# APPENDIXB FY2005 DRAFT PRIORITY-SETTINGDATA SHEETS FOR: 1) EXISTING COVERED PRODUCTS, AND 

# 2) PRODUCTS IN THE COVERAGE PROCESSAND/ORIN PENDINGLEGISLATION



# APPLIANCE STANDARDS BUILDINGTECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY April 2004

## Table ofContents (Existing Covered Products)

Product Rulcmaking Priority Page Clothes Dryers (Residential)- (Gas/Electric) Standards Low I Clothes Dryers (Residential)- (Gas/Electric) TestProcedure Low 2 ClothesWashers (Residential) Standards Low 3 Clothes Washers (Residential) TestProcedure Low 4 Combination Appliances Standards Low 5 Combination Appliances TestProcedure Low 8 Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pornos 65-240kBtu/hr Standards High 9 Commercial Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps TestProcedure 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 TestProcedures High 13 Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Standards High 14 Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers TestProcedures High 15 Commercial Water-Cooled A/C & Water-Source HeatPumps Standards Low 16 Commercial Water Heaters Standards Low 17 Commercial WaterHeaters TestProcedure High 18 Cooking Products

- Gas & Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and Standards Low 19 Microwave Ovens Cooking Products

- Gas & Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and TestProcedure Low 20 Microwave Ovens Direct Heating Equipmentincluding Vented Hearth Products (Gas) Standards Low 21 Direct Heating Equipment including Vented Hearth Products (Gas) TestProcedure Low 22 Dishwashers (Residential) Standards Medium 23 Dishwashers (Residential) TestProcedure Low 24 Distribution Transformers Standards High 25 Distribution Transformers TestProcedures High 26 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP Standards Low 27 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP TestProcedure Low 28 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Standards I Low 29 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts TestProcedure Low 30 High Intensity Discharge Lamps Determination High 31 High Intensity Discharge Lamps TestProcedure Low 32 Lamps, Fluorescent Standards Low 33 Lamps, Fluorescent TestProcedure Low 34

## Table ofContents (Existing Covered Products)

Product Rulcmaking Priority Page Lamps, Incandescent General Service Standards Low 35 Lamps, Incandescent General Service TestProcedure Low 36 Lamps, Incandescent Reflector (Regulated) Standards Low 37 Lamps, Incandescent Reflector TestProcedure Low 38 Packaged Terminal A/C & Heat Pumps Standards High 39 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Standards Low 40 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings TestProcedure Low 41 Pool Heaters, Gas Standards Low 42 Pool Heaters, Gas TestProcedure Low 43 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Refrigerators Standards Low 44 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Low, med for Refrigerators TestProcedure compacts 46 Residential Central A/C & HP (including Space-Constrained Products) Standards Low 47 Residential Central A/C & HP (including Space-ConstrainedProducts TestProcedure High 49 with 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 TestProcedure Low 52 Residential Water Heaters

- Gas, Oil & Electric Standards Low 53 Residential WaterHeaters

- Gas, Oil & Electric TestProcedure Low 54 Room AirConditioners Standards Low 55 Room Air Conditioners TestProcedure Low 56 Single-PackagedVertical Units (SPVU) Standards High 57 Small Electric Motors Determination High 58 Small Electric Motors TestProcedure Low 59 Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous WaterHeaters Standards High 60

## Table ofContents (In Coverage Process and/or In Pending Legislation)

Product Rulcmaking Priority Page Pending Batterychargers I external powersupplies Legislation Not specified 61 Battery chargers I external power supplies TestProcedure Not specified 62 Coverage (and Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines Pending Leg.) High 63 Coverage (and Ceiling Fans PendingLeg.) High 64 Coverage (and Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers PendingLeg.) 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 TestProcedure Not specified 72 Coverage (and Torchieres PendingLeg.) High 73 Torchieres TestProcedure High 75 Pending Traffic Signal Modules Legislation Not Specified 76 Traffic Signal Modules TestProcedure Not Specified 78 Previously unevaluated Large Unitary Air Conditioners (:<: 240kBtu/hr) product NotApplicable 79

# 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 SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

# IFY 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 HeatPump Electric Dryer (5.2 EF) = 4.5 Not available 

# INot available 

# I

Reduced annual cycles need to be considered, definitions andcreation ofnew product class for condensing dryers. 

# IDOE regulation ofclothes washers.

DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. 

# IThere appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating clothes

dryer standards shouldbe given lowpriority. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficiency clothes washers, which are likely tohave 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. 

# ILow


## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. 

# IInterested parties believe this is a low priority product. OtherDOE standards will

impose cumulativeburden 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 1

# TestProcedure Product: Clothes Dryers (Residential)

- (Gas/Electric) 

## Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues 

# ITest Procedure needs to be changed 

### ifthere is to be a new standard. 

# ILow 

# ICanadian Standards Association (CSA) has conducted specialized dryertests and

has asked DOE to considerrevisions 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 requiredpriorto a standards rulernaking for clothes dryers, including the investigation ofthe same test cloth issues as for the clothes washer rulernaking. 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

# IDOE does not plan to actively pursue the testprocedure further in the next year. Rationale for PriorityLevel 

# IConsidered to be a low priority by stakeholders.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page2

# 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 ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2003 Priority The Final Rule energy savings equal 5.5 quads over2004-2030. 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. 

# IThe Net Present Value (NPV) is $15.3 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in 1997 dollars. 

# I Forperiod 2004- 2030, 95 million metric tons ofcarbon and 254 thousand metric tons ofNO
.. 

# IFinal Rule issued January 12, 2001. Changes to the testprocedure were incorporated

into the standards rulemaking. 

