## June 29, 1999

FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRIORITIES FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for the Fiscal Year 2000 by the Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2000. The Department will base its final priorities on consideration of comments received and funds available. If, based on the comments received, DOE considers changing the priorities from the proposed, DOE will consult with interested parties before establishing final priorities. The priority levels will assist DOE in determining the allocation of available resources during the coming year. DOE plans to devote considerable resources to each high-priority rulemaking, for activities including the preparation of technical feasibility and economic impact analyses, the conduct of public meetings, and the issuance of various rulemaking notices, as appropriate. For the medium-priority products, DOE plans to complete the initial analyses and circulate them for comment. DOE does not plan to devote significant resources for low-priority products. Work on these product categories likely will be limited to the monitoring of other efficiency programs. Written comments should be submitted by July 30, 1999, to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-43. 

## The final priorities will be reflected in the Regulatory Agenda. After publication of the Regulatory Agenda, DOE will provide copies to interested parties. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611, fax: (202) 586-4617, e-mail : michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. Sincerely,

Edward O. Pollock, Jr., Director Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technology, Stat and Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

## Enclosure 

## June 29, 1999



## FISCAL YEAR 2000 PRIORITIES FOR THE I 

## APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS
The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for the Fiscal Year 2000 by the Department ofEnergy, Office ofCodes and Standards. The Office requests comments onthe data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposedpriorities are based onthe presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2000. The Department will base its final priorities on consideration ofcomments received and funds available. If, based onthe comments received, DOE considers changing the priorities from the proposed, DOE will consult with interested parties before establishing fmal priorities. The priority levels will assist DOE in determining the allocation ofavailable resources during the coming year. DOE plans to devote considerable resources to eachhigh-priority rulemaking, for activities including the preparation oftechnical feasibility and economic impact analyses, the conduct ofpublic meetings, and the issuance ofvarious rulemaking notices, as appropriate. Forthe medium-priority products, DOE plans to complete the initial analyses and circulate them for comment. DOE does not planto devote significant resources for low-priority products. Work on these product categories likely will be limited to the monitoring ofother efficiency programs. Written comments should be submitted by July 30, 1999, to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-43. The final priorities will be reflected in the Regulatory Agenda. After publication ofthe Regulatory Agenda, DOE will provide copies to interested parties. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611, fax: (202) 586-4617, e-mail: michaeLraymond@ee.doe.gov.

Enclosure Sincerely,

# ~iJl!e;AF Edward O. Pollock, Jr., Director Office ofCodes and Standards Office ofBuilding Technology, Stat

and Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

# 2000 Priority Setting

for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft June 29, 1999 

# 2000 Priority Setting for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft June 29, 1999

## FISCAL 2000 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for the Fiscal Year 2000 by the Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2000. Final priorities will be based on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Once rulemakings are completed low priority actions will be added to the high/medium priority lists. Written comments should be submitted by July 30, 1999, to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-43. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611. 

## FISCAL 2000 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

## The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for the Fiscal Year 2000 by the Department ofEnergy, Office ofCodes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2000. Final priorities will bebased on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Once rulemakings are completed low priority actions will be added to the high/medium priority lists. Written comments should be submitted byJuly 30, 1999, to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-43. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611.

# Table of Contents

Product Rulemaking Priority Page Product Rulemaking Priority Page Clothes Dryers Standards Low 1 High Intensity Discharge Determination Medium 24 Lamps Test Low 2 Test Procedure Low 25 Procedure 

### Clothes Washers Standards High 3 Lamps Standards Low 26 Test Low 4 Test Low 27 Procedure* Procedure* Commercial A/C & H. P. Standards High 5 Mobile Home Furnaces Standards Low 28 Test High 6 Test Low 29 Procedure Procedure* 

### Comm. Furnaces & Boilers Standards High 7 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Standards Low 30 Test High 8 Test Low 31 Procedure Procedure* Commercial Water Heaters Standards High 9 Pool Heaters (Gas) Standards Low 32 Test High 10 Test Low 33 Procedure Procedure* Cooking Products - Electric Standards Low 11 Refrigerators Standards* Low 34 Cooking Products - Gas Standards High' 12 Test Low 35 Procedure* 

### Test Low 13 Res. Central A/C and H. P. Standards High 36 Procedure* Direct Heating Equipment, Standards Low 14 Test Procedure High 37 Gas Test Low 15 Res. Furnaces and Boilers Standards Low 38 Procedure* Dishwashers Standards Low 16 Test Low 39 Procedure* Test High 17 Residential Water Heaters Standards High 40 Procedure Distribution Transformers Standards High 18 Test Low 41 Procedure* Test High' 19 Room Air Conditioners Standards* Low 42 Procedure Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Standards Low 20 Test Procedure Low 43 Test Low 21 Small Electric Motors Determination Medium 44 Procedure* Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Standards High 22 Test Procedure Low 45 Test Low 23 

### Procedure ' Drops to Low Priority upon completion * Final Rules for these products have been recently published. 

# Table ofContents

Product Rulemaking Priority Page Product Rulemaking Priority Page Clothes Dryers Standards Low 1 High Intensity Discharge Determination Medium 24 Lamps Test Low 2 Test Procedure Low 25 Procedure Clothes Washers Standards High 3 Lamps Standards Low 26 Test Low 4 Test Low 27 Procedure* Procedure* Commercial

### AlC & 

### H. P. Standards High 5 Mobile HomeFurnaces Standards Low 28 Test High 6 Test Low 29 Procedure Procedure* Comm. Furnaces & Boilers Standards High 7 Plumbing FixiureslFittings Standards Low 30 Test High 8 Test Low 31 Procedure Procedure* Commercial Water Heaters Standards High 9 Pool Heaters (Gas) Standards Low 32 Test High 10 Test Low 33 Procedure Procedure* Cooking Products

- Electric Standards Low 11 Refrigerators Standards* Low 34 Cooking Products

- Gas Standards Highl 12 Test Low 35 Procedure* Test Low 

### 13 Res. Central

### AlC and 

### H. P. Standards High 36 Procedure* DirectHeating Equipment, Standards Low 14 Test Procedure High 37 Gas Test Low 15 Res. Furnaces and Boilers Standards Low 38 Procedure* Dishwashers Standards Low 16 Test Low 39 Procedure* Test High 17 Residential Water Heaters Standards High 40 Procedure Distribution Transformers Standards High 18 Test Low 41 Procedure* Test Highl 19 Room Air Conditioners Standards* Low 42 Procedure Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Standards Low 20 Test Procedure Low 43 Test Low 21 Small Electric Motors Determination Medium 44 Procedure* Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Standards High 22 Test Procedure Low 45 Test Low 23 Procedure

I Drops to LowPriority upon completion * Final Rules for these products have been recently published.

