revised in 2002. 

EPA ENERGY STAR® program for liquid-immersed transformers. NEMA's TP1 promotes energy efficient electrical products. 

NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-1. 

Potential energy savings from regulatory action questioned by NEMA. 

High 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE expects to publish advance notice of proposed rulemaking in FY 2004 

Potential for significant energy savings through regulatory action under EPCA, as 

amended by EP Act. 

17 DOE is currently performing an analysis of impacts of standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national netpresent-value, and engineering analyses. The results of this analysis will be made available for public comment once they are 

completed. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 25 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Distribution Transformers 

Priority: High 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Test Procedure needs to be established before the NOPR stage of the Standard 

rulemaking. 

I High 

ENERGY STAR® is based on NEMA TP-2 test method; Canada uses the 

CAN/CSA C802.2 standard which directly references parts ofNEMA TP-2. 

NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test method. 

Definition of Distribution Transformer, Compliance Demonstration. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE plans to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in FY 2004. 

Test procedure needs to be Final Rule before the Standard rulemaking is at the 

Notice of Proposed Rule stage. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 26 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

From EPAct to NEMA Premium: 0.28 Commercial+ 1.0 Industrial = l .28 Total. 18 

Significant uncertainty in estimates due to uncertainties in efficiency of installed 

base and typical duty cycles. 

I Not Available. 

I Not Available. 

I I None known that will impact product. 

CEE and others suggest that motors running for 2000 or fewer hours/year tend to 

be economically unattractive candidates for replacement with premium efficiency 

motors. 

ASHRAE 90.1. Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. 

DOE Motor Challenge. Motor Decisions Matter. NEMA Premium efficient 

motors programs. NIST Efficiency of Electric Motors program. 

DOE regulates system efficiencies (e.g. HV AC) where motors are components of 

such systems. Many motors operate at part load, but part-load efficiency is not 

regulated. Duty cycles of many motors are low, which impacts the economic 

viability of improving efficiency. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

18 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis of electric motors conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 prioritv setting spreadsheets.zip 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 27 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Natural Resources Canada: Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electric Motors 

International Electro technical Commission/International Standards Organization 

(IEC/ISO) 

I CEE suggests increasing efficiency requirements tends not to be cost effective for 

low-duty-cycle motors (less than 2000 hours/year operation). 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 28 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Priority: Low 

Energy Savings from 

Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2005-2030 19 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$1997) 2005-2030 20 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits; 

Cumulative Emission 

Reductions 2005-2030 21 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2003 Priority 

Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

These estimated savings will be achieved through the 2000 Final Rule and do not 

represent additional potential savings from further regulatory action. 

1.4-2.6 

10.9 - 32.1 Mt Carbon 

34.0 - 103.4 kt NOx 

None required. 

EPA Green Lights and ENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's 

FEMP Procurement Guidelines and Federal Relighting Initiative, EPAct 1992 

Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating Program, The Energy Cost Savings 

Council, and some utility DSM programs. 

Low 

Final Rule-published in September 19, 2000. 

Final Rule published in FY 2000. New standards become effective in 2005. 

19 Energy savings from DOE's Final Rule, September 19, 2000. DOE's analysis of fluorescent ballasts is in the Technical 

Support Document available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/notices rules.html#2000 20 Economic impacts from DOE's Final Rule, September 19, 2000. 21 Emission reductions from DOE's Final Rule, September 19, 2000. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 29 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Priority: Low 

Test Procedure 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

No test procedure changes required for issuing new energy efficiency standards. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE completed the rule in FY2000. 

FY2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level No need to revise test procedure. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 

DOE does not plan to pursue rulemaking in 

Page 30 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Determination Analysis 

Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps22 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2010-

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2001) 2010-2035 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

0.523 

Not available. 

Not available. 

IES and ANSI procedures are in place. 

Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. 

EPA mercury disposal requirements apply. 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Market-driven replacement of inefficient mercury vapor lamps with metal halide 

and high-pressure sodium lamps has occurred. 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority High 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

Proposed Schedule DOE plans a determination notice for FY 2004. 

Rationale for Priority Level Determination required by EPACT. 

22 DOE is currently performing an analysis of impacts of standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national net-presentvalue, and engineering analyses. 23 Based on a calculation method consistent with that used for DOE's FY 2003 priority setting with the exception that shipments 

of mercury vapor lamps are assumed to decline at a rate consistent with what is observed in the historical data. DOE's analysis 

of HID lamps for the FY 2003 priority setting is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and 

Commercial Equipment Standards web site. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/2004 priority setting.html 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 31 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Test Procedure needs to be developed for standard. 

High for determination. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Test procedure development is dependent on outcome of Determination. 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 32 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2008 -

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Best Available FEMP procurement recommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and Utube lamps)= 0.47 24 

RecommendedFEMP procurement recommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and Utube lamps)= 0.14 I Not Available. 

I Not Available. 

I IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 

29, 1997. 

I Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA issued a final rule 

July 6, 1999, including lamps as Universal Hazardous Waste. 

I 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Procurement Guidelines and 

Federal Relighting Initiative, and some utility DSM programs. 

I Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more 

difficult. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. 

Low energy savings potential. 

24 Both estimates are from the FY2003 prioritization analysis. These estimates are not adjusted to the 2010-2035 

timeframe. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 33 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Low 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Test Procedure 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final Rule issued May 29, 1997. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 34 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

1.5% efficacy increase= 0.9 

3% efficacy increase= 1.8 

17% efficacy increase (halogen lamp)= I 0.0 25 

I Not Available. 

I Not Available. 

I DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 29, 1997 incorporating IES and ANSI 

testing procedures. Test procedure is applicable to this product. 

I 

I 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, 

and some utility DSM programs, Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating 

Program. 

I Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more 

difficult. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. 

Low priority because the economic viability of more efficient technology has not 

been demonstrated. 

25 Analysis is based on cumulative energy savings compared to A-type incandescent lamps. All estimates are based 

on the FY'03 prioritization analysis, with a small adjustment for the 2010-2035 timeframe assumed here. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 35 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Low 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final Rule issued May 29, 1997 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 36 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector (Regulated) 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Currently Regulated 26 

1.5% efficacy increase = 0.1 

3% efficacy increase = 0.2 

30% efficacy increase (HIR) = 1.6 

Note: Halogen Infrared Reflector (HIR) 

I Not Available. 

I Not Available. 

I DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 29, 1997 incorporating IES and ANSI 

testing procedures. Test procedure is applicable to this product. 