# I DOEregulation ofclothes dryers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. 

# I IConsortium forEnergy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Starprogram.

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 PriorityLevel Final Rule

- January, 2001 Final Rule published January 12, 2001.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 3

# TestProcedure Product: Clothes Washers (Residential) 

## Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# ILow 

# I I IAs part ofthe 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 ofenergy test cloth byreplacing the extractor test points at50 g with 100 g testpoints. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PiiorityLevel



### Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page4

# Standards Product: Combination Appliances (Residential)

- (Gas/Electric) 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quad) 2010

- 2035

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures

OtherRegulatoryActions

Recommendations by Interested Parties

Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues Combination Appliances

Baseline

Mid efficiency Type I: Oil boilerw/ tankless coil CAE Energy
0.78 0.82 (more insulation) 0.85 (subsavings (quad) 0.06 0.09 High condensing efficiency oil boiler) MidEfficiency total: +0.00 B $US (NPV) High Efficiency total: -0.68 B $US (NPV) Not available Type II: Gas water heaterw/ fan-coil CAE Energy
0.69 0.70 (more insulation) 0.83 (condensing waterheater) 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 currentupdate introduced several changes (for example the waterheater function oflarger size waterheaters is tested under SPC 118.l(the commercial boilers test procedure) instead ofunder SPC 118.2(the residential boilers test procedure)). DOEregulation ofresidential furnaces and boilers; combination appliances are an additional class, and

- 40% ofthe energy savings potential may overlap with the oil boilers furnace class (a component ofType I combination appliances). DOE regulation ofwater heaters, the newrule became effective on 1/20/2004. Large manufacturers and energy advocates favor regulation ofthese 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 waterheaters and boilers, that imposition ofmore stringent standards wouldbeburdensome, and that significant savings are not available. Several manufacturers are marketing high efficiency oil boilers (at orabove 86% AFUE); recently, one major manufacturer discontinued theirhighest efficiency model. Almost all water heaters models (after 1/2004) are atefficiency levels which matches orexceeds the mid-efficiency level considered for this analysis. Lack ofa combination appliance standard may allow sales oflow efficiency versions ofwaterheaters and boilerproducts 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 perASHRAE 124 (2004). Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 5

# IFY 2004 Priority Labeling ofan appliance for combination use may not be effectivebecause the unit is field assembled and enforcement is problematic. 

# ILow


## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
Rationale for Priority Level DOE does notplan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. 

# IInterested parties believe this is a low priority product. OtherDOE standards will

impose cumulativeburden on HY AC manufacturers.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page6

## Background Material NCI and LBNLjointly created a straw-man estimate ofthe current combination appliance market to estimate potential energy savings and approximate net present value. Further refinements are possible in the future ifwarranted.

Type I Baseline Definition

Mid Efficiency Unit Definition

High Efficiency Unit Definition

Annual Sales Volume
Lifetime Product Cost Delta Type IIBaseline Definition

MidEfficiency Unit Definition High Efficiency Unit Definition

Annual Sales Volume

Product Lifetime Product Cost Delta
Energy Calculation Parameters
DiscountRate GAMA comments, Furnace and Boilerrulemaking, oil boiler 80% AFUE, 140kBTU Oil Boiler, .49 EF class, 2002; EF rating estimated from tank size, 2000 Water HeaterFinal Rule. Space heating function: Generally available mid-efficiency 84% AFUE (baffles, higher HX area), unit, special vent not generally required. combined with 2" ofinsulation ofthe 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" ofinsulation ofthe tank, w/ Space heating function: Condensing not generally available in the market; 86% AFUE units are, with SS ventrequired. stainless steel vent, .57 EF 70% oftotal oil boiler sales, 90,000 units peryear 18 Years +$123 (Mid), +$925 (High) 75 Gallon/ 75kBTU Gas Water Heater combined with fan-coil,

.52EF Water heating function: 2001 Water Heaterrule Oil boilers market : assumed 

### I00% retrofits. Oil boiler shipments

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

- 40,000 (2000 waterheaters rule). The differential assumed to represent the combination appliances market. Appliance Magazine, 2001, p 58-9. NCI Estimate. Based on insulation qty & price, HXarea increase, and stainless steel vent costs (including installation). Equivalent to the largest residential waterheater size (GAMA). EF rating estimated from tank size, 2000 Water HeaterFinal Rule
. 2" · d t h t · 1f 54 EF 2000 Water Heater Final Rule, slightly higher than 2004 mcrease wa er ea er msu a ton, . standard level. Condensing Gas WaterHeater

w/ new plastic vent, .86 EF

100,000 units peryear

9 years +$108 (Mid), +$715 (High) R=.71 2I4 Heating Days 64.3 Gallons/hourwater load 7% "Market Disposition ofHigh-Efficiency Water Heating Equipment", Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1996. Estimate that the lowest range from GRI's shipmentforecast 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, marketpenetration is currently limited. Iffull penetration is achieved, shipments couldreach 500,000 units peryear, with proportionally higher energy savings. 2001 Water Heaterrule 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 ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page7

# Test Procedure Product: Combination Appliances (Residential)

- (Gas/Electric) 

## Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needs to be developed ifthere is to be a new standard. 

# ILow 

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

manufacturer is opposed to this. 

# IASHRAE 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 ofthe test procedure standard may be published in October 2004. Subsequently DOE could adopt the test procedure byreferencing ASHRAE 124-2004. 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE does not plan to actively pursue testprocedure until ASHRAE approves the newly updated ASHRAE 124-2004. Given low level ofpotential savings, low level testpriority should continue until ASHRAE fully adopts ASHRAE 124-2004.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 8

# Standards Product: Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu/hr3 

## Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2008- 2035 4



### PotentialEconomic Benefits/Burdens; Cumulative NPV (billions of $2001) 2008-2035 5



### PotentialEnvironmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed. DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similarto 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 ofASHRAE 90.1-1999 standards are estimated to save 0.5 quad from 2008-2035 with a cumulative NPV of0.9billion $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 ofimpacts ofstandards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national net-presentvalue, and engineering analyses. 4 

### Energy savings based on the Commercial Unitary Air ConditionerNational 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 ConditionerNational Energy Savings spreadsheet. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page9

# TestProcedure 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 ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# IStandards set by EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as of January 12, 2001. 