## Summary of Priorities Standards and Determinations (D) High Priority Products Page Low Priority Products Page Clothes Washers 3 Clothes Dryers 1 Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps 5 Cooking Products - Electric 11 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 7 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas 14 Commercial Water Heaters 9 Dishwashers 16 Cooking Products - Gas' 12 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP 20 Distribution Transformers 18 Lamps 26 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 22 Mobile Home Furnaces 28 Residential Central A/C and Heat Pumps 36 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 30 Residential Water Heaters 40 Pool Heaters, Gas 32 Refrigerators* 34 Medium Priority Products Page Residential Furnaces and Boilers 38 

### High Intensity Discharge Lamps (D) 24 Room Air Conditioners* 42 Small Electric Motors (D) 44 

### Test Procedures High Priority Products Page Low Priority Products (con't) Page Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps 6 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP* 21 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 8 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 23 Commercial Water Heaters 10 High Intensity Discharge Lamps 25 Dishwashers 17 Lamps* 27 Distribution Transformers' 19 Mobile Home Furnaces* 29 Residential Central A/C and Heat Pump 37 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings* 31 Pool Heaters, Gas* 33 Low Priority Products Page Refrigerators 35 Clothes Dryers 2 Residential Furnaces and Boilers* 39 Clothes Washers* 4 Residential Water Heaters* 41 Cooking Products* 13 Room Air Conditioners 43 

### Direct Heating Equipment, Gas* 15 Small Electric Motors 45 ' Drops to Low Priority upon Completion * Final Rules for these products have been recently published. 

## Summary ofPriorities Standards and Determinations (D) High Priority Products Page 

### Low Priority Products Page Clothes Washers 3 Clothes Dryers 1 CommercialAlC and Heat Pumps 5 Cooking Products

- Electric 11 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 

### 7 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas 14 Commercial Water Heaters 9 Dishwashers 16 Cooking Products

- Gas1 12 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP 20 Distribution Transformers 18 Lamps 26 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 22 Mobile Home Furnaces 28 Residential CentralAlC andHeat Pumps 36 Plumbing FixturesfFittings 30 Residential Water Heaters 40 Pool Heaters, Gas 32 Refrigerators* 34 Medium Priority Products Page Residential Furnaces and Boilers 38 High Intensity Discharge Lamps CD) 24 Room 

### Air Conditioners* 42 Small Electric Motors (D) 44 

## Test Procedures High Priority Products Page 

### Low Priority Products (con't) Page CommercialAlC and Heat Pumps 6 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP* 21 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 8 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 23 Commercial Water Heaters 10 High Intensity Discharge Lamps 25 Dishwashers 17 Lamps* 27 Distribution Transformers l 19 Mobile Home Furnaces* 29 Residential Central AlC andHeat Pump 37 Plumbing FixturesfFittings* 31 Pool Heaters, Gas* 33 

### Low Priority Products Page Refrigerators 35 Clothes Dryers 2 Residential Furnaces and Boilers* 39 Clothes Washers* 4 Residential Water Heaters* 41 Cooking Products* 13 Room Air Conditioners 43 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas* 15 Small Electric Motors 45
1Drops to LowPnontyupon CompletlOn * FIllal Rules for these products have been recently pubbshed.

# Standards

Product: Clothes Dryers - (Gas/Electric) Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action ; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) 

### Potential Economic Not available Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits 

### Status of Required Changes Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation of new to Test Procedures product class for condensing dryers Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of clothes washers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating Interested Parties clothes dryer standards should be given low priority. Evidence of Market

-Driven At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers or Voluntary Efficiency which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. Improvements Issues Significant dryer savings potential will be considered in clothes washer rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated to be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings 

### are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white good manufacturers.



## 1 Draft

- June 22, 1999 

# Standards Product: Clothes Dryers

- (GaslElectric) Priority: Low

### :·.::.:¥4~~:mJ{~i~~~~~.~~~fiiii·.::~::.:·~:::::::,::.:.:.::-**:~.:::::.:·:.:.:::I:~::·:::::~.::.a:<?::.::}:i·;·:rL:~·;: ~::::r:?;:::lM~~m~g(,;:I~.~;:;~~:;;::;;~::;;;;:;·;** 

# ..**::~:::;;~;::;i;;:;;:·:;:~~:::~:::~~:;;.;;:::::;;:·:ii::;.:::::::.:::;:::;:.:1** Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation ofnew to TestProcedures product class for condensing dryers OtherRegulatory Actions DOE regulation ofclothes washers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating Interested Parties clothes dryer standards should be given lowpriority. Evidence ofMarket-Driven At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers or VoluntaryEfficiency which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. Improvements Issues Significant dryer savings potential \'lill be considered in clothes washer rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extractionhas been estimatedto be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction. FY 1999 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the nexttwo years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for PriorityLevel Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are low. OtherDOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white good manufacturers.



### 1 

## Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Clothes Dryers - (Gas/Electric) Priority: Low 

### NEEM Relationship to Changes in Standard Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard Priority of Standard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests and has asked DOE to consider revisions to the test procedure. Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

### Issues A new product class needs to be defined for condenser dryers. Currently there is one waiver in effect. The are numerous changes that are required prior to a standards rulemaking for clothes dryers.
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders.



### 2 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure
Product: Clothes Dryers

- (GaslElectric) Priority: Low**:.:;j'~~~~m:'tit.v;m1#.t~it~:;$.@'fiiji}:~i:::·;::.::~:::!::::::}::::;.::·:}·:::!.::t:::\~.:~.:::::t:(:**

# ..**::::}:·:::j::·:}:;~i~~1~~l~iji:i:~:i\il~.::~::;:;:;::\;·:;·:·::~:i·~:K'; :~i·;:~:::.\~!::~:::;:.y;::·i~~:;;~!~::(:;;:~::::**  Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard Low International or Other CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests and has asked DOE to consider**Coordinatin~** Activities revisions to the test procedure. Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues A newproduct class needs to be defined for condenser dryers. Currently there is one waiver 

### in effect. The are numerous changes that are required prior to a standards rulemaking for clothes dryers.
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori Considered to be a low b stakeholders.



## 2 Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Clothes Washers Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0 .29 - 8.36 ]' Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Efficiency I mprovement over the Base Case 2002-2030 VerticalAxis 

### 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.29 - 0.32 0.97 - 1.06 1.81 - 1.98 2.20 - 2.42 4.14-4.591

.........................:.........................HorizontalAxis 35% 40% 45% 

### 50% 5.88-6.79 5.92-6.83 6.89 - 7.94 7.28 - 8.36

Potential Economic Potential benefits to consumers have not been quantified. High efficient clothes Benefits/

Burdens washers require a new platform design and significant investment. 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes Final Rule issued August 27, 1997. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties 

### Evidence of Market

-Driven Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Star program. or Voluntary Efficiency Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three Improvements U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. Issues FY 1999 Priority 1-ligh
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule ANOPR - Published 11/19/98 NOPR - 12/99 

### Final Rule - 7/00 Rationale for Priority Level Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy savings are large.