I 

I 

ENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, 

and some utility DSM programs, Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating 

Program. 

I Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more 

difficult. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE plans to assess whether to classify currently exempt incandescent reflector 

lamps as covered products. 

Based on completion of assessment. 

26 Lamps in this analysis are regulated reflector lamps that comply with the 1992 EP Act standards. These are 

primarily parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) halogen lamps. All estimates are based on the FY'03 prioritization 

analysis, with a small adjustment for the 2010-2035 timeframe assumed here. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 37 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Low 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final Rule issued May 29, 1997. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 38 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2004 -

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Energy Savings:27 

0.03 (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 new construction equip. levels) 

0.56 (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 replacement equip. levels) 

NPV, billions of$1998: 

0.01 (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 new construction equip. levels) 

0.5 (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 replacement equip. levels) 

Carbon emissions reduction: 

1 million tons (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 new construction 

equip. levels) 

8 million tons (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 replacement equip. 

levels) 

EPA phase out ofHCFC refrigerants. 

None known. 

Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999, which would save an 

estimated 0.11 quad from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for 

additional energy savings. 

High 

DOE has initiated work in support ofrulemaking. 

Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

27 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 39 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

savings for this product. 

I Not available. 

I Not available. 

I 

j None. 

I 

None known. 

I As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be 

carefully considered. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would 

be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary 

programs. 

Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ ANSI 

Al 12.18.1 and ASME/ANSI Al 12.19.6. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 40 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

I Low 

I 

I 

I 

The performance requirements previously called out in the ASME Al 12.19.6 

standard (Hydraulic Requirements for Toilets and Urinals) will be incorporated 

into the parent standard, ASME Al 12.19.2 and will be titled: "Vitreous China 

Plumbing Fixtures and Hydraulic Requirements for Toilets and Urinals." 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Amend test procedure during FY2005 to account for the ASME name change as 

described in the issues line item above. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 41 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 

2010 -2035 28 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 29 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Standards 

Electronic Ignition: 0.3 

Non-Condensing Limit: 0.4 

Condensing (Induced Draft): 0.5 

Condensing (Pulse): 0.6 

Electronic Ignition: 0.4 

Non-Condensing Limit: 0.3 

Condensing (Induced Draft): -1.2 

Condensing (Pulse): -2.9 

Not available. 

Final Rule published May 12, 1997. 

None known. 

None known. 

Solar pool heating market share growing. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in FY 2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are low. 

28 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis of pool heaters conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 29 Economic impacts are based on an updated analysis of pool heaters conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page42 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

Priority: Low 

Test Procedure 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

No test procedure changes required for issuing new energy efficiency standards. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final rule issued May 12, 1997. 

Rationale for Priority Level Test procedure was recently updated. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 43 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Refrigerators 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2010 -2035 30 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 31 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes to 

Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Standard Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator/Freezers: 

FEMP (4% energy decrease): 0.8 

ENERGY STAR® (15% decrease): 2.9 

CEE Tier 1 (20% decrease): 3.9 

CEE Tier 2 (25% decrease): 4.8 

CEE Tier 3 (30% decrease): 5.8 

Standard Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator/Freezers: 

FEMP (4% energy decrease): LO 

ENERGY STAR® (15% decrease): 0.5 

CEE Tier 1 (20% decrease): -1.3 

CEE Tier 2 (25% decrease): -4.1 

CEE Tier 3 (30% decrease: -7.9 

Not available. 

Compact 

Refrigerators: Freezers: 

ENERGY STAR® ENERGY STAR® 

(20% decrease): 0.5 (20% decrease): 0.4 

Compact 

Refrigerators: 

ENERGY STAR® 

Freezers: 

ENERGY STAR® 

(20% decrease): 0.9 (20% decrease): 0.6 

AHAM test procedure has been revised (AHAM HRF-1-2002) to correct repeatability 

and reproducibility issues with the testing of compact refrigerators. 

DOE test procedure still references AHAM HRF-1-1979. 

DOE issued a direct Final Rule on March 7, 2003 to make a small modification to the 

defrost calculations for some models. 

DOE issued a Final Rule on December 19, 2001 to include a maximum temperature of 

the fresh food storage compartment and to exclude certain appliances whose physical 

configuration makes them unsuitable for general storage of perishable foods. 

EPA phase-out ofHCFC-14lb in 2003 as a blowing agent for foam insulation. 

DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

FY04 priority setting comments: Some interested parties recommend a medium priority 

setting for refrigerators. 

Market share of ENERGY STAR® qualifying products in 2002 is 25 percent. 

Industry recently had to comply with two regulations: (1) new energy efficiency 

standards which became effective July 1, 2001 and (2) a phase-out of the most 

commonly used blowing agent for foam insulation, HCFC-14lb, in 2003. 

DOE needs to write specific guidelines for beverage centers. 

Compact refrigerators are used in non-residential applications. 

Low 

30 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis of refrigerators and freezers conducted for DO E's FY05 priority 

setting . The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment 

Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 prioritv setting spreadsheets.zip 31 Economic impacts are based on an updated analysis of refrigerators and freezers conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. 

The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 44 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997. 

Rationale for Priority Level New energy efficiency standards became effective on July I, 2001. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 45 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Refrigerators 

Priority: Medium for compact refrigerators and refrigerator/freezers, Low for all others 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

No changes are required for purposes of changing the efficiency standard. 

Low 

North American Energy Working Group (NAEWG) has harmonized test 

procedures between the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico. 

AHAM test procedure has been revised (AHAM HRF-1-2002) to correct 

repeatability and reproducibility issues with the testing of compact refrigerators. 

DOE test procedure still references AHAM HRF-1-1979. DOE needs to update its 

test procedure to cite AHAM HRF-1-2002. 

Definitions and test procedures are needed for a new product: combination 

compact refrigerator and wine cooler. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to pursue rulemaking in FY 2005 but notes that the test 

procedure will need to be updated in the future to cite updated AHAM test 

procedure. 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page46 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (including Space-Constrained 

Products) 

Priority: Low 

Energy Savings from 

Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2006 -

203032 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$1998) 2006-203033 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits; 

Cumulative Emission 

Reductions 2006-202034 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Minimum energy efficiency standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF for non-space 

constrained products save 4.2 quads. National energy savings for space 

constrained products are a small fraction of this amount because they capture a 

very small share of the residential central air conditioner and heat pump market. 