# ILow for most products. 

# I I I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule should be published in FY 2004. 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel 2004 Priority Setting

Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 10

# 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 ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatoryActions
Recommendations by InterestedParties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel 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 CFRin 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. airquality).

None known.
EPA phase out ofHCFCrefrigerants. 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 ofEnergy Draft 

### FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 11

# Standards
Product: Commercial Furnaces 

## Priority: Low

PotentialEnergy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2005- 2030 PotentialEconomic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes 

### to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 0.57(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 

# I Not available. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

# IDOEplans 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 andregional environmentalregulation (e.g. airquality). 

# INone known. 

# IRevised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999.

Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule publishedJanuary 12, 2001. Rationale for PriorityLevel Standards setby EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No further action.

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

### Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 12

## Product: Commercial Furnaces 

## Priority: High 

# TestProcedure

Standards setby EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.I as of January 12, 2001. 

### Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# ILow 

# I I I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel Final rule should be published in FY2004.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 13

# Standards Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-FiredPackagedBoilers 

## Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2004- 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or VoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues

FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel 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-firedboilers (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1- 1999 levels, Max NPV) Carbon emissions reduction: 4 million tons Coveranalysis period for small and large gas-firedboilers (to go be ond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels, Max NPV) DOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similarto those referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. Possible State andregional environmental regulation (e.g. airquality).

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 considerhigher 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 yetbeen conducted for oil-fired

acka ed boilers. High

DOEhas initiated work in support ofrulemaking. Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929.

8 Basedon ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 14

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

## Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities 

# IStandards set by EPACT are being amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.l 

# IHigh
Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues 

# I I 

# I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule should be published in FY2004.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 15

# Standards Product: Commercial Water-Cooled AirConditioners & 

## Water Source Heat Pumps (Products for which DOE adoptedASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quad) 2005- 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 0.69 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 

# INot available.

Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed, however, energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emissionbenefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

# IDOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similarto those referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in FY 2005. 

# I

EPA phase-out ofHCFCrefrigerants. 

# INone known.

Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel Final Rule publishedJanuary 12, 2001. Standards set for water-source water-cooled and evaporatively cooled commercial air conditioning andheating equipmentby EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90. 

### l.

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

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 16

# Standards
Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quad) 2005- 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 

# o.o?1° 

# INot available.

Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed, however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

# IDOE plans to publish a Final Rule to incorporate test procedures similarto those

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

# I 

# INone known. 

# IRevised 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 waterheaters

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

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 17

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial WaterHeaters Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# IStandards set by EP ACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as of January 12, 2001 

# ILow 

# IASHRAE is in process ofrevising (SPC 118.1). Will include heatpump water

heaters. 

# I 

# I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel Final rule shouldbe published in FY2004



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 18

# Standards Product: 

## Cooking Products-Gas and Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and Microwave Ovens Priority: 

## Low

PotentialEnergy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2010

- 2035 II 

### Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens; Cumulative NPV (billions of $2002) 2010-2035 12 

### Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by InterestedParties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency 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 ofwhite 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 ofan electrical outlet. Loss ofconsumerutili ifloss ofelectrical 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. Forgas cooking products, DOE does notplan to pursue a rulemaking in FY 2005. Rationale for PriorityLevel 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 ofcooking 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 ofcooking 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

# 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 ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Low



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued- October 3, 1997. 

### Rationale for Priority Level Testprocedure was recently updated.



### Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 20

# Standards Product: DirectHeating 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 SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by
·Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues

FY 2004 Priority DirectHeating**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 ofemission reductions have notbeen 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 notplan to actively pursue rulemaking in FY 2005. Rationale for PriorityLevel Potential energy savings are low and their achievement wouldbe an economic burden to consumers.

13 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis ofdirect heating equipment conducted for DOE'sFY05 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 Directheating 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 ofdirect heating equipment conducted for DOE'sFY05 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

# TestProcedure Product: DirectHeating Equipmentincluding Vented Hearth Products (Gas) 

## Priority: 

## Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Test Procedure was changed as a result ofa standards rulemaking analysis conducted in 1994. 

### Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Low



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule issuedMay 12, 1997. 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel Testprocedure was recently updated.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 22

# Standards Product: Dishwashers (Residential) Priority: Medium

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010

- 2035 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

FY 2004 Priority BestAvailable (as listed in ENERGY STAR®) (1.19 EF) = 2.2 Current ENERGY STAR® Dishwasher (0.58 EF) = 0.5 

# I Not available. 

# INot available. 

# ITest procedure was recently revised tobetterreflect energy consumption for new

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

# IDOE regulation for energy efficiency ofotherwhite goods for full line

manufacturers. 

# INot 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 orcleaning offilters) or the availability ofaffordable 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 PriorityLevel FY 2004 priority level.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 23

# Test Procedure Product: Dishwashers (Residential) 

## Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# INew testprocedure in effect as ofFebruary 2004 that incorporates soiled dishes and reduces the number ofaverage-use cycles peryear. 

# IEfforts underway to harmonize international test procedures should include

dishwashers. 

# I 

# INew technology inproduct, 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 24

# Standards Product: Distribution Transformers 17 

## Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative 2010-2035 (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits

Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions

Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Need to publish a test procedure before Notice ofProposed Rule for the standard.

There is no national efficiency standard. Some States have adopted NEMA TP-1 as a minimum efficiency standard orrequired purchasing standard.
NEMA recommends adopting its TP-1 standard, revised in 2002.

EPA ENERGY STAR® program for liquid-immersed transformers. NEMA's TP1promotes energy efficient electrical products.

NEMA recommends adoption ofvoluntary standards as specifiedin TP-1. Potential energy savings from regulatory action questioned byNEMA. High 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE expects to publish advance notice ofproposed rulemaking in FY 2004 Potential for significant energy savings through regulatory action under EPCA, as amended by EPAct.