1 Based preliminary National Energy Savings (NES) data used for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 

## 3 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Clothes Washers Priority: 

### High 

# Standards**:;;jtitt~i:m·:;m~::gfl~i~(¥$.ijnmi}tiiT·::t:~::::·:?-;r~i·;:;:·; ';:i:::'~~:::'~:~'::::;:::';'::~:':;?::·;·:;::~;:,::~::;~** **:,:~::;·;J~,~~~@l.~~f1:Itf'I~}?~;:r:?~::::;~;:·:;i.r~i??:::::·::·:;r;I;:;;::;;::::{;·:;::~~:I;:;;j** Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.29

- 8.36 

# r Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; '" Cumulative (Quads)**~Efficiency** hnpro\ement owrthe Base Case 

### 2002-2030 VerticalAxis 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.29

- 0.32 0.97

- 1.06 1.81

- 1.98 2.20

- 2.42 4.14

- 4.59

HorizontalAxis 35% 40% 45% 50% .5.88

- 6.79 5.92

- 6.83 6.89 -7.94 7.28

- 8.36

......-...................-_....................... Potential Economic Potential benefits to consumers have not been quantified. High efficient clothes BenefitslBurdens washers require a newplatform design and significant investment. Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status 

### ofRequired Changes Final Rule issuedAugust 27, 1997. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation ofclothes dryers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Consortium for EnergyEfficiency program withutilities. Energy Starprogram. or Voluntary Efficiency Federal Energy ManagementProgram for procurement initiative. At least three Improvements U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. Issues FY 1999 Priority High
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule ANOPR

- Published 11119/98 NOPR-12/99 Final Rule

- 7/00 Rationale for Priority Level Generally consideredto be a high priorityby stakeholders. Potential energy savings are large.

BasedpreliminaryNational Energy Savings (NES) dataused for the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 

### 3 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Clothes Washers Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

### Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior 

### Hi

Final Rule issued August 27, 1997.

Final Rule issued August 27, 1997. 

# I i Level



## 4 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Clothes Washers Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

Final Rule issued August 27, 1997.



## 4 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings 7.3 2 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by February, 2000. 

### Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout of HCFC refrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards to be published 12/99. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale DOE plans to beg Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori Level in actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1

2 Based on PNNL rough estimate, May 1996. 

## 5 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards
Product: Commercial

### Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High 

# :**·::,F.i~~~ifilf:::pft~rl1f.::$~~i~;:'(;::::'; '::::'i.:::"::'};'E:l';:-::~it;~:;;::;:::,;;:;:::,::t;;,\:~t\:'::;i:::';:~;,H~i~~~Mi~t\t:!·!:~:g;'·T~:::::i'::::If§{:ri;;:::;i;j'.!;i'::;;::::::;:!;;:~{:n::'.\::';~:;::;::**  Potential Energy Savings 

### 7.3 2 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available, BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible, Expected oil savings are minimal. Status 

### ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publishFinal Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90,1 into the CFRby February, 2000, Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout ofHCFC refrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90,1 standards to be published 12/99. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Rationale for Priori Standards set b EPACT andwill be ameneded u on revision ofASHRAE 90, I

2 Basedon PNNLrough estimate, May 1996. 

## 5 

## Draft - June 22, 

## 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High
Relationship to Changes in I Standards set by EPACT and will be ameneded upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Proposed Schedule NOPR - 8/99 Final Rule - 2/1/00 

### Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



### 6 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & HeatPumps Priority: High

Standards setby EP ACT and will be ameneded uponrevision ofASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR- 8/99 Final Rule

- 2/1/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 6 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: High 

### Potential Energy Savings 13 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by February, 2000. Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e. g. air quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards to be published 12/99. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1

3 Based on PNNL rough estimate, May 1996. 

## 7 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards
Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: High

### .!/·F:jf~t~h;t~~;·~~~~~~y';'$.riti~·.::!:;~~:}X:::;::;Ij;:::;jg;'f,:~i::;:Ij:';;~::ij;:::;:;:t;·;jE:r!:tt;;:::.t!t:~~~~~Jl.'f:;:~),·:;:::.f:t::i;~:::;.::::::;:::f:\ig.(X:::::::::::\:I:**;X::X:::::::~:X:.~:~t:~::;:** Potential Energy Savings 1 3 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emissionbenefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimaL Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publishFinal Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by February, 2000. OtherRee;ulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air Quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards to be published 12/99. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Rationale for Priori Standards set b EPACT and will be ameneded u on revision ofASHRAE 90.1

3 Based on PNNLrough estimate, May 1996. 

## 7 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: High
Relationship to Changes in ( Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### High

Proposed Schedule NOPR - 8/99 Final Rule - 2/1/00 

### Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



### 8 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: 

### High

Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR- 8/99 Final Rule

- 2/1/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publishFinal Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 8 

## Draft - June 22, 

## 1999

## Standards

Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High 

### I Potential Energy Savings No= [0.21 - 1.2]" from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

### minimal. Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by February, 2000. Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency 

### Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards to be published 12/99. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1

4 Based on PNNL preliminary findings report, April 1996. 

## 9 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: 

### High 

## Standards



# :.::..**;.i\'#ii;~iil~idj~~iii~~;~$.itif:~j~;:;::.i(\:·:fiS.;rr;:l:~rI:~::::::::tn~:::::;';;:::~;'r~:::/i';i~7K:;::;;;ii~;M¥Il(.r:·::mn::.:~·;r:w;::rt::::::iI~:r(::·r:·::.·:;::;r :':;;!:X;::t::t::t;:::;:** 

Potential Energy Savings [0.21

- 

### 1.2]4 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFRby February, 2000. Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards to be published 12/99. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Rationale for Priori Standards setb 'EPACT and will be ameneded u on revision ofASHRAE 90.1

4 Based onPNNL preliminary findings report, April 1996. 

## 9 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High
Relationship to Changes in I Standards set by EPACT and will be ameneded upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: High

Proposed Schedule NOPR - 8/99 Final Rule - 2/1/00 

### Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 10 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High 

# Test Procedure



# .::...**·:(J~~iimr:m~i;t:~f.~'·§ii~~:::::.::·~:}:::::r:r:::;.:;:i~:::;::~.:;:t':.?:.:::::i::i.::{::;i;::r:i::::::.\:;;i:::::.:};::::'i'i~~nl~ii~::;::ir::{::::/::r\::.:::ri}i:"!::'f:,::::::riI:://.:·:::):,::.:::t::}**



### Relationship to Changes in Standards set by EPACT and will be ameneded upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 Standard PriorityofStandard High International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR- 8/99 Final Rule

- 2/1/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 10 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product : Cooking Products - Electric Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior Final Rule published September 8, 1998 Recent Final Rule. i Level



### 11 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards Product: Cooking Products

- Electric Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: Low



# ...**i!#itff:m":i~h;~ii#.{tW:.·$~i~~~;~:;;j;;:.;:\:<::~::;;::::jJjJ::.!:f!:lb:;.g::;:;;~·!;:::tj:l.f.;:!;·r:g:;i;;·iMii~iiiijJ.~i: ;.;;:~:·:;:/:::!;::;;;;~;;:;r~~t::;:::;:·;::::;r!.i:;i:i** **;.;f;:;jii:;;:;;;:::;i~;i·;:SiiEt** Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Enenn' Security Benefits Status 

### ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRel!Ulatory Actions DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven NoneknoWll. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule published September 8, 1998 Rationale for Priori Recent Final Rule.