Minimum energy efficiency standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF for non-space 

constrained products save 1 billion dollars. 

Minimum energy efficiency standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF for non-space 

constrained products save 32.7 Mt of Carbon and 93.8 kt ofNO, by 93.8 kt. 

The test procedure is currently being revised. 

On Jan. 13, 2004, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Second Circuit in New York 

ruled to invalidate DOE's May 23, 2002 Final Rule which established 12 SEER 

and 7.4 HSPF efficiency standards for non-space constrained central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. The May 23, 2002 Final Rule also established 

separate product classes for two space constrained products, through-the-wall 

(TTW) and small duct high velocity (SDHV) air conditioners and heat pumps, and 

established efficiency standards for TTW systems. Due to the Appellate Court's 

decision, DOE's previous Final Rule (dated January 22, 2001), which enacted 

standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, became the applicable efficiency standards 

for non-space constrained products and SDHV systems. Standards were reserved 

for space constrained products including TTW, ductless split (i.e., mini-split), and 

single package and non-weatherized. 

Although the January 22, 2001 Final Rule defined space constrained products, due 

to questions posed by stakeholders, DOE will issue informal guidelines to clarify 

what constitutes a space constrained product. 

High 

32 Energy savings from DOE's Final Rule, January 22, 2001. DOE's analysis of residential central air conditioners and heat 

pumps is in the Technical Support Document available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and 

Commercial Equipment Standards web site. These estimated savings will be achieved through the 2001 Final Rule and do not 

represent additional potential savings from further regulatory action. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/residential/ac central.html 33 Economic impacts from DOE's Final Rule, January 22, 2001. 34 Emission reductions from DOE's Final Rule, January 22, 2001. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 47 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE will not publish a rulemaking for a space constrained products in FY 2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings for space constrained products are low. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 48 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (including Space-Constrained 

Products with the exception of Ductless) 

Priority: High 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Test Procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps is being 

updated but will not impact product efficiency ratings. 

Low 

Industry is supportive of changes to up date test procedure. 

Test procedure is being updated in two phases. The first phase consists of a 

comprehensive update to the method oftest and is expected to be published as a 

Final Rule in FY 2004. The second phase consists of changes to the method oftest 

for SDHV systems as well as further updates to other sections of the test procedure 

(e.g., frost accumulation testing, multi-capacity system testing, and test reporting). 

The second phase of the update is expected to be published as a NOPR in FY 

2005. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule The Department expects to publish the first phase of the test procedure update as a 

Final Rule in FY 2004. The Department expects to publish the second phase of 

the test procedure update as a NOPR in FY 2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level Comprehensive updates are required to ensure the proper testing of products. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 49 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (Ductless) 

Priority: Medium 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. 

Low 

Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimeter test. 

Calorimeter test (which is used for room air conditioners) is more suitable and 

accurate for testing ductless split central air conditioners, but this test is not 

currently in the DOE central air conditioning test procedure. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule The Department will not pursue a test procedure rulemaking specifically for 

ductless until the test procedure updates for non-space constrained products has 

been finalized. 

Rationale for Priority Level Change would make test procedure more accurate for ductless. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 50 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers35 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2012-2042 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Total range considered: [1.8 - 15.1]36 

I Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

emission benefits that are likely to be possible. 

I Final rule issued May 12, 1997. 

I Possible State and regional environmental regulation. 

I 

ENERGY ST AR® program. Wisconsin state condensing furnace/boiler program. 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) promotes a residential gas heating 

initiative specifying three high efficiency tier levels for gas furnaces and one high 

efficiency tier for gas boilers. 

I Regional variations, venting and electricity issues. 

High 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

The Department expects to publish a notice in FY 2004. 

Potential energy savings are significant. 

35 DOE is currently performing an analysis of impacts of standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national netpresent-value, and engineering analyses. The results of this analysis will be made available for public comment once they are 

completed. 

36 Based on LBNL rough estimate for gas and oil, September 2001. DOE is currently performing an analysis of impacts of 

standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, rational net-present-value, and engineering analyses. The results of this 

analysis will be made available for public comment once they are completed. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 51 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. The test procedure for 

combined space- and water-heating appliances (a separate product class within the 

standards rulemaking) is currently under development by the Department. 

I High 

I ASHRAE SPC 124 has released an update for public review for a test procedure 

for combined appliances. 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Final rule issued May 12, 1997. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 52 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric 

Priority: Low 

Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2004-2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes to 

Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by Interested 

Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

The Final Rule energy savings equal 4.6 quads over 2004-2030. These estimated savings 

will be achieved through the 2001 Final Rule and do not represent additional potential 

savings from further regulatory action. 

I The Net Present Value (NPV) is $2.0 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in 1997 dollars. 

I 

For period 2004- 2030, 152 million metric tons of carbon and 273 thousand metric tons of 

NO,. 

I Changes not required for standards. Final rule for te_st procedure was published in 1998. 

I 

EPA phase out of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Commission 

initiative for prevention of ignition of flammable vapors by gas water heaters. 

I 

Demand-side management programs for high efficiency water heaters. 

I Fuel switching. Replacement blowing agent for insulation. Installation in small spaces. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule NOPR April, 2000 

Final Rule - January, 2001 

Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule published January 17, 2001. Reviewed April 12, 2001. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 53 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric 

Priority: Low 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

J Low 

I 

I 

I 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not plant to pursue rulemaking in the next year. 

Test procedure published in May, 1998. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 54 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Room Air Conditioners 

Priority: Low 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2010 -2035 37 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 38 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

ENERGY STAR®, 10.8 EER (10% more efficient): 0.8 

CEE Tier One, 11.3 EER (15 % more efficient): 1.2 

CEE Tier Two, 11.8 EER (20% more efficient): 1.5 

ENERGY STAR®: 0.0 

CEE Tier One: -4.l 

CEE Tier Two: -6.3 

Not available. 

None required. 

EPA phase-out ofHCFC-22 in 2010 for new appliances. 

Market share of ENERGY ST AR® qualifying products in 2002 is 19 percent. 

Industry must find a replacement refrigerant for HCFC-22 due to its phase-out in 

new appliances starting in 2010. 

Low 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Final Rule Issued - September 24, 1997. 

Rationale for Priority Level New energy efficiency standards became effective on October 1, 2000. Potential 

new standards either have moderate energy savings or have a high economic 

burden to consumers. 