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

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 25

# Test Procedure Product: Distribution Transformers 

## Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### InterestedParties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needs to be establishedbefore the NOPR stage ofthe Standard rulemaking. 

# IHigh

ENERGY STAR® is based on NEMATP-2 test method; Canada uses the CAN/CSA C802.2 standardwhich directly references parts ofNEMA TP-2. NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test method.

Definition ofDistribution Transformer, Compliance Demonstration.


## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel DOEplans to issue a supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking in FY 2004.
Test procedure needs to be Final Rule before the Standardrulemaking is atthe Notice ofProposed Rule stage.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 26

# 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 ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties
Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary 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 ofinstalled base and typical duty cycles. 

# INot Available. 

# INot Available. 

# I 

# INone known that will impact product.

CEE and others suggest that motors running for 2000 orfewer hours/yeartend 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 ofElectric Motors program. DOE regulates system efficiencies (e.g. HVAC) where motors are components of such systems. Many motors operate at part load, butpart-load efficiency is not regulated. Duty cycles ofmany motors are low, which impacts the economic viability ofimproving efficiency. Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level

18 Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis ofelectric 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 27

# Test Procedure Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities
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) 

# ICEE suggests increasing efficiency requirements tends not to be costeffective for

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

# I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 28

# Standards Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low

Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; 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 ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary 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 MtCarbon 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 publishedin FY 2000. New standards become effective in 2005.

19 Energy savings from DOE'sFinal Rule, September 19, 2000. DOE's analysis offluorescent ballasts is in the Technical Support Document available from the DOE BuildingTechnologies 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'sFinal Rule, September 19, 2000. 21 Emissionreductions from DOE'sFinal Rule, September 19, 2000. Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 29

## 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 ofStandard 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 PriorityLevel No need to revise testprocedure.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets DOE does not plan to pursue rulemaking in



### Page 30

# DeterminationAnalysis Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps22 

## Priority: High

PotentialEnergy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2010- 2035 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens; CumulativeNPV (billions of $2001) 2010-2035 Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by InterestedParties 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 ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Market-driven replacement ofinefficient 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 PriorityLevel Determination required by EPACT.

22 

### DOE is currently performing an analysis ofimpacts ofstandards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national net-presentvalue, and engineering analyses. 23 

### Based on a calculation method consistentwith that used for DOE's FY 2003 priority setting with the exception that shipments ofmercury vapor lamps are assumed to decline at a rate consistent with what is observed in the historical data. DOE's analysis ofHID 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 31

# TestProcedure
Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues TestProcedure needs to be developed for standard. High for determination.



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Test procedure development is dependent on outcome ofDetermination. 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 32

# 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 ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority BestAvailable FEMP procurementrecommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and Utube lamps)= 0.47 24 RecommendedFEMP procurementrecommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and Utube lamps)= 0.14 

# I Not Available. 

# INot Available. 

# IIES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May

29, 1997. 

# IExisting EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA issued a final rule

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

# IENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Procurement Guidelines and

Federal Relighting Initiative, and some utility DSM programs. 

# IBecause lamps are components ofsystems, establishment ofstandards is more

difficult. Low 

## Proposed Schedule andRationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the nextyear. Low energy savings potential.

24 

### Both estimates are from the FY2003 prioritization analysis. These estimates are not adjusted to the 2010-2035 timeframe. Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 33

## Product: 

## Lamps, Fluorescent Priority: 

## Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### InterestedParties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# ILow 

# I I 

# I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

# Test Procedure

Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel Final Rule issued May 29, 1997.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 34

# Standards Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010

- 2035 PotentialEconomic Benefits/Burdens PotentialEnvironmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 1.5% efficacy increase= 0.9 3% efficacy increase= 1.8 17% efficacy increase (halogen lamp)= I0.0 25 

# INot Available. 

# INot Available. 

# IDOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 29, 1997 incorporating IES and ANSI testing procedures. Test procedure is applicable to this product. 

# I IENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative,

and some utility DSM programs, Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating Program. 

# IBecause lamps are components ofsystems, establishment ofstandards is more

difficult. Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the nextyear. Low priority because the economic viability ofmore 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 35

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service 

## Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# ILow 

# I I I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel Final Rule issued May 29, 1997



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 36

# Standards Product: Lamps, IncandescentReflector (Regulated) 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010

- 2035 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency 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) 

# INot Available. 

# INotAvailable. 

# IDOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 29, 1997 incorporating IES and ANSI testing procedures. Testprocedure is applicable to this product. 

# I IENERGY STAR® Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative,

and some utility DSMprograms, Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating Program. 

# IBecause lamps are components ofsystems, establishment ofstandards is more

difficult. Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE plans to assess whether to classify currently exempt incandescentreflector lamps as coveredproducts. Based on completion ofassessment.

26 

### Lamps in this analysis are regulated reflector lamps that comply with the 1992 EPAct standards. These are primarilyparabolic 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 37

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector 

## Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### InterestedParties Statutory Deadline Issues 

# ILow 

# I I I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued May 29, 1997.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 38

# Standards Product: PackagedTerminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

## Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quad) 2004

- 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens PotentialEnvironmental or Energy SecurityBenefits

Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by InterestedParties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or VoluntaryEfficiency 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 replacementequip. 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: 1million 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 ofHCFCrefrigerants.

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 FR30929.

27 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 39

# Standards Product: PlumbingFixtures/Fittings 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product. 

# I Not available. 

# INot available. 

# I j None. 

# INone known. 

# IAs flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be

carefully considered. Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 40

# Test Procedure Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 

## Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International orOther Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues 

# ILow 

# I I IThe 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 PriorityLevel Amend test procedure during FY2005 to account for the ASME name change as described in the 

### issues line item above.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 41

## Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2010 -2035 28 

### Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens; CumulativeNPV (billions of $2002) 2010-2035 29 

### Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary 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.

Solarpool heating market share growing. Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in FY2005. 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel Potential energy savings are low.