### 11 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Cooking Products - Gas Ovens, Cook Tops Priority: High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion
mmom, 

### Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered:' from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Ovens Cook Tops 

### 2000
-2030 [0.1 - 2.11 [ 0 - 0.5 Potential Economic [ (9.3) - 0.11 [ (4.0) - 0.02 ] Benefits/Burdens NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% Potential Environmental or NOx [ 11 - 239 ] NOx [ 0 - 65 ] Energy Security Benefits CO2 [ 6 - 133 ] CO2 [0-36] Emission reductions in (kt) for NOx, and (Mt) for CO, Status of Required Changes Final rule issued October 3, 1997. to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency ]Improvements Issues Pilotless designs may require installation of an electrical outlet. Loss of consumer utility if loss of electrical power. If a loss of electricity, cannot use oven. FY 1999 Priority Hi
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule - 1/00 Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking. This 

### rulemaking will remain high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final rule is ublished it will become a low priority,

5 Based on Draft report, April 1996 and Supplemental Analysis, November 1997. 

### 12 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards
Product: 

### Cooking Products

- Gas Ovens, Cook Tops Priority: 

### High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion**:;::}F~ii~~::ti~irRJ~ijiiii:S:f.iif:~~;:~;';::;,:~;,;::;':;:,::r:;:':::::::::X,;:;;,;:':;;::;~:;:::,;:t::;:::;:,:;:::::';::::'::X'~;:;:;:;:;l:;;/~~~iil#~~:;:;:::;;:::;I:::;::';:: i;::';X:;,::::;:;:::::':;r;;:;:::;:;,:{:)::':;::':::::\::** **:::;:;!./::;;:I;::~** Potential Energy Savings 

### Total ranges considered: 5 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### Ovens Cook Tops 2000-2030 

### [0.1-2,1] [0

- 0,5] Potential Economic 

### [ (9.3)

- 0,1 ] [(4,0)

- 0,02] BenefitslBurdens 

### NPV, billions of 1990$ 

### @ 7% Potential Environmental or 

### NOx [ 11

- 239 ] NOx[0-65] Energy Security Benefits 

### CO2 [ 

### 6 - 133 

## 1 CO2 

### [0

- 36 

## 1 Emission reductions in (1-..1) 

### for NOx, and (Mt) for CO2, Status 

### ofRequired Changes 

### Final rule issued October 3, 1997. to Test Procedures Other**Re~ulatory** Actions 

### DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers, Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven 

### None known, or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### Pilotless designs may require installation ofan electrical outlet Loss of consumer utility ifloss ofelectrical power. 

### Ifa loss ofelectricity, cannot use oven, FY 1999 Priority 

### High
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

### Final Rule

- 1100 Rationale for Priority Level 

### Interested Parties recommended high priority, Potential energy savings are low to moderate, Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking, This rulemaking will remainhighpriority until the final rule is published, Once the final rule is published it will become a lowpriority,

5 Based on Draft report, April 1996 and Supplemental Analysis, November 1997, 

### 12 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Cooking Products - Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Hi

Final Rule issued - October 3, 1997



## 13 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure Product: Cooking Products

- Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued

- October 3, 1997 Rationale for Priori



### 13 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Standards

Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings I Total range considered: [ 0 - 0.1 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030

Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits
Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority
Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Previous, Piezo ignit. & Previous & Condens. & Piezo ignit

. Derate 20% Induced Draft Modulat. Oper. (64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) (78.0% AFUE) (87.0% AFUE) 0.1 0 (0.3) (1.0)
[ (1.4) - 0.1 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7%

0 0.1 (0.6) (1.4) SO2 0 (7) (140) (320) 

### NOx 0 (6) (132) (301) CO2 0 (3) (72) (165 ) Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. 

### Final rule published 5/12/97. None known that will impact product.
None known.
Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition. Low

Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. 

### Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

6 7 Based on DOE preliminary analysis , June 1995.

Examples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27 - 46 kBtu/hr). 

### 14 

## Draft - June 22, 1999 

## Standards
Product: DirectHeating Equipment (Gas) Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030

Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule

Rationale for Priority Level 

### Previous, Piezo ignit. 

### & Previous 

### & Condens. 

### & Piezo ignit. Derate 20% Induced Draft Modulat. Opel. (64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) 1(78.0% AFUE) j(87.0% AFUE) 0.1 

### 0 (0.3) (1.0)
[(1.4)

- 0.1] NPV, Billions of 

### 1990$ @ 7% 

### 0 0.1 

### S02 0 (7) 

### (320 ) NOx 

### 0 (6) (301 ) CO

### 2 0 (3) (165 ) Emissionreductions in for Final rule published 5112/97.

"WIt,",llUI),;. Rural communities use heating during power concern 

### with electronic

DOE does not planto actively pursue rulemaking inthe next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation andmonitoring ofvoluntary programs. Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are low.

6 Based on DOEpreliminary analysis, June 1995. 7 Examples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27

- 46 kBtulhr). 

## 14 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard
Low

Final Rule issued 5/12/97



## 15 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low 

# Test Procedure**;::,lt~~~i!ii::mf:Ri1ih;~i~(~~i~t~lClj:,':',:):::,,:::,:r:', }i.'li':t':;',',:;:,';.',:,::,'::';.':;,'::i/,::;",::,'·** **:t;:';:':':¥~~~n~~J¥:;R:!:~;~;::':;::}):;::::';:::'~~::;:;:;:}:;';~{;)I'::::rL:::;~)f~)** Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued 5/12/97 Rationale for Priority Level



## 15 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

### emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes Test procedure is being revised to properly reflect energy consumption for new 

### to Test Procedures technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles. Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should be 

### Interested Parties given a low priority, Evidence of Market

-Driven Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement or Voluntary Efficiency initiative. At least two U.S. manufacturers are marketing adaptive control 

### Improvements dishwashers. Issues Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing of 

### dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordable models (contract housing). FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white good 

