### US DEPARTMlliNT OF ENERGY 

# B

Workshop Regarding Energy Efficiency Test Procedures, Labeling, Standards Compliance and Related Matters for Commercial WaterHeaters, Boilers, Furnaces, Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Forrestal Building, Room lE-245 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, 

### DC 20585 April 14 and 15, i998 PRELIMINARY AGENDA Purpose ofthe Workshop Thepurpose of the workshop is to discuss testprocedures for commercialwater heaters, boilersand furnaces, andair conditionersandheatpumps, aswellas relatedissues involvingsampling, certification, labelingand enforcemel1l. The Departmentwillconsider the views presentedandthe commentssubmittedinformulatingits proposedrulefor lestprocedures covering theseproducts andin suggesting revisions toASHRAEStandard90.1. Tuesday, April 14, 1998 9:00

- 9: 15 Opening remarks and introduction 9: 15

- 9:30 Overview ofthe rulemaking process 9:30

- 9:40 Agenda review Test Protocols for commercial water heaters 9:40 -10:00 DOE introduction and NIST overview 10:00

- 10:45 Clarification ofcoverage and definitions The table ofcoverage in ASHRAE 90.1b - 1989 (Table 11.1) can be confusing, and the subcategories do not always mesh with

### EPCA, orthe corresponding recommended test procedures.Questionsandrequest for comments 1) How should Table 11.1 be interpreted orclarified to ensure that relevant test procedures are applied to EPCA-covered products? Doesthe corresponding table in the proposed ASHRAE 90.1 provide a clearer representation? 2) Should equipment that can be used alternatively for either space heating or domestic hotwaterbe defined as a boiler or as a water heater for test procedure purposes? 10:45

- 11:00 Break 11:00

- 12:00 Unfired storage tanks EPCA exempts certain unfired storage tanks and storage water heaters based on tank volume, thermal insulation value and use ofa standing pilot light, and it establishes a maximum heat loss of6.5 Btu/hr/ft2 for nonexempt unfired storage tanks. ASHRAE 90.1 currently references no procedure for determining either the insulation value orthe heat loss. Questions andrequest for comments 1) How should the insulation value be determined? 2) What procedure should be employed to measure the heat loss? 12:00

- 12:30 Other issues raised by participants 12:30 - 1:30 Lunch (on your own) Test Protocols for commercial boilers and furnaces 1:30 -:- 2:00**DO~** introduction and NIST overview 2:00

- 2:30 Defioitron of"packaged" boiler EPCA defines generally what is meant by "packaged boiler," but it does not specifY an upper limit on boiler rated capacity for coverage under the statute. The Hydronics Institute and Underwriters Laboratories both have different definitions with similar meanings. Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Does the definition of"packaged boiler" need clarification? 2) Does the definition of"commercial packaged boiler" imply an upper capacity limit, and ifso, is it the same for steam and hot waterboilers? 2:30

- 3:00 Thermal vs. combustion efficiency;jacket losses Boilers and furnaces can be rated either in terms ofcombustion efficiency, based on a measure offlue loss, or in terms ofthermal efficiency, based on an input-output method that accounts forjacket losses.Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Since EPCAcalls for combustion efficiency, and outdoorboilers are now rated in terms ofthermal efficiency, should a combustion efficiency be calculated for outdoorboilers, with ajacket loss measurement, to satisfy EPCA? 2) If jacket losses are to be measured, what method is appropriate, e.g., ANSI Z21.4.7 or ASME PTC 4.1? 3) Should DOE adopt defaultjacket losses from ASME PTC 4.1 in lieu of.
. actual tests or allow it as an option? 4) Should parasitic electric consumption be considered as an energy input in calculating efficiencies? 3:00

- 3: 15 Break 3: 15 - 3:45 Uniformity oftest conditions, procedures and setup requirements ASHRAE 90.1-1989 references several industrial test standards with different testing requirements, and ASHRAE 90.1R references yet another set ofstandards. Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Since UL-727 does not specify a method for calculating flue losses in oil-fired furnaces, should DOE adopt the method in HI-1989 for this purpose? 2) Insulation ofthe vent pipe and elbow are not required in the referenced standard for furnaces. Does this introduce a serious inaccuracy in the measurement offlue gas temperature? 3) ShouldDOE allow a thermocouple grid as an optional alternative to a single thermocouple traversing nine sample points, as specified in the referenced standard for measuring flue gas temperature in furnaces? 3:45