28 Energy savings estimates arebased on an updated analysis ofpool heaters conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE BuildingTechnologies 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 ofpool heaters conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE BuildingTechnologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page42

## 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 ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Low



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final rule issued May 12, 1997. 

### Rationale for Priority Level Testprocedure was recently updated.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 43

# Standards Product: Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and CompactRefrigerators 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -2035 30

PotentialEconomic Benefits/Burdens; Cumulative NPV (billions of $2002) 2010-2035 31

PotentialEnvironmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures

OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or VoluntaryEfficiency 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 testprocedure has been revised (AHAM HRF-1-2002) to correctrepeatability and reproducibility issues with the testing ofcompactrefrigerators. 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 amaximum temperature of the fresh food storage compartment and to exclude certain appliances whose physical configuration makes them unsuitable for general storage ofperishable foods. EPA phase-out ofHCFC-14lb in 2003 as ablowing agent for foam insulation. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. FY04 priority setting comments: Some interested parties recommend a medium priority setting for refrigerators. Market share ofENERGY 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 ofthe most commonly usedblowing agent for foam insulation, HCFC-14lb, in 2003. DOE needs to write specific guidelines for beverage centers. Compactrefrigerators are used in non-residential applications. Low

30 Energy savings estimates arebased on an updated analysis ofrefrigerators and freezers conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting
. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE BuildingTechnologies 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 basedon an updated analysis ofrefrigerators andfreezers conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 44

## 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 45

# Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and CompactRefrigerators 

## Priority: Medium for compactrefrigerators andrefrigerator/freezers, Low for all others

Relationship to Changesin Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues No changes are required for purposes ofchanging 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 ofcompactrefrigerators. DOE testprocedure 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 andwine cooler. 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan 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 PriorityLevel



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page46

# Standards Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & 

## HeatPumps (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 PotentialEnvironmental or Energy Security Benefits; Cumulative Emission Reductions 2006-202034 Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions

Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

FY 2004 Priority Minimum energy efficiency standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF for non-space constrainedproducts save 4.2 quads. National energy savings for space constrainedproducts are a small fraction ofthis amountbecause they capture a very small share ofthe residential central air conditioner andheat pump market. Minimum energy efficiency standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF for non-space constrainedproducts save 1billion dollars.

Minimum energy efficiency standards of 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF for non-space constrainedproducts save 32.7 MtofCarbon and 93.8 kt ofNO,by 93.8 kt.

The test procedure is currentlybeing 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 constrainedproducts, 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 constrainedproducts including TTW, ductless split (i.e., mini-split), and single package and non-weatherized.

Although the January 22, 2001 Final Rule defined space constrainedproducts, due to questions posedby stakeholders, DOEwill issue informal guidelines to clarify what constitutes a space constrainedproduct. High

32 Energy savings from DOE's Final Rule, January 22, 2001. DOE's analysis ofresidential central air conditioners and heat pumps is in the Technical SupportDocument available from the DOE BuildingTechnologies 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 ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 47

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE will not publish a rulemaking for a space constrainedproducts in FY 2005. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings for space constrained products are low.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 48

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & 

## HeatPumps (including Space-Constrained Products withthe exception ofDuctless) 

## Priority: High

Relationship to Changesin Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps is being updated butwill not impact product efficiency ratings. Low
Industry is supportive ofchanges to up date test procedure.

Testprocedure is being updated in two phases. The first phase consists ofa comprehensive update to the method oftestand is expected to bepublished as a Final Rule in FY 2004. The second phase consists ofchanges to the method oftest for SDHV systems as well as further updates to other sections ofthe testprocedure (e.g., frost accumulation testing, multi-capacity system testing, and test reporting). The second phase ofthe 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 ofthe test procedure update as a Final Rule in FY 2004. The Department expects to publish the secondphase of the test procedure update as a NOPR in FY 2005. Rationale for PriorityLevel Comprehensive updates are required to ensure the proper testing ofproducts.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 49

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & 

## HeatPumps (Ductless) 

## Priority: Medium

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. Low

Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimetertest.

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 PriorityLevel Change would make test procedure more accurate for ductless.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 50

# 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 ofRequired Changes to 

### Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority Total range considered: [1.8

- 15.1] 36 

# INot available.

Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. 

# IFinal rule issued May 12, 1997. 

# IPossible State and regional environmental regulation. 

# IENERGY 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. 

# IRegional variations, venting and electricity issues.

High 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel The Department expects to publish a notice in FY 2004. Potential energy savings are significant.

35 DOE is currently performing an analysis ofimpacts ofstandards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national netpresent-value, and engineering analyses. The results ofthis 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 ofimpacts of standards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, rational net-present-value, and engineering analyses. The results ofthis analysis will be made available for public comment once they are completed. Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 51

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Furnaces & 

## Boilers 

## Priority: Low

Relationship to Changesin Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. The testprocedure for combined space- and water-heating appliances (a separate product class within the standards rulemaking) is currently under development by the Department. 

# IHigh 

# IASHRAE 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 52

# 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 ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-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. 

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

# IForperiod 2004- 2030, 152 million metric tons ofcarbon and 273 thousand metric tons of

NO,. 

# IChanges not required for standards. Final rule for te_st procedure was published in 1998. 

# IEPA phase outofHCFCs for insulation (2003). ConsumerProduct Safety Commission

initiative for prevention ofignition offlammable vapors by gas waterheaters. 

# IDemand-side management programs for high efficiency water heaters. 

# IFuel 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 PriorityLevel Final Rule publishedJanuary 17, 2001. Reviewed April 12, 2001.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 53

# Test Procedure Product: Residential WaterHeaters - Gas, Oil & 

## Electric 

## Priority: Low

Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues J 

### Low 

# I 

# I I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE does not plant to pursue rulemaking in the next year. Test procedure published in May, 1998.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 54

# Standards Product: Room AirConditioners 

## Priority: Low

PotentialEnergy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010 -2035 37 

### PotentialEconomic Benefits/Burdens; CumulativeNPV (billions of $2002) 2010-2035 38 

### Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency 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 TierTwo, 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 ofENERGY STAR® qualifying products in 2002 is 19 percent. Industry must find a replacementrefrigerant for HCFC-22 due to its phase-out in new appliances starting in 2010. Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule Issued

- September24, 1997. Rationale for PriorityLevel New energy efficiency standards became effective on October 1, 2000. Potential new standards either have moderate energy savings orhave a high economic burden to consumers.