### manufacturers.



### 16 Draft

- June 22, 1999 Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low 

## Standards**',:::j'~#tiii:ii:t.#.~:~~~~(~~~$~Ii@)·~i::,::,}:;t::-:::::':')K:::':;:;:~:;;:;:;:;,:;S~;:;:it;:,~::::,:::;:::::;~:;;t:: ::,::r:L;;;:;j~~~~~~~~~/:;i·,{~!:;,;;).:'i;:::::!frri~;;::::':,:;i;:r::,::;:,:,,:;~:,:;.+rt:::;:r:;r:;;,i**  Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available, BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible, Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes Test procedure is being revised to properly reflect energy consumption for new to Test Procedures technologies (e,g, adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles, Other Rel!Ulatorv Actions DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should be Interested Parties given a lowpriority. Evidence ofMarket-Driven Energy Savers program, Federal Energy Management Program for procurement orVoluntary Efficiency initiative. At least two U,S, manufacturers are marketing adaptive control Improvements dishwashers, Issues Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e,g, mayrequire pre-rinsing of dishes or cleaning offilters) or the availability ofaffordable models (contract housing), FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking inthe next two years, Work wouldbe limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs, Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are low, OtherDOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white good manufacturers,



## 16 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Dishwashers Priority: High
Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard. Standard Priority of Standard 

### International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Low
Manufacturers support a test procedure revision for more accurate testing of new adaptive control models. 

### New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic.

NOPR - 7/99 Proposed Schedule Final Rule - 3/00 New technolo in product, i.e. smart controls, logic. Rationale for Priority Level



### 17 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Dishwashers Priority: 

### High 

# Test Procedure



# :**;:Jl4~hij.~~~:.!id~i$.i@~r.mK:~~:~~;.~:·:.:tT·;1Tt:~:i::;:~::;E:::r:~:**

# ..**:i:.i.F:::r:/·:::.:.·.:::.:::·:~::·A~~~~~lf~ J:/\:.:::~·.:.::::::.~:~;:.:::\::::;:i:~:.::i··;:::.::** **:;~'::;:::::.:::::::·~.\:::::.::::~:~~:~;::::::i**

Relationship to Changes in TestProcedure needed to be changed for standard. Standard Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinatinl! Activities Recommendation 

### by Manufacturers support a test procedure revision for more accurate testing ofnew Interested Parties adaptive control models. Statutory Deadline Issues Newtechnology inproduct, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic.
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR-7/99 Final Rule

- 3/00 Rationale for Priority Level Newtechnology in product i.e. smart controls. fuzzy loaic.



### 17 Draft - June 

## 22, 1999

## Standards

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings [.39-10.7]$ from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

### Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### Status of Required Changes Need to develop a test procedure before rule. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None known. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven EPA Energy Star program for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's TP-1 and 

### or Voluntary Efficiency the National Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy efficient Improvements electrical products. Issues Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-1. Energy savings questioned by NEMA. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2000. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Potential for si

### gnificant ener

### gy savin

### gs. 

# I

8 Based on DOE determination notice, October 22, 1997. 

## 18 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: 

### Distribution Transformers Priority: High 

## Standards**L:;.f'4~ii~.,mli:iWi~j'i~~;~j,~fug;::::;::~;:;::i:.':.·::i·::::·:;·:; ;:~:;:?:;;:.·;·;;';;'l/:.:;/:::·::.::;t:::'::;ii;;·:r:;·;:;;** **·j;.~miqi~jj~:;i:;i.i:;l)\·~:.~i~::ii:::~:i;:;;;;H** 

# ..**:;:;~:::ii):·:rS;:::;i~:i:3;;:·Ir.;** Potential Energy Savings 

### [.39-10.7]8 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic 

### Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or 

### Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits 

### estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes 

### Need to develop a test procedure before rule. to Test Procedures OtherRej!ulatory Actions 

### None known. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven 

### EPA Energy Star program for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's 

### TP-I and or Voluntary Efficiency 

### the National Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy efficient Improvements 

### electrical products. Issues 

### Most efficient designs include propri<;tary technology. NEMA recommends adoption ofvoluntary standards as specified in 

### TP-l. Energy savings questioned by NEMA. FY 1999 Priority 

### Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

### DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemakillg in 2000. Rationale for Priori

8 Based on DOE determination notice, October 22, 1997. 

## 18 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High
Relationship to Changes in ( Test Procedure need to be established for standard. Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test standard.
Sampling Plan; Definitions of Covered Products

Proposed Schedule NOPR - published 11/12/98 Reopening Notice 6/99 Final Rule - 12/99 Rationale for Priority Level Determination was made that standards maybe technically feasible, economically justified, and save significant energy.



## 19 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule

Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test standard.

NOPR

- published 11112/98 Reopening Notice 6/99 Final Rule

- 12/99 Determination was made that standards may be technically feasible, economically iustified and save significant energy.



## 19 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings --035i 12 Not Available. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not Available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Not Available. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes NEMA MG-1987 was amended 12/7/93. DOE proposing to adopt 1993 version. to Test Procedures Final rule for test procedures expected Spring 1999. 

### Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities. or Voluntary Efficiency Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ Improvements Issues Some system efficiencies are regulated by DOE (e. g. HVAC) where motors are 

### components of such systems. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1999 (2000).



### 20 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low 

# Standards**::,:,:~:;l#i;~W:!':F~ii;M~tiff&§#.i~fmF:;':,I:::::;;;'::::};::::; :li,;~::'::;;:;\';::;~:i:::;:;:::::(;:/;:";:;Ki::;;':~~~~Mi~~;r::;::::~{;?i;{;;::{,:::::::'::~:;,;i::::::i'** **:;,::;::;:;;:,~:::::::':',:ir,::::~::,:::::::\;~::** Potential Energy Savings NotAvailable, from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not Available, BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or NotAvailable, Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes NEMA MG-1987 was amended 12/7/93, DOE proposing to adopt 1993 version, to Test Procedures Final rule for test procedures expected Spring 1999, Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven ASHRAE 90,1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program 'with utilities. or Voluntary Efficiency Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ Improvements Issues Some system efficiencies are regulated by DOE (e,g. HVAC) where motors are components ofsuch systems, FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking 

### in the next two years. Work wouldbe limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs, Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. StatutOry deadline is 1999 (2000).



## 20 

## Draft - June 22, 

## 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard 

### Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard
Low Natural Resources Canada: Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electric Motors Manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates support test procedure rulemaking.

Proposed Rule Issued - 11!27197 Proposed Schedule Final Rule - Summer 1999 

### Final Rule recently published (as of FY2000). Rationale for Priority Level



## 21 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: 

### Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: 

### Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

1VlanUI.acDureJrS and energy efficiency advocates support test procedure

Proposed Rule Issued

- 11127/97 

### Final Rule

- Summer 1999 Final Rule recently published (as ofFY2000).



### 21 Draft - June 22, 1999

## Standards

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings I Total range cons from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030

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

### Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priori
Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Gthod~ Cathode Gatott / Cutout 

### Electronic 0.5-2.3 1.0-3.6 [ 0.2-4.9 ] NPV, billions of 1997$ @ 7%

0.2-3.0 1.0-4.9
None required. Specific examples below.