37 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis of room air conditioners conducted for DO E's FY05 priority 

setting. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment 

Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 38 Economic impacts are based on an updated analysis of room air conditioners conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 55 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Room Air Conditioners 

Priority: Low 

Test Procedure 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

No test procedure changes required for issuing new energy efficiency standards. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Low 

Test procedure does not measure the benefits of designs which improve the 

seasonal performance of the appliance (e.g., variable speed compressors). 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to pursue rulemaking in FY 2005. 

Rationale for Priority Level No need to revise test procedure. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 56 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Single-Packaged Vertical Units (SPVU) 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2004-

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Not available. 

Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed. 

None known. 

SPVUs were not included in previous priority settings. 

ASHRAE published Addendum d to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001, which 

provides minimum EER and COP levels for SPY AC and SPVHP products and 

references ARI Standard 390-2001 as the applicable test procedure. ARI has since 

updated Standard 390 to the 2003 version. DOE is evaluating the efficiency levels 

in Addendum d to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001 and the test procedures the 

referenced ARI Standard 390. 

EPA phase out ofHCFC refrigerants. 

None. 

DOE has initiated work in support of rulemaking. 

Re-evaluation of ASHRAE 90.1 1999 levels. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 57 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Determination Analysis 

Product: Small Electric Motors39 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads): 2010-

2030 40 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2000) 2010-2030 41 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

0.2- 1.2 

$0.1-$1.3 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed, however, 

estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

IEEE 114- 2001 test procedure for single-phase induction motors was published 

May 24, 2002. 

IEEE 112 - 1996 test procedure for poly phase motors is in effect. 

Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) and certain 

commercial equipment are exempt. 

None known. 

High 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE plans to publish a determination in FY 2004. 

Rationale for Priority Level Determination required by EPCA. 

39 DOE has performed an analysis of impacts of standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national net-present-value, 

and engineering analyses. The results of the analysis are available in a draft report entitled "Analysis of Conservation Standards 

for Small Electric Motors" from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/commercial/small motors.html 40 Based on "Analysis of Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors", Draft for Public Comment, June 2003. 41 Based on "Analysis of Conservation Standards for Small Electric Motors", Draft for Public Comment, June 2003. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 58 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Small Electric Motors 

Priority: Low 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

High for determination. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to pursue rulemaking in FY05. 

Rationale for Priority Level Waiting on determination. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 59 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Standards 

Product: Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad): 2004-

2030 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

Proposed Schednle 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Energy Savings:42 

0.10 (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels, Max NPV) 

NPV, billions of$1998: 

0.05 (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels, Max NPV) 

Carbon emissions reduction: 

2 million tons (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels, Max NPV) 

DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2004. 

The California Energy Commission has energy efficiency standards in place (CEC 

Appliance Energy Regulations, 2003). 

Instantaneous gas-fired water heater market share seems to be growing. 

High 

DOE has initiated work in support of rulemaking. 

Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

42 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HY AC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 60 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Pending Legislation 

Product: Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (residential & commercial) 

Priority: Not specified 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2010 -2035 43 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

80% efficiency: 1.8 

Not available. 

Not available. 

DOE does not have a test procedure for battery chargers and power supplies. 

Being considered for efficiency regulation in draft legislation before Congress. 

California Energy Commission (CEC) is considering minimum efficiency 

regulations on power supplies and battery chargers. 

FY04 priority setting comments: Some interested parties recommend that battery 

chargers and external power supplies should not be designated as a covered 

product until draft legislation has been approved by Congress. 

EPA has issued a draft ENERGY STAR® Specification in February, 2004. 

European Code of Conduct has established voluntary minimum efficiency 

specifications. 

Market penetration of more efficient switch mode power supplies is increasing 

because they tend to be lighter and smaller in size. More efficient power supplies 

can be made more compatible with different frequencies and voltages making them 

more suitable for the international market. 

Clear product definitions required. 

Not applicable. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Not specified. 

Draft legislation before Congress requires that within 3 years after the date of the 

Bill's enactment, a Final Rule must be issued to determine the viability of energy 

conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. 

Rationale for Priority Level Waiting on Congressional action. 

43 Energy savings estimates are based on an analysis of battery chargers and power supplies conducted for DOE's FY05 priority 

setting. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment 

Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 61 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Test Procedure 

Product: Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (residential & commercial) 

Priority: Not specified 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

DOE does not have a test procedure. A test procedure needs to be developed 

before establishing energy efficiency standards. 

Not specified. 

EPA has issued a test procedure for external power supplies. 

CEC supports the EPA test procedure. 

European Union has issued a Code of Conduct for test procedures and voluntary 

efficiency specifications. 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) test procedure (IEC 62301) exists 

for testing standby power. 

IEEE 1515-2000 provides background on general test conditions and brief 

references to efficiency. 

Australian government is interested in establishing an internationally harmonized 

test procedure. 

Some interested parties recommend further research for purposes of developing an 

appropriate test procedure. 

Waiting on Congressional action. 

Clear product definitions required for test procedure development. 

Not specified. 

Draft legislation before Congress requires that within 18 months after the date of 

the Bill's enactment, DOE shall prescribe by notice and comment, definitions and 

test procedures for the power use of battery chargers and external power supplies. 

Waiting on Congressional action. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 62 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Coverage (also in Pending Legislation) 

Product: Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines 

Priority: High (test procedure priority also high) 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010-

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes to 

Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by Interested 

Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Beverage Merchandisers Vending Machines 

Energy Savings Energy Energy Energy Energy 

Efficiency Level Reduction Savings Reduction Savings 

(%) (quad) (%) (quads) 

< 2 yr. payback 44 0.47 32 0.81 (ADL 1996) 

< 5 yr. payback 55 0.59 42 1.06 (ADL 1996) 

Royal Vendors 

Econo-Cool 47 1.19 

Technology 

gy Star Tier 1 0 0 

Energy Star Tier 2 13 0.33 

CECTier 1 29 0.31 

CECTier2 36 0.39 

CECDesign 14 0.35 Requirements 

Combination: 1 35 0.38 28 0.71 

Not Available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed 

The ASHRAE 32.1 and ASHRAE l 17 test procedures have been identified as the 

recommended basis for a DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines and beverage 

merchandisers, respectively. 

California Energy Commission has a design standard for refrigerated beverage vending 

machines. The CEC treats beverage merchandisers as glass door commercial reach-in 

refrigerators, which are regulated. (CEC Appliance Efficiency Regulations, 2003) 

Conduct background work and develop test procedures. (ACEEE and NEEP comments from 

FY2004 Priority Setting Process) 

ENERGY ST AR® Standards 

Vending Machines shall consume equal or less energy in a 24-hour period than the values 

obtained from the equations below. 