- 4: 15 Provisions for unusual design features Some boilers and furnaces are designed for unique applications orhave features that do not lend themselves perfectly to referenced test procedures. Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Should DOE specify two boiler rating conditions, one for high temperature (steam and hot water) and another for low temperature water? 2) Should condensing boilers and furnaces be considered? Ifso, should condensate be measured according to ASHRAE 103-1993?3) Should DOE'sprocedure specify tests at both maximum and minimum rated input for modulating boilers andfurnaces? 4) Ifmodular boiler systems are sold as a package, should the individual boilers be tested, orthe installation as a whole? 5) Should a steamlhot waterboilerbe tested on both steam and hot water, oron steam only? 4: 15

- 4:45 Other issues raised by participants Wednesday, 

### April 15, 1998 Test protocols for commercial air conditioners and heat pumps 9:00

- 9: 15 DOE introduction and NIST overview 9: 15

- 9:45 External static pressure requirements Critics have observed that ARI Standard 210/240 calls for external static pressures under test conditions that are lowerthan generally encountered in commercial buildings, potentially leading to an overstated efficiency rating. Others counterthat the present procedure is adequate for purposes of comparing products relative to one another, and a change wouldbe unnecessarily burdensome. Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Does the present ARI procedure introduce an error, and ifso, is it significant? 2) Ifso, what is the appropriate external static pressure? J)**~ow** burdensome would a change in the specification be? 9:45 10: 15 Other issues raised by participants 10: 15

- 10:30 Break Sampling, certification and enforcement 10:30 10:50 DOE introduction and NIST overview

. 10:50

- 11 :30 Statistical sampling DOE is seeking to establish sampling regimes for certification and enforcement that strike an appropriate balance between cost and reliability ofefficiency determination. Questionsandrequest for comments 1) What is the appropriate sample size for each product tobetested?

### •
2) How should sample units be selected? 3) Where should testing be performed and by whom? 4) How should compliancebe determined from test results, e.g. by employing arithmetic averaging or statistical confidence intervals? 5) Should derating or other special adjustment factors be used? 6) Should the scheme applied in enforcement differ from that used for certification? 11:30

- 12: 10 Sampling limited populations Many products to be covered bythe test procedure are produced in limited numbers, either because oftheir large size orbecause ofthe number of variations in design demanded bytheir purchasers. This complicates the determination ofstatistical sampling plans due to concerns ofcost and testing burden. Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Are special provisions needed for very large capacity, site-assembled, or low production quantity units? 2) Can products be grouped as minor variations on a more limited number ofbasic models? Ifso, how many models need to betested, and what is the best way to extrapolate the results to otherproducts within a group? Is simulation testing a valid approach? Should limitations be placed onits use? 3) What relevant experience do other organizations, like the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Amencan·Boiler Manufacturers Association, orthe California Energy Commission, have to address this problem? 12: 10- 12:30 Other issues raised by participants 12:30 - 1:30 Lunch (on your own) Labeling

### • 1:30

- 1:45 DOE introd.uction and overview 1:45

- 2: 10 Justification for labeling Before requiring a label, DOE must first determine that such a requirement would be technically feasible and economicallyjustified, that significant energy savings would result, and that labeling would be likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. Questions and request for comments 1) would labels be technically feasible and economicallyjustified for all

. classes ofequipment discussed at this workshop?

2) What energy savings, ifany, would result iflabels were required? 3) Would labels assist consumers in making purchasing decisions? 2: 10

- 2:35 Label location and content UnderEPCA, the Secretary ofEnergy has some latitude in specifying information that will appear on permanent nameplates or onlabels
. permanently affixed to tested products. DOE seeks suggestions concerning the location oflabels, the appropriate level ofdetail for informat.ion that might appear on them, as well as the potential burden imposed on manufacturers by requiring alternative labeling schemes. 

### Questionsandrequest for comments 1) What information should appear on the manufacturer's nameplate, and what should appear on a separate label? Is the answer the same for all equipment classes? 2) Should DOE consider including any additional data beyond the efficiency rating for purposes ofenforcement ofstandards. These might

.include a compliance certification number ormessage, reference to the test prqcedure, operating conditions under which the efficiency rating applies,**com~arative** efficiency ranking within a class ofproducts, orother consumer information. 3) How should DOE account for special purpose labels that may be required under ASHRAE 90.1R, e.g., labels indicating that certain package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps are restricted to replacement installation only? 2:35

- 3:00 Labeling mixed component systems Some systems covered by these test procedures are made up ofseparate components, often furnished by different manufacturers, raising questions ofhow these products should belabeled and by whom. 

### Questionsandrequest for comments 1) Should component manufacturers or system integrators be responsible for affixing labels?2) Ifmanufacturers are responsible for labeling, is there a way for them to account for the fact that they do not control how the balance ofthe system is designed? 3) Ifsystem integrators are responsible, is there a wayfor them to make custom labels corresponding to the different combinations ofcomponents they might specify? 3:00

- 3: 15 Other issues raised 

### by participants 3:15

- 3:30
. Next steps and closing remarks 3:30 Adjournment