Some ballast manufacturers also make electric motors.
EPA Green Lights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's Federal Relighting Initiative (FEMP), The Energy Cost Savings Council, and some utility DSM programs. Standards, for electronic ballasts, may adversely affect U.S. manufacturers. Impact on U.S. employment levels. 

### High

Proposed Schedule NOPR - 10/99 Final Rule - 6/00 Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are moderate.

9 Based on data posted to Web, April 1999. 

### 22 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: High 

## Standards



# :·...**:F.##~~::(~~·l~tI~dt¥.:SAt~iruL.:::.;::· .:.:·::i:;:.:;;rri:xr·~::·;!".::·:::.** **:1::.\:::;~:::-::.:.:.i**

### ..**:.:::j:'::.::·.::':~~~~~~~~:;::·:.t·; ::.;.:··:·.:.;:'.::··::"::D:::::::::;·;:;;i.':·:~D:::{;:·** **::.::::i:r,:r::·:ij:':l**

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0.5

- 3.6 

## t Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads)**~** 

### 2000-2030**~** 

### G.:dnlt/ G.:dnlt Bectronic 

### 0.5-2.3 1.0-3.6
Potential Economic [ 0.2-4.9] NPV, billions of 1997$ 

### @ 7% BenefitslBurdens 0.2-3.0 1.0-4.9 Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes None required. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Some ballast manufacturers also make electric motors. Recommendations by InterestedParties Evidence ofMarket-Driven EPA GreenLights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's Federal orVoluntary Efficiency Relighting Initiative (FE.MP), The Energy Cost Savings Council, and some utility Improvements DSMjlrograms. Issues Standards, for electronic ballasts, may adversely affect U.S. manufacturers. Impact on U.S. employment levels. FY 1999 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule NOPR-IO/99 Final Rule

- 6/00 Rationale for PriorityLevel Potential energy savings are moderate.

9 Based on data posted to Web, April 1999. 

## 22 Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priori of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level a Efficiency levels considered for new standards are already in the market and are covered by existing standards and test procedures.



## 23 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

23 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Standards Determination

Product : High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority : Medium


### Potential Energy Savings [0 .11-0.22]'" from Regulatory Action; 

### Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic Not Available. Benefits/ Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### Status of Required Changes IES and ANSI procedures are in place. to Test Procedures Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. Other Regulatory Actions EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure or Voluntary Efficiency sodium lamps. Improvements 

### Issues Concern about non-equitable impact of possible elimination of mercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination of mercury vapor lamps will require fixture replacement). FY 1999 Priority Low 

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

10 

### DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. Potential energy savings are low to moderate

. Determination required by EPACT.

Based on DOE rough estimate , May 1996.


## 24 Draft - February 15, 2007 

# Standards Determination Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp 

### Priority: Medium



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic BenefitsfBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits

Issues

FY 1999 Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Not Available. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are to be oil
. are minimal. 

### IES and ANSI procedures are in place. Issues with definition covered roducts and

Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps. Concern about non-equitable impact of possible elimination of mercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination of mercury vapor lamps will require fixture replacement). Low



### DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Determination required by EP 

### ACT.

10 Based on DOE rough estimate, May 1996.



## 24 Draft

- February 15, 2007

# Test Procedure

Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior 

### Test Procedure needs to be developed for standard.
Low

Dependant on determination. 

# I
i ty Level



### 25 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: High 

### Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low 

# Test Procedure

;.:.**fi'ff#1i.i%·mii.:p,iji~i:~f.£~if~i}i£:':K::;::?::;:::;:r::~:?;::::;·I·:·:;:::.;).:::'i\:i;~::\::2::·;~~;;::·:.:::it::::;::~~~W~~iinf:~::::::r::I:·:::;·:·n:;:::r:::::;:~~:::::;·::~;:·~::::::';j\::j;:;:::::;:::r:·:·::;·;::::·:·::;:;:::**



### Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure needs to be developed for standard. Standard Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Proposed Schedule andRationale: Proposed Schedule Dependant on detennination. Rationale for Priori



## 25 Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Standards

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings Not Available. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### Potential Economic Not Available. Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Not Available. 

### Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued to Test Procedures 5/29/97 Other Regulatory Actions Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA is considering responses to a NOPR regarding a "conditional" exclusion from the hazardous waste designation or an inclusion of lamps into the Universal Waste Rule. Recommendations by Interested Parties 

### Evidence of Market-Driven EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility DSM or Voluntary Efficiency programs, FEMP. Improvements 

### Issues Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more difficult. 

### FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999 for adding additional general service fluorescent and incandescent lamps.



## 26 Draft - June 22, 1999 

## Standards
Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low

### i:;:~**:lt~ij~~~;mt:·~~iii~~.$&~~M;-::;~·:::::::;::·:·;.~::~X.;~:::~::};:;:;';':;C;';ii;;::!~;:':~ft~;:;\~:::;::;';::::;;i~~t.:;:::~:j~~i~ib.lrnK~~::r:r?:::!:::~;£:~::::::;::'.::.::::::::\::?::::::::-:::·l(I:::}:::::.:~·r::?::** Potential Energy Savings NotAvailable. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not Available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or NotAvailable. Energy Security Benefits Status 

### ofRequired Changes IES andANSI procedures are in place, DOE testprocedure Final Rule issued to Test Procedures 5/29/97 OtherRegulatory Actions Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA is considering responses to a NOPR regarding a "conditional" exclusion from the hazardous waste designation or an inclusion oflamps into the Universal Waste Rule. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility DSM or Voluntary Efficiency programs, FEMP. Improvements Issues Because lamps are components ofsystems, establishment ofstandards is more difficult. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking inthe next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999 [or adding additional general service fluorescent and incandescent lamps.



## 26 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior 

### Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard
Low



### Final Rule issued 5/29/97 

# I
ity Level



## 27 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low 

# Test Procedure



# .:.:**:lt~~¥,~.:t.~r:P:ti9~{~i**

# ..**~AA~~~It::::::::·::.::::.;::;:::~::·.;·;::::::;·::·:;r:.;::~::r:r~:::::;:::~:;\::~;.:;;i.:;·::";~T:.;;::;)~~~~~l~il~~;i:::.:;:::.;::·:::'::·~.: i:;:;;~:;:;::}:i"::;~~;:·:;)·;:··:;::::i;.:;:·.:!.:};~-::.;~:E~:;**  Relationship to Changes in TestProcedure notneeded to be changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties StatutoryDeadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued 5/29/97 Rationale for Priori



## 27 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings I Total range considered: [ 0.1 - 0.6 ]11 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits
Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority Pro osed Schedule and Rationale Specific examples below: 

### Imprv. fan Imprv

. fan motor & burner 

### motor box damper Condensing (91.7 Gas (76 .6% AFUE) (79.6 AFUE) AFUE) Imprv
. fan motor, ht. exchgr., Imprv
. fan Imprv

. fan condens. & full motor motor modulation Oil (82 .1% AFUE 82.1% AFUE 93.7% AFUE

0.1 0.1 0.5 [ (0.8) - 0.1 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7%

0.1 0.1 (0.2) SOZ 16 17 4 NOx 15 16 4 CO2 9 9 2 Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Final rule issued 5/12197. None known that will impact product.