Tier 1: Y :S 0.55[8.66 + (0.009 * C)] to be implemented April 1, 2004 

Tier 2: Y :S 0.45[8.66 + (0.009 * C)] to be implemented January 1, 2007 

Y = 24 hour energy consumption (kWh/day) after the machine has stabilized 

C = vendible capacity 

(ENERGY ST AR® Program Requirements for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines, 

Version 1.0) 

There are no ENERGY ST AR® program requirements for beverage merchandisers. 

This is being considered in draft legislation by Congress. 

High 

Proposed Rule FY 2005 

2004 Priority Setting 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 63 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Coverage (also in Pending Legislation) 

Product: Ceiling Fans 

Priority: High (test procedure priority also high) 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010-

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Air Moving Efficiency Lighting Efficacy 

Energy Savings Energy Energy Energy Energy Efficiency Level Reduction Savings Reduction Savings 

(%) (quads) (%) (quads) 

Future Technology 62 1.93 78 4.22 

Best Available 39 1.22 78 4.22 

ENERGY STAR® 18 0.57 78 4.22 

Not Available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed. 

The Solid State Test Method has been identified as the recommended basis for a 

DOE test procedure for suspended ceiling fans. (ENERGY ST AR® Testing 

Facility Guidance Manual: 

Building a Testing Facility and Performing the Solid State Test Method for 

ENERGY STAR® Qualified Ceiling Fans, 2002) 

The California Energy Commission is considering, at least on a preliminary basis, 

new or modified test methods, efficiency standards, labeling rules, or associated 

administrative compliance, and enforcement regulations for ceiling fans. (State of 

California Order Instituting Rulemaking Proceeding, 2003) 

Conduct background work and develop test procedures. (ACEEE and NEEP 

comments from FY2004 Priority Setting Process) 

ENERGY STAR® Standards: 

Low Fan Speed- l,250CFM minimum airflow, 155CFM/watt efficiency; 

Medium Fan Speed- 3,000CFM minimum airflow, IOOCFM/watt efficiency; 

High Fan Speed - 5,000 minimum airflow, 75CFM/watt efficiency. 

All integral and attachable light kits must meet the requirements of the ENERGY 

ST AR® RLF specification. 

(ENERGY ST AR® Program Requirements for Residential Ceiling Fans, Version 

2.0) 

Suspended ceiling fans are being considered in draft legislation by Congress. 

Lighting is often integral with ceiling fans and warrants consideration for inclusion 

(95% of ceiling fans have lighting). 

Ceiling fans have various designs: fan diameters, three speed or single speed fans, 

and hugger or suspended configurations. 

High 

Proposed Rule FY2005 

2004 Priority Setting 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 64 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Coverage (also in Pending Legislation) 

Product: Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 

Priority: High (test procedure priority also high) 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2010-

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Energy 

Reach-in Refrigerator 

Savings Energy Energy Efficiency 

Level Reduc. Savings 

(%) (quad) 

Energy Star 29 0.32 

CECTier I 0 0.00 

CECTicr2 9 0.10 

< 2 yr. payback 35 0.39 (ADL 1996) 

< 5 yr. payback 45 0.50 

(ADL 1996) 

Combination I 44 0.49 

Combination 2 67 0.74 

Combination 3 80 0.89 

Not Available. 

Reach-in Freezer 

Energy Energy 

Reduc. Savings 

(%) (quad) 

20 0.27 

8 0.11 

13 0.17 

30 0.40 

44 0.59 

35 0.47 

Reach-in 

Refrigerator-Freezer 

Energy Energy 

Rcduc. Savings 

(%) (quad) 

35 0.08 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed. 

The ASHRAE 117 test procedure has been identified as the recommended basis for 

a DOE test procedure for commercial refrigerators and freezers. 

California Energy Commission has an efficiency standard for reach-in 

refrigerators, reach-in freezers, and reach-in refrigerator-freezers for both solid and 

transparent doors. (CEC Appliance Efficiency Regulations, 2003). Also, ODC 

phase-out. 

Conduct background work and develop test procedures. (ACEEE and NEEP 

comments from FY2004 Priority Setting Process) 

ENERGY STAR® Standards (solid door units only): 

Refrigerators - Energy consumption under test procedures::::; O.IOV + 2.04kWh/day 

Freezers Energy consumption under test procedures :5 0.40V + l.38kWh/day 

Refrigerator/Freezers - Energy consumption under test procedures::::; 0.27 AV 

0.71 kWh/day 

V = internal volume in cu. ft. 

AV= adjusted volume= (1.63 * freezer volume in cu. ft.)+ refrigerator volume in 

cu. ft. 

(ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Commercial Solid Refrigerators 

and Freezers, Version 1.0) 

This is being considered in draft legislation by Congress. Potentially burdensome 

test procedure. 

High 

Proposed Rule FY 2005 

2004 Priority Setting 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 65 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Pending Legislation 

Product: Gas Unit Heaters/Gas Duct Furnaces 

Priority: Not Specified 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Power Vent with Separated Combustion: 0.67 for unit heaters; 0.13 for duct 

furnaces 

Best Available (Condensing): l.8 for unit heaters; 0.34 for duct furnaces 

I Not available. 

I Not available 

I No DOE test procedure. Current ANSI test procedures do not account for cycling 

losses and other seasonal effects. 

I Products not covered by DOE. The National Energy Bill, if passed, would place 

efficiency-related requirements on unit heaters. 

I 

Condensing and power vent products available on the market (both unit heaters 

and duct furnaces). 

I Significant impacts on design possible (such as requiring vent dampers and 

banning pilots) associated with possible Other Regulatory Actions. 

None 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 66 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Pending Legislation 

Product: Illuminated Exit Signs 

Priority: Not Specified 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2010-2035 

• In the event that Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of2003, a national standard will 

be enacted for exit signs manufactured on or after January 1, 2005 that shall meet 

"Version 2.0 ENERGY STAR® Program performance requirements for illuminated exit 

signs prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency." 

• Cumulative Energy Savings 2010-2035: 0.16 Quad. 

Product I Technology Availability (Including • Product is primarily directed toward the commercial sector. 

Price/Cost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status .of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

• Readily available for building owners - ENERGY ST AR® has 45 certified manufacturers. 