37 

### Energy savings estimates are based on an updated analysis ofroom 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. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 38 

### Economic impacts are based on an updated analysis ofroom airconditioners 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 55

## Product: RoomAirConditioners 

## Priority: Low 

# Test Procedure

Relationship to Changes in Standard No test procedure changes required for issuing new energy efficiency standards. 

### Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Low

Test procedure does not measure the benefits ofdesigns which improve the seasonal performance ofthe appliance (e.g., variable speed compressors). 

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

### Rationale for PriorityLevel No need to revise testprocedure.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 56

# Standards Product: Single-PackagedVertical Units (SPVU) Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2004- 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel Not available.

Not available. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have notbeen 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 andthe test procedures the referenced ARI Standard 390. EPA phase out ofHCFCrefrigerants. None.

DOE has initiated work in support ofrulemaking. Re-evaluation ofASHRAE 90.1 1999 levels.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 57

# Determination Analysis Product: Small Electric Motors39 

## Priority: High

PotentialEnergy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads): 2010- 2030 40 

### Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens; CumulativeNPV (billions of $2000) 2010-2030 41 

### PotentialEnvironmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by InterestedParties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 

### 0.2- 1.2

$0.1-$1.3

Specific estimates ofemission reductions have notbeen developed, however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. IEEE 

### 114- 2001 testprocedure for single-phase induction motors was published May 

### 24, 2002. IEEE 

### 112

- 1996 testprocedure for poly phase motors is in effect. Small motors used in NAECA "coveredproducts" (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 PriorityLevel Determination required by EPCA.

39 

### DOE has performed an analysis ofimpacts ofstandards including energy savings, life-cycle cost, national net-present-value, and engineering analyses. The results ofthe analysis are available in a draftreport entitled "Analysis ofConservation 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 ofConservation Standards for Small Electric Motors", Draft for Public Comment, June 

### 2003. 41 

### Based on "Analysis ofConservation Standards for Small Electric Motors", Draft for Public Comment, June 

### 2003. Department ofEnergyDraft

### FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 58

# Test Procedure Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues High for determination.



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan to pursue rulemaking in FY05. 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel Waiting on determination.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 59

# Standards Product: Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quad): 2004- 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schednle Rationale for PriorityLevel 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 gobeyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels, Max NPV) DOEplans 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 heatermarket share seems to be growing.

High

DOE has initiated work in support ofrulemaking. Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929.

42 Basedon Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HYAC Standards, see 65 FR30929. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 60

# 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 SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions

Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-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 onpower supplies andbattery chargers. FY04 priority setting comments: Some interestedparties recommend thatbattery chargers and external power supplies should notbe designated as a covered product until draft legislation has been approvedby Congress. EPA has issued a draft ENERGY STAR® Specification in February, 2004. European Code ofConduct has established voluntary minimum efficiency specifications. Market penetration ofmore 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 ofthe Bill's enactment, a Final Rule must be issued to determine the viability ofenergy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies. Rationale for PriorityLevel Waiting on Congressional action.

43 Energy savings estimates are based on an analysis ofbattery 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 ofEnergy Draft

### FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 61

# Test Procedure Product: 

## Battery Chargers andExternal Power Supplies (residential & 

## commercial) Priority: Not specified

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities

Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule

Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not have a testprocedure. A test procedure needs to be developed before establishing energy efficiency standards. Not specified. EPA has issued a testprocedure for external power supplies. CEC supports the EPA testprocedure. European Union has issued a Code ofConduct for testprocedures and voluntary efficiency specifications. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) testprocedure (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 ofdeveloping an appropriate testprocedure. Waiting on Congressional action. Clearproduct 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 ofbattery chargers and external power supplies. Waiting on Congressional action.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 62

# Coverage (also in PendingLegislation) Product: Beverage Merchandisers andBeverage Vending Machines Priority: High (testprocedure priority also high)

PotentialEnergy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2010- 2035

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures Other Regulatory Actions

Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel 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 StarTier 1 0 0 Energy StarTier 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
NotAvailable. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed The ASHRAE 32.1 and ASHRAE l 17 test procedures havebeen identified as the recommended basis for a DOEtestprocedure for beverage vending machines andbeverage merchandisers, respectively. CaliforniaEnergy Commission has a design standardfor refrigerated beverage vending machines. The CEC treats beverage merchandisers as glass door commercial reach-in refrigerators, which are regulated. (CEC Appliance Efficiency Regulations, 2003) Conductbackground work and develop testprocedures. (ACEEE and NEEP comments from FY2004 Priority Setting Process) ENERGY ST AR® Standards Vending Machines shall consume equal or less energy in a 24-hourperiod 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 implementedJanuary 1, 2007 Y = 24 hourenergy consumption (kWh/day) after the machine has stabilized C = vendible capacity (ENERGY ST AR® Program Requirements for Refrigerated BeverageVending Machines, Version 1.0) There are no ENERGY ST AR®program requirements for beverage merchandisers. This is beingconsidered in draft legislation byCongress. High
Proposed Rule FY 2005 2004 Priority Setting


### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 63

# Coverage (also in PendingLegislation) Product: Ceiling Fans Priority: High (testprocedure priority also high)

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010- 2035

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens PotentialEnvironmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures

OtherRegulatory Actions

Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues

FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel AirMoving 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 BestAvailable 39 1.22 78 4.22 ENERGY STAR® 18 0.57 78 4.22 Not Available. Specific estimates ofemission 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 enforcementregulations for ceiling fans. (State of California OrderInstituting Rulemaking Proceeding, 2003) Conductbackgroundwork 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/wattefficiency. All integral and attachable light kits must meet the requirements ofthe ENERGY STAR® RLF specification. (ENERGY ST AR® Program Requirements for Residential CeilingFans, 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% ofceiling 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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 64