### None known.
Fuel switching. Limited space for installation. Low
Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Higher standards levels requiring 

### technologies, such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

11 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

## 28 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Mobile Home Furnaces

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030



### Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits

Pro osed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule

Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

Imprv. fan motor 

### Gas (76.6% AFUE)

Oil Imprv. fan motor (82.1%AFUE 0.1 Imprv. fan motor 

### & burner box damper Condensing (91.7 (79.6 AFUE) AFUE) Imprv. fan motor, ht. exchgr., Imprv. fan condens. 

### & full motor

82.1%AFUE 0.1 modulation 93.7%AFUE 

### 0.5 [ (0.8)

- 0.1] NPV, Billions of 

### 1990$ 

### @7% 0.1 0.1 S02 16 NOx 15 CO2 

### 9 Emission reductions in Final rule issued 5112/97. 

### 17 

### 16 9 

### 4 4 2



### DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking 

### in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Potential energy savings are lowto moderate. Higher standards levels requiring technologies such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

11 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

## 28 Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

### Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Low

Final rule issued 5/12/97. 

# I Rationale for Priority Level



## 29 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

Final rule issued 5/12/97.



## 29 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be 

### carefully considered. FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. 

### Rationale for Priority Level Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI Al12.18.1 and ASME/ANSI A112.19.6.



## 30 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Plumbing FixtureslFittings Priority: Low 

# Standards



# ; ...**t'~~~~Elf~f::t$.th:~r.i,:$~i~~mi::.~:::~;::'.':::::'.:';:;}/;:::;;:::Il(:/;::::;;~:):;:;:.:'::·::":';:.::::;::;:;:'.t;:::';;:.;:~~l&~~i~~l:}:::;';jJ;?::'i::;~:;(;};;:'::::':;·:;::·:;;;·::::.:t;:::r?;;:::::::::::;:;::?::.:;:::j** 

### Potential Energy Savings The Departmenthas not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Not available. Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherRel!ulatorv Actions None. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be carefully considered. FY 1999 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking 

### inthe next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for PriorityLevel Dependentupon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI A112.18.1 and ASrvIE/ANSIA1l2.19.6.



## 30 

## Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior

### ity Level Low

Final Rule - March 18, 1998



## 31 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Plumbing FixturesIFittings Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

Final Rule

- March 18, 1998



## 31 Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Standards

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.2 - 0.9 ]12 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 11D, (78% ET) Non-cond. Limit, (82.2% ET) 0.2 0.4 Condensing, (90.8% ET) 0.7 

### Potential Economic [ (1.4) - 0.2 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/

Burdens 0 .2 0.2 (0.6) Potential Environmental or SO2 0 0 0 Energy Security Benefits NOx 42 42 42 CO2 11 18 35 Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 _ and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. Status of Required Changes Final rule issued 5112/97. to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product, Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

12 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

## 32 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: 

### Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: 

### Low 

## Standards



# ..**:.ill:~tt~~)#~··gijh~·~t~:$.~:t~tmti;.:::;::::::;:::·;:.::;:. ::\;:~:·::}:;:·.:Fi:r~;·::::):i·/::?:·:·::::'.·:Y·;~{·:}M¥.§~~~(·:!.::::i~·;\:·::.::·.::·::?r::;:·::.:::::::::.::r:::::·::::::;:'x.:.::·::.:;::·:·;:.::·;::::·::.:};**  Potential Energy Savings 

### Total range considered: [0.2

- 0.9 

### ]12 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### IID, (78% 

### ET) 

### Non-cond. Limit, (82.2% 

### ET) 

### Condensing, (90.8% 

### ET) 2000-2030 

### 0.2 0.4 0.7 Potential Economic 

### [(1.4)

- 0.2] 

### NPV, Billions of 1990$ 

### @ 7% BenefitsfBurdens 

### 0.2 0.2 (0.6) Potential Environmental or 

### S02 0 0 0 Energy Security Benefits 

### NOx 42 42 42 

### CO2 11 

### 18 35 

### Emission reductions in (lct) 

### for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2 , Status 

### ofRequired Changes 

### Final rule issued 5/12/97. to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions 

### None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven 

### None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority 

### Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

### DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level 

### Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

12 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

## 32 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Low

Final rule issued 5/12/97.



## 33 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

Final rule issued 

### 5/12/97.



## 33 Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Standards

Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits 

### Status of Required Changes No changes required for standards. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout of insulation HCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing or Voluntary Efficiency Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity of Improvements new high efficiency models are being marketed. Issues Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997 Amana has petitioned OHA for 10% 

### relaxation of 2001 standards - blowing agent concerns FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997 Proposed Schedule Rule issued, effective July 1 , 2001



## 34 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorlFreezers, & 

### Freezers Priority: Low**:.·:·:~i~~~i(t~t;gq~~i.~ibr~~H~ijft{::;;~i;:f:;~!Tr::;r:n:::;·:·:::;::r:;;:':::::·;:;~:::;2{t\;;::.;::::;:;::;}~~$iliif.::./:;::;.;;'::::;;:i::;;.:::;:·::t;;::::;:);;:'~i:;:;:::;i:::;::)~;::::;~:;:::rr;t::;:;;;l;;;** 

### Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes No changes required for standards. to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions EPA phaseout ofinsulation HCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing orVoluntaryEfficiency Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity of Improvements new high efficiency models are being marketed. Issues Final Rule Issued

- April 28, 1997 Amana has petitioned OHA for 10% relaxation of2001 standards

- blowing agent concerns FY 1999 Priority Low Proposed Schedule andRationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule Issued

- April 28, 1997 Rationale for Priori Rule issued effective Jul 1 2001



## 34 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard 

### Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Low

Final rule for vented refrigerator - 8/97



## 35 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorlFreezers, & 

### Freezers Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final rule for vented refrigerator

- 8/97 

### Rationale for Priori



## 35 

## Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 2.0 - 13.1 ]13 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 11 SEER 12 SEER 14 SEER 16 SEER 14 2030 2.0 4.0 8.2 13.1 Potential Economic [ (19.8) - 8.11 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/Burdens not avail. not avail. 8.1 (19.8) Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

### minimal. Status of Required Changes Changes are not required for standards. 

### to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant - 2010 DOE regulation of furnaces. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven Energy Star program recommending a 12 SEER. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation. FY 1999 Priority 

### High
Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Proposed Schedule SANOPR - 10/99 NOPR - 7/00 Final Rule - 4/01 Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are large.