• Total costs over a ten-year period, including first cost, energy, and maintenance will be 

approximately $380 for incandescent signs and about $65 for LED signs. Even on a first 

cost basis, which can be an important purchasing determinant, LEDs have become cost 

competitive. While incandescent signs without battery backup are still marginally less 

expensive than LED signs, the price for both types of signs with battery backup is about 

the same because the incandescent system requires a much larger battery. 

• California mandated that exit signs should be ENERGY STAR® level on or after March 1, 

2003. 

• Some states banned incandescent lamps from exit signs in the 1990's. 

• Safety related features are regulated (dimensions, operating hours, etc.). 

• EPA has developed and ENERGY ST AR® test procedure, which draws upon industry 

standard methods, including those of Underwriters Laboratories and the National Fire 

Protection Association. 

• In the event that Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of2003, a national standard will 

be enacted for illuminated exit signs manufactured on or after January 1, 2005 that shall 

meet "Version 2.0 ENERGY STAR® Program performance requirements for illuminated 

exit signs prescribed by the Environmental Protection Agency." 

• The ENERGY STAR® program has 45 certified manufacturers. 

• Of the total installed base of exit signs in the United States, approximately 80% are already 

ENERGY STAR® I Light Emitting Diode (NCI, 2003). 

--------------------------------------------------- •Codes from all types of jurisdictions require regular exit sign inspection, despite predicted 

lamp life. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 67 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Total Energy Use (quad, 2003) 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 

Installed Base (millions) 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency (W) 

Typical New Efficiency (W) 

0.0282 NCI, 2003 

78.0 kWh/yr Weighted average UEC of installed stock, NCI 2003. 

33.0 

11 

NCI, 2002. 

Average fixture life, estimated from 2002 shipments (NEMA, 2003) and 

installed base (NCI, 2002). 

CEC: 5 W/face CEC has set a maximum wattage of SW/face, effective March 1, 2003. There is 

No national no national standard. 

8.9 Average of stock efficiency. NCI, 2003. 

6 Assume LED exit sign. NCI, 2003. 

Best Available Efficiency <l Some ENERGY STAR® Exit Signs are listed that consume less than one 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~!!·_ ~~ ~' _2_92~b.:. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENERGY STAR® Efficiency 5 W/face 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) <1 

ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Exit Signs. Eligibility Criteria. 

EPA, 2004. 

Electroluminescent and some LED panels already use 1 W or less. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 68 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Coverage 

Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector - ER/BR shaped 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010-2035 

•Scenario 1: Halogen Standard= 0.74 quad 

• Scenario 2: Halogen Infrared Standard= 2.17 quads 

P~du-ct /-Te~h~~l~gy -Av;ilabllify-(In~l~di;g .-Pr;d;;t ls -pri~;riiy dir~;t;d -t;;;lthe-r~sld~nti;l-s~cto;, b~t is"" als~ ~s~d i; ~th~r -s~cto;s~ -

Price/Cost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

• Readily available at retail outlets. 

--------------------------------------------------- • ER/BR lamps were exempted from the standard that regulated other incandescent reflector 

lamps in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 

• By 2001, 57% of all reflector lamp shipments were ER/BR lamps (NEMA, 2003), and 

these lamps accounted for approximately 77% of reflector lamp shipments to the 

residential sector. 

• ER/BR lamps are not part of the draft Energy Bill. 

•The Department has a test procedure for incandescent reflector lamps that is applicable to 

ER/BR lamps. 

• None. 

•None. 

• If regulated, consumers may try and substitute non-regulated lamps (e.g., A-type or K-type) 

in sockets that had previously used ER/BR reflector lamps. If so, the overall system 

(fixture and lamp) efficiency may be lower than before the regulation. 

• PAR lamps, which are already regulated and more efficient than ER/BR lamps, are readily 

able to be installed in sockets that currently use ER/BR lamps. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 69 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Total Energy Use (quad, 2003) 0.166 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 91.7 

Annual Shipments (millions) 107 

Installed Base (millions) 165 

Installed base, NEMA, 2003; Operating hours, NCI, 2002. 

Installed base, NEMA, 2003; Operating hours, NCI, 2002. 

ER, 1.8; BR: 102.5; BPAR: 3.3. NEMA, 2003. 

Estimate, calculated from annual shipments (NEMA, 2003), operating hours 

(NCI, 2002) and lamp operating hours (manufacturer catalogues, 2003) 

Product Lifetime (years) 1 57 Weighted average lifetime of ER/BR lamps in residential and non-

- ___________________________ ~ _____ !~sLd~l!_tLal ~P~<'..a!i~~s _@'g!i _?Q0_2!. _____________________ _ 

Minimum Efficiency Standard None Not regulated, exempt from EPACT 1992 .. 

Stock Efficiency 12LPW 

Halogen Efficiency 14.2LPW 

HIR Efficiency 18.5 LPW 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 18.5 LPW 

Efficacy of a 75 watt reflector lamp. 

Halogen reflector lamp of equivalent wattage 

Halogen infrared reflector lamp of equivalent wattage 

No known method of improving performance of incandescent technology 

without changing technology (e.g., CFL, LED) 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 70 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Pending Legislation 

Product: Residential Furnace Fans 

Priority: Not specified 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2010 -2035 44 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens; 

Cumulative NPV (billions of 

$2002) 2010-2035 45 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

Brushless permanent magnet motor: 5.0 

Backward inclined blower+ Brushless permanent magnet motor: 5.9 

Brushless permanent magnet motor: 6.2 

Backward inclined blower+ Brushless permanent magnet motor: 5.4 

Not available 

Current DOE furnace test procedure reports annual auxiliary consumption of entire 

furnace. New test needs to be developed specifically for residential furnace fan 

efficiency. 

Being considered for efficiency regulation in draft legislation before Congress. 

Furnace and Boiler standards rulemaking comments: 

Several state and non-governmental organizations recommend regulating furnace 

fan efficiency. 

Gas Research Institute (GRI) and Edison Electric Institute (EEI) recommend 

separate rulemakings on electricity and gas consumption. 

American Gas Association (AGA) recommends standards on motors. 

A manufacturer (Trane) does not want electricity regulated under a residential 

furnace standards rulemaking. 

Another manufacturer (Lennox) recommends considering the use of EAE if 

electricity consumption is to be regulated. 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) and Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) have agreed on specifications for electrically efficient 

condensing furnaces. Some electric utilities are offering incentives for electrically 

efficient furnaces. 