# Coverage (also in Pending Legislation)
Product: Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 

## Priority: High (testprocedure priority also high)

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2010- 2035

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatoryActions

Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues FY 2004 Priority 

### Proposed Schedule and 

### Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel 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) < 5yr. 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed. The ASHRAE 117 testprocedure 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. Conductbackground work and develop test procedures. (ACEEE andNEEP comments from FY2004 Priority Setting Process) ENERGY STAR® Standards (solid door units only): Refrigerators

- Energy consumption under testprocedures::::; O.IOV + 2.04kWh/day Freezers Energy consumption under testprocedures 

### :5 0.40V + l.38kWh/day Refrigerator/Freezers

- Energy consumption under test procedures::::; 0.27AV 0.71 kWh/day V = internal volume in cu. ft. AV= adjusted volume= (1.63 

## *freezer volume in cu. ft.)+ refrigeratorvolume in cu. ft. (ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Commercial Solid Refrigerators andFreezers, Version 1.0) This is being considered in draft legislation by Congress. Potentiallyburdensome test procedure. High
Proposed Rule FY2005 2004 Priority Setting 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 65

# Pending Legislation Product: Gas Unit Heaters/Gas DuctFurnaces 

## Priority: Not Specified

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2010

- 2035 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority PowerVent 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 

# INot available. 

# INot available 

# INo DOE test procedure. Current ANSI test procedures do not account for cycling

losses and other seasonal effects. 

# IProducts not covered by DOE. The National Energy Bill, ifpassed, wouldplace

efficiency-related requirements on unit heaters. 

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

and duct furnaces). 

# ISignificant 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 ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 66

# 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 orafterJanuary 1, 2005 that shall meet "Version 2.0 ENERGY STAR® Programperformance requirements for illuminated exit signs prescribedby the Environmental Protection Agency." • Cumulative Energy Savings 2010-2035: 0.16 Quad. Product I TechnologyAvailability (Including • Product is primarily directed toward the commercial sector. Price/Costinformation):

CumulativeBurden

Status.ofTest Procedures

OtherRegulatoryActions

Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements
Issues • Readily available for building owners - ENERGY STAR® has 45 certified manufacturers. • Total costs over a ten-yearperiod, including first cost, energy, and maintenance will be approximately $380 for incandescent signs and about $65 for LED signs. Even on a first costbasis, which can be an important purchasing determinant, LEDs have become cost competitive. While incandescent signs without batterybackup are still marginally less expensive than LED signs, the price for both types ofsigns with battery backup is about the same because the incandescent systemrequires a much larger battery.

• California mandated that exit signs should be ENERGY STAR® level on orafter 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 STAR® test procedure, which draws upon industry standard methods, including those ofUnderwriters Laboratories and the National Fire Protection Association.

• In the event that Congresspasses the Energy Policy Act of2003, a national standard will be enacted for illuminated exit signs manufactured on orafter 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. • Ofthe total installed base ofexit signs in the United States, approximately 80% are already ENERGY STAR® 

### I Light Emitting Diode (NCI, 2003).



# --------------------------------------------------- •Codesfrom all types of jurisdictions require regular exit sign inspection, despite predicted lamp life.

Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 67

### 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 ofinstalled 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 ofSW/face, effective March 1, 2003. There is

No national no national standard. 8.9 

### Average ofstock efficiency. NCI, 2003. 6 Assume LED exit sign. NCI, 2003. Best Available Efficiency <l Some ENERGY STAR® Exit Signs are listedthat 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 orless.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 68

# Coverage Product: Lamps, IncandescentReflector

- 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;;tls

### -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 ofTest Procedures

OtherRegulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues • Readily available at retail outlets.



# --------------------------------------------------- • ER/BR lamps were exempted from the standard that regulated other incandescentreflector lamps in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. • By 2001, 57% ofall reflector lamp shipments were ER/BR lamps (NEMA, 2003), and these lamps accounted for approximately 77% ofreflector lamp shipments to the residential sector. • ER/BR lamps are notpart ofthe draft Energy Bill. •TheDepartment 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 orK-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 ofEnergy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 69

### 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) 157 Weighted average lifetime ofER/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 ofa 75 watt reflector lamp. Halogen reflector lamp ofequivalent wattage Halogen infrared reflector lamp ofequivalent wattage No known method ofimproving performance ofincandescent technology without changing technology (e.g., CFL, LED)

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 70

# 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 ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties

Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary 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 ofentire furnace. Newtest needs to be developed specifically for residential furnace fan efficiency. Being considered for efficiency regulation in draft legislationbefore 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 onmotors. A manufacturer (Trane) does not want electricityregulated 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 PriorityLevel Waiting on Congressional action.

44 Energy savings estimates 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. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 45 Economic impacts are basedon an analysis ofresidential furnace fans conducted for DOE's FY05 priority setting. The spreadsheet is available from the DOE BuildingTechnologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. 

### Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 71

## Product: Residential Furnace Fans 

## Priority: Not specified 

# Test Procedure

Relationship to Changes in Standard Testprocedure will be necessary ifdraft legislation before Congress is signed into law. 

### Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Not specified. None Furnace andBoilermlemaking comments: Some interestedparties recommendWattperCFM rating. Waiting on Congressional action. EAE includes more components than furnace fan. Should air distribution fans for heatpumps be included. 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Not specified. 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel Waiting on Congressional action.



### Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 72

# Coverage (also in Pending Legislation) Product: Torchieres 

## Priority: High

PotentialEnergy Savings from Regulatory •WattageLimit set at 190 W = 0.87 Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2010-2035 • Wattage Limit set at 7

## ow = 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/Costinformation):

Cumulative Burden

Status ofTest Procedures

OtherRegulatoryActions

Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary 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 ofoperating with lamps that total more than 190 watts. • Many manufacturers are responding to the combination ofsafety 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 of2003, a national standard will be enacted for torchieres manufactured on or after January 1, 2005 that "(I) Shall consume not more than 190 watts ofpower; and (2) Shall not be capable ofoperating with lamps that total more than 190 watts."