Not applicable. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Not specified. 

Rationale for Priority Level Waiting on Congressional action. 

44 Energy savings estimates are based on an analysis of residential furnace fans conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 45 Economic impacts are based on an analysis ofresidential furnace fans conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The 

spreadsheet is available from the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web 

site. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 71 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Residential Furnace Fans 

Priority: Not specified 

Test Procedure 

Relationship to Changes in 

Standard 

Test procedure will be necessary if draft legislation before Congress is signed into 

law. 

Priority of Standard 

International or Other 

Coordinating Activities 

Recommendation by 

Interested Parties 

Statutory Deadline 

Issues 

Not specified. 

None 

Furnace and Boiler mlemaking comments: 

Some interested parties recommend Watt per CFM rating. 

Waiting on Congressional action. 

EAE includes more components than furnace fan. 

Should air distribution fans for heat pumps be included. 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule Not specified. 

Rationale for Priority Level Waiting on Congressional action. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 72 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Coverage (also in Pending Legislation) 

Product: Torchieres 

Priority: High 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory •Wattage Limit set at 190 W = 0.87 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010-2035 • Wattage Limit set at 7o w = 3.2746 

• Product is primarily purchased by and used in the residential sector. 

Product I Technology Availability (Including •Readily available at homeware retail outlets and lighting showrooms. 

Price/Cost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

• Utilities have sponsored turn-in and rebate programs for halogen torchieres. 

• Most halogen or incandescent torchieres retail in the range of $10 to $30, while nonsubsidized CFL torchieres typically cost between $40 to $70 

--------------------------------------------------- • California mandated that torchieres manufactured on or after March 1, 2003 shall not 

consume more than 190 watts and shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total 

more than 190 watts. 

• Many manufacturers are responding to the combination of safety concerns and high energy 

consumption, by installing safety measures such as lower wattage lamps and protective 

cages to avoid combustible materials from coming into contact with the lamp. 

•No test procedure for efficiency, although applicable measurement standards on efficacy, 

lamp life, color rendering, etc. do exist (EPA, 2001). These testing standards are 

promulgated by the IESNA, ANSI and IEEE. 

EPA has developed ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures. 

• In the event that Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of 2003, a national standard will be 

enacted for torchieres manufactured on or after January 1, 2005 that "(I) Shall consume 

not more than 190 watts of power; and (2) Shall not be capable of operating with lamps 

that total more than 190 watts." 

--------------------------------------------------- • Sales of incandescent torchieres -82% of market, CFL just under 7% of market 

•DOE worked with LBNL to develop a CPL-based torchiere lamp in the late 1990's (BTS, 

2000); market share of these CFL torchieres have never been more than 7% of annual 

shipments (Ecos Consulting, 2003) 

• Many universities (e.g., Brown, Harvard, Stanford, Yale) have banned halogen torchieres 

from dormitories for safety reasons (LBNL, 1998) 

• FEMP and several utilities around the country have sponsored "Torchiere Trade-in" 

schemes, where consumers swap their old halogen torchiere for a new ENERGY STAR® 

torchiere (FEMP 1998; HE, 1999). 

--------------------------------------------------- .Regulations should be considered across all sectors (e.g., not excluding residential) as this is 

primarily a residential sector product. 

• While not an energy efficiency regulation issue, regulations could lead to lower wattage 

lamps and may reduce fire risk. 

46 Savings based on a shipments-weighted baseline consumption of222 Watts. Savings estimates based on assumption that 

installed base remains constant (i.e., no growth in sales). Greater savings will be realized if sales increase. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 73 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Total Energy Use (quad, 2003) 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/year) 

Annual Shipments (millions) 

Installed Base (millions) 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency (watts) 

Typical New Efficiency (watts) 

Best Available Efficiency (watts) 

ENERGY STAR® Efficiency (watts) 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

(watts) 

0.238. 

314 

12.2 

69.0 

4.25 

None 

(CA: 190 W) 

253 

225 

-55 

70 

-40 

Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

Stock weighted average energy consumption (253 W). Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

Halogen, 1.3; Incandescent: 10; CFL: 0.85. Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

Stock weighted average for three types oftorchieres, Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

There is no national efficiency standard for torchiere fixtures. 

CEC has set a maximum wattage of 190W for California, effective 03.01.03. 

UL (1996) set a maximum of 500W for UL listing. 

Average of stock efficiency. Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

Assume incandescent torchiere. Ecos Consulting; 2003. 

Assume light output of ENERGY STAR® light source held constant with 225 

W incandescent (3500 lumens) 

Assume light output of CFL source held constant with baseline. 

Assume efficacy will improve to highest linear florescent tube (100 LPW) and 

4000 lumen demand. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 74 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Torchieres 

Priority: High 

Test Procedure Overview 

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Test Procedure 

•ENERGY STAR® requires testing using the reference standard methods given in the table 

below for performance characteristics including input power and source light output. 

• CEC standards do not specify a test method for torchiere fixtures. 

ENERGY STAR® states that there will potentially be revisions for durability testing that may 

include on-off cycling, voltage variations and current variations among other factors. 

The ENERGY ST AR® test method may be modified at some point in the future to enable 

light sources such as metal halide and solid state lighting sources to qualify for ENERGY 

ST AR® certification. 

The test procedures measure energy consumption and source light output. 

Fixture performance (i.e., reflector bowl efficiency) and overall system performance are not 

measured. 

System performance may be a better measure, as it's the performance of the appliance -

luminaire light output for energy input that consumers are interested in. 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation Test procedure and metric of energy input correlate highly with the peak load impact. 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technol~gy 

T a bl e I R es1 "d entla . I I d n oor an dO ut d oor L" ig h ts: ENERGY STAR® 

Performance Characteristic Reference standard for 

method of measurement 

Efficacy 

Light output IESNA LM-9; LM-66 

Input power IESNA LM-9; LM-66; ANSI 

C82.2 

Power factor ANSI C82.l 1-3.3.l 

Lamp current crest factor ANSI C82.11-3.3.3 

Lamp start time ANSI C82.l 1-5.2 

Lamp Life IESNA LM-40; LM-65 

Lamp Color Rendering IESNA LM-58; LM-16 

Lamp Correlated Color IESNA LM-58; LM-16 

Temperature 

Dimming Use manufacturer protocol 

Warranty Use manufacturer protocol 

Safety - Portable Fixtures ANSI/UL 153 

Safety - Hardwired Fixtures UL 1598 

Safety - Ballasts and ANSI/UL 935; UL 1993 

"Fluorescent Adapters" 

Ballast Frequency IESNALM-28 

Transient Protection IEEE C 62.41 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 75 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Traffic Signals 

Priority: Not Specified 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (quad) 2010-2035 

Pending Legislation 

• In the event that Congress passes the Energy Bill, a national standard will be enacted for 

traffic signals manufactured on or after January I, 2006 that shall meet "the performance 

requirements used under the ENERGY STAR® program of the Environmental Protection 

Agency for traffic signals, as in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection, and 

shall be installed with compatible, electrically connected signal control interface devices 

and conflict monitoring systems." 

• Cumulative Energy Savings 2010-2035: 0.662 quad. 

Product I Technology Availability (Including • Readily available for municipalities. The ENERGY STAR® program identifies seven 

Price/Cost information): manufacturing partners. 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

•A red LED traffic signal costs about $75 compared to $3 for an incandescent signal, the 

lower energy consumption and extended operating life (and associated maintenance 

savings) equate to lower life-cycle costs. For example, the cost of ownership ofred LED 

traffic signals is about one-third that of incandescent traffic signal lamps over a seven-year 

period (CEE, 2002). 

• California mandated that traffic signals must be illuminated by LEDs, or meet certain 

standards put forth 

• In the event that Congress passes the draft Energy Bill, the test procedure EPA has 

developed for ENERGY STAR® Traffic Signal Program will become the Department's 

test procedure. The ENERGY STAR® program for Traffic Signals signal specification is 

based on a low energy requirement and conformance to the Institute for Transportation 

Engineer's (ITE) "Interim LED Purchase Specification, Vehicle Traffic Control Signal 

Heads, Part 2: Light Emitting Diode (LED) Vehicle Traffic Signal Modules" (VTCSH 

__ !~~~i~P~i~2~~-------------------------------------

• In the event that Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of2003, the following 

legislation will go into effect: "Traffic signal modules manufactured on or after January 

1, 2006, shall meet the performance requirements used under the ENERGY STAR® 

program of the Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals, as in effect on the 

date of enactment of this subsection, and shall be installed with compatible, electrically 

connected signal control interface devices and conflict monitoring systems." 

• The ENERGY ST AR® program identifies seven manufacturing partners. 

• -27% of the traffic and pedestrian crossing signal market has already moved to LEDs 

(installed base weighted-average). Market penetration for colored ball: Red (39% LED), 

green (29% LED) (NCI, 2003). 

•None 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 76 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Total Energy Use (quad, 2002) 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/year) 

Annual Shipments (millions) 

Installed Base (millions) 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency (W) 

Typical New Efficiency (W) 

Best Available Efficiency 

ENERGY STAR® Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

0.0374 NCI,2003 

222.5 Stock weighted average UEC, including incandescent and LED (NCI, 2003) 

NA Not available. 

15.3 million All types of traffic and pedestrian control signal modules (NCI, 2003). 

10 

None 

CEC: 2003 

95.2 watts 

NA 

10 watts 

Various 

5 watts 

Estimate 

No national energy standard, however California has passed minimum 

efficiency standards that are consistent with ENERGY STAR®. 

Average of stock efficiency, all signal types. NCI, 2003. 

Not available. 

Red ten inch signal head (NCI, 2003) 

ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for are shown in the table (EPA, 

2004) 

Assume doubling of LED system efficiency by 2020, relative to today's 

LED efficiencies (NCI, 2003). 

Table A 7-1: Energy-Efficiency Criteria for ENERGY STAR® Qualified Traffic Signal Modules 

Module Type Maximum Wattage Nominal Wattage 

(at 74°C) (at25°C) 

12 inch Red Ball 17 watts 11 watts 

8 inch Red Ball 13 watts 8 watts 

12 inch Red Arrow 12 watts 9 watts 

12 inch Green Ball 15 watts 15 watts 

8 inch Green Ball 12 watts 12 watts 

12 inch Green Arrow 11 watts 11 watts 

tombination Walking Man/Hand 16 watts 13 watts 

'Walking Man 12 watts 9 watts 

Orange Hand 16 watts 13 watts 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 77 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Product: Traffic Signals 

Priority: Not Specified 

Test Procedure Overview 

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

Test Procedure Summary 

In the event that Congress passes the draft Energy Bill, the ENERGY STAR® test procedure 

for traffic signals will become the Department's test procedure. The ENERGY STAR® 

program for Traffic Signals signal specification is based on a low energy requirement and 

conformance to the Institute for Transportation Engineer's (ITE) "Interim LED Purchase 

Specification, Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads, Part 2: Light Emitting Diode (LED) 

Vehicle Traffic Signal Modules" (VTCSH Part 2) (EPA, 2004). 

No other test procedures have been identified, nor are considered necessary. The ENERGY 

ST AR® test procedure is based on industry reviewed and accepted methods. 

The test procedure is effective and. accurate accessing the energy consumption of the traffic 

signal. 

The correlation with peak load is significant, as traffic signals generally operate 24 hours per 

day every day, no matter what time the peak occurs, it will be impacted by this product. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 78 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.5

Previously Unevaluated Product 

Product: Large Unitary Air Conditioners (~ 240 kBtu/hr) 

Priority: Not Applicable 

Potential Energy Savings 

from Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quad) 2010 -

2035 

Potential Economic 

Benefits/Burdens 

Potential Environmental or 

Energy Security Benefits 

Status of Required Changes 

to Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Recommendations by 

Interested Parties 

Evidence of Market-Driven 

or Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

FY 2004 Priority 

0.25 quad (CEE Tier 2: 10.0 EER) 

0. 7 quad (Best Available: 11.0 EER47) 

I Not Available. 

I Not Available 

Product currently not covered by DOE. Current ARI test procedure does not 

correlate well with annual energy consumption and does not account for energy 

saved by energy recovery approaches. ARI committee developing proposal for 

improved IPL V test procedure. 

I HCFC phaseout 

I 

ARI committee developing proposal for federal standard (to counter multiple statelevel standards initiatives); CEE (Tier 2 standard); ASHRAE 90. l levels 

I Physical space constraints (both for shipping and installation) limit opportunities 

for improving efficiency, particularly in larger-capacity units. 

None 

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

Proposed Schedule 

Rationale for Priority Level 

47 Available in smaller capacity units only, but savings calculated as if available across the full capacity range. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 79