# --------------------------------------------------- • Sales ofincandescent torchieres -82% ofmarket, CFLjustunder 7% ofmarket •DOEworked with LBNL to develop a CPL-based torchiere lamp in the late 1990's (BTS, 2000); market share ofthese CFL torchieres have neverbeen more than 7% ofannual shipments (Ecos Consulting, 2003) • Many universities (e.g., Brown, Harvard, Stanford, Yale) have bannedhalogen 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 sectorproduct. • 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-weightedbaseline consumption of222 Watts. Savings estimates based on assumption that installed base remains constant (i.e., no growth in sales). Greater savings will be realized ifsales increase. Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 73Total 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) BestAvailable 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 of500W for UL listing. Average ofstock efficiency. Ecos Consulting, 2003. Assume incandescent torchiere. Ecos Consulting; 2003. Assume light output ofENERGY STAR® light source held constant with 225 W incandescent (3500 lumens) Assume light output ofCFL source held constantwith baseline. Assume efficacy will improve to highest linear florescent tube (100 LPW) and 4000 lumen demand.



### Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 74

## Product: 

## Torchieres Priority: High

TestProcedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)

How effectively do testprocedure(s) and metric(s) representactual 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-offcycling, voltage variations and current variations among other factors. The ENERGY STAR® 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 STAR® certification.
The testprocedures 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 ofthe appliance

- luminaire light output for energy input that consumers are interested in.
ProductPeakLoad Impact and Correlation Test procedure and metric ofenergy input correlate highly with the peak load impact. with TestProcedure andMetric, by**Technol~gy** 

### T bl I R "d . I I d

a e es1 entla n oor an 

### dO d ut oor 

### L" h ig 

### ts: ENERGY STAR® Performance Characteristic Reference standard for method ofmeasurement Efficacy Light output IESNA LM-9; LM-66 Inputpower 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 starttime ANSI C82.l 1-5.2 Lamp Life IESNA LM-40; LM-65 Lamp ColorRendering IESNA LM-58; LM-16 Lamp Correlated Color IESNA LM-58; LM-16 Temperature Dimming Use manufacturerprotocol Warranty Use manufacturerprotocol Safety

- Portable Fixtures ANSI/UL 153 Safety

- Hardwired Fixtures UL 1598 Safety

- Ballasts and ANSI/UL 935; UL 1993 "FluorescentAdapters" Ballast Frequency IESNALM-28 Transient Protection IEEE C 62.41
Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 75

## Product: Traffic Signals 

## Priority: Not Specified

PotentialEnergy 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 orafter January I, 2006 that shall meet "theperformance requirements used under the ENERGY STAR®program ofthe Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals, as in effect on the date ofenactment ofthis 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.

CumulativeBurden Status ofTestProcedures

OtherRegulatory Actions

Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues •Ared 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. Forexample, the cost ofownership ofredLED traffic signals is about one-third that ofincandescent traffic signal lamps over a seven-year period (CEE, 2002).
• California mandated that traffic signals mustbe illuminated by LEDs, ormeet 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 orafterJanuary 1, 2006, shall meet the performance requirements used under the ENERGY STAR® program ofthe Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals, as in effect on the date ofenactment ofthis subsection, and shall be installed with compatible, electrically connected signal control interface devices and conflict monitoring systems." • The ENERGY STAR® program identifies seven manufacturing partners. • -27% ofthe traffic and pedestrian crossing signal market has already moved to LEDs (installed base weighted-average). Market penetration for coloredball: Red (39% LED), green (29% LED) (NCI, 2003). •None

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 76Total Energy Use (quad, 2002) Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/year) Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions) ProductLifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency (W) Typical NewEfficiency 

### (W) BestAvailable 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 oftraffic 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 Californiahas passedminimum efficiency standards that are consistent with ENERGY STAR®. Average ofstock 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 ofLED system efficiency by2020, relative to today's LED efficiencies (NCI, 2003).

TableA7-1: Energy-Efficiency Criteria for ENERGY STAR® Qualified Traffic Signal Modules ModuleType MaximumWattage NominalWattage (at74°C) (at25°C) 12 inch Red Ball 17 watts 11 watts 8 inch Red Ball 13 watts 8 watts 12 inch RedArrow 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 tombinationWalking Man/Hand 16 watts 13 watts 'Walking Man 12 watts 9 watts Orange Hand 16 watts 13 watts

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 77

## Product: Traffic Signals Priority: Not Specified

TestProcedure Overview

Future/PotentialTest Procedure(s)
How effectively do testprocedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? ProductPeakLoad 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® testprocedure 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 STAR® test procedure is based on industry reviewed and accepted methods. The testprocedure is effective and.accurate accessing the energy consumption ofthe traffic signal.
The correlation with peak load is significant, as traffic signals generally operate 24 hours per day every day, no matter whattime the peak occurs, it will be impacted by this product.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 78

# Previously Unevaluated Product Product: Large Unitary AirConditioners**(~** 

## 240 kBtu/hr) 

## Priority: NotApplicable

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quad) 2010

- 2035 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures
OtherRegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2004 Priority 0.25 quad (CEETier 2: 10.0 EER) 0.7 quad (BestAvailable: 11.0 EER 47) 

# I Not Available. 

# INot 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 IPLV test procedure. 

# IHCFC phaseout 

# IARI committee developing proposal for federal standard (to countermultiple statelevel standards initiatives); CEE (Tier 2 standard); ASHRAE 90.l levels 

# IPhysical 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 PriorityLevel

47 

### Available in smaller capacity units only, but savings calculated as ifavailable across the full capacity range. Department ofEnergy DraftFY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 79