13

14 Based on DOE analysis, January 5, 1995.

Represented SEER levels are approximate weighted average for various configurations of central a/c equipment. Potential energy savings for 11 and 12 SEER models were extrapolated from REM analysis for 14 and 16 SEER levels. 

## 36 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards Product: Residential Central 

### Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High 

# .:::.:**f~ii4.~.:.m.di~~i.~i~i.~~~#ilig;.:.ij.:.:;:.:;::::J.;.;.i;:::;::.:;;:::::.\.:;.:~1;:;;;.:::.;!**

# ..**;1:::.;:.:;:t':;:j!;:.:;:{E:\::;iM.~~~~nli~~::::;;·;:;:{;:~:::.:.:\;;i;·:;;: :;:.;;:;.;;.::.t::::.:.::.;:;;;:::;~~:;iI.::;::;::;)L::;** 

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [2.0

- 13.1 

### ]13 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 11 SEER 12 SEER 14 SEER 16 SEER 14 

### 2030 2.0 4.0 8.2 13.1 Potential Economic [ (19.8)

- 8.1 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% BenefitslBurdens not avaiL not avaiL 8.1 (19.8) Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likelyto be possible. Expected oil savings are minimaL Status ofRequired Changes Changes are not required for standards. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout ofHCFC-22 refrigerant

- 2010 DOE regulation offurnaces. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Energy Starprogramrecommending a 12 SEER. orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation. FY 1999 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule SANOPR

- 10/99 NOPR-7!00 Final Rule

- 4!01 Rationale for PriorityLevel Potential energy savings are large.

13 Based on DOE analysis, January 5, 1995. 14 Represented SEER levels are approximate weighted average for various configurations ofcentral alc equipment. Potential energy savings for II and 12 SEERmodels were extrapolated from REM analysis for 14 and 16 SEERlevels. 

## 36 

## Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High
Relationship to Changes in ( Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. Standard 

### Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

### Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Would like to see it published.
Many changes to accommodate new technology.

Work is com lete for technical content of proposed test procedure.



## 37 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central 

### Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR- 

### 8/99 Final Rule

- 

### 6/00 Rationale for Priority Level Work is complete for technical content ofproposed test procedure.



## 37 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.6 - 10.2 ] L5 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; 

### Insul., HD, imprv. Cumulative (Quads) fan motor & 

### two Previous & Gas 2000-2030 , 

### Gas stage oper. condensing absorption Furnaces (81.8% AFUE) (92% AFUE) heat pump IID & pulse Gas Gas IID condensing absorption Boilers (81.8% AFUE (90.4% AFUE) heat pump

0.6 3.7 10.2 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are more 

### significant than other products. Status of Required Changes Final rule issued 5/12/97 to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation. DOE regulation of central air conditioning products. Consumer Product Safety Commission - possible regulation. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensing furnace/boiler program. or Voluntary Efficiency ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority Low Pro osed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Any work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Higher standards levels requiring technologies. such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

15 Based on DOE rough estimate for gas only, May 1996. 

## 38 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards Product: Residential Furnaces & 

### Boilers Priority: Low



# .**:,:M#.~w.r~::fiti,;~:i~~i1!~;f'$.~~ifur::'}::,;'.::r;:';;::;;';::'i;;,:;\:;;:;lX:;;;;';;::';:;:::::;:;;:,:;:,:;::;,:;':,;.',:;::i:;:';ii!:J;:tj,~i~~mi~~~~:'::::;It:";':/i~~,\;:,:t:;,:,::::::.':::C:)::~';'::;i(~'I:~:::::~:;!';,~;;E:**

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0,6

- 10.2 

### ]l5 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Insul., 

### lID, imprv. Cumulative (Quads) 

### fan motor, 

### & two Previous 

### & Gas 2000-2030 

### Gas stage oper. condensing absorption Furnaces 

### (81.8% AFUE) (92% AFUE) heat pump 

### lID & pulse Gas Gas 

### lID condensing absorption Boilers 

### (81.8% AFUE) (90.4% AFUE) heat pump 

### 0.6 3.7 

### 10.2 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are more significant than other products, Status ofRequired Changes Final rule issued 5/12/97 to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation. DOE regulation ofcentral air 

### conditioning products, Consumer Product Safety Commission

- possible regulation, Recommendations by 

### InterestedParties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Energy Starprogram. Wisconsin state condensing furnacelboiler program. orVoluntary Efficiency ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. Improvements Issues FY 1999 Priority Low 

### Pro osed S h d I c e ueandR
. atlona e Proposed Schedule DOE does not planto actively pursue rulemaking in

### the next two years, Any work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs, Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are lowto moderate. Higher standards levels requiring technologies. such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

15 Based on DOErough estimate for gas only, May 1996. 

## 38 

## Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in ( Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

### Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Low

Final rule issued 5/12/97



## 39 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: 

### Residential Furnaces & 

### Boilers Priority: 

### Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

# Test Procedure

Proposed Schedule 

### Final rule issued 5/12/97 Rationale for Priori



## 39 Draft - 

## June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered: 

### from Regulatory Action; Gas & Oil: [ 0.07 - 7.95 ]16 Electric: [ 0.87 - 3.45 ] t6 Cumulative (Quads) Specific examples below: 2003-2030 

### Electric 3"Insul., Sidearm Ht. Traps, 2"Insul., w/ 80% Ht. Traps 2.5"Insul. Ht. Traps, flue baffle Flue & Insul. & Insul. 3"Insul. & Heat & Heat Baffle & Tank Tank Plastic Gas Traps Traps IID Bottom

................. Bottom

....... . .......... Tank

.......................... 1"Foam Insul. & 2" Foam 3" Heat Insul. & Insul.,82 Oil Traps Heat Traps % HX 0.07 0.76 7.95 0.87 2.17 3.45 Potential Economic [ 6.0 - (30.6) ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/

Burdens 0.10 0.03 (7.33) 1.38 1.74 0.24 Potential Environmental or SO2 Energy Security Benefits NOx 

## CO2 Emission reductions in (Kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Based on 1999 analysis, and includes oil, gas and electric. Status of Required Changes Changes not required for standards. Final rule for test procedure was published to Test Procedures in 1998. Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Commission initiative for prevention of ignition of flammable vapors by gas water heaters. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven Demand-side management programs for high efficiency water heaters. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Electronic ignition has impact on customer utility. Fuel switching. Replacement 

### blowing agent for insulation. Installation in small spaces. FY 1999 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale NOPR - 12/99 Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule - 07/00

16 Based on DOE analysis May 1999. Energy savings reduced due to phaseout of HCFC-141b insulation blowing agent in 2003. 

## 40 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Standards Product: Residential Water Heaters

- Gas, Oil 

### &Electric Priority: High

### ·::.::.~~~£'!~~H~i::gi.,~r:f:~:::.~mg:::;::::t:::;\)::L.:::**;:::;:::}};:·;:&;r:::':~;J:::.::::.~t;:.i:.;;:;;:·:iIjL:t:~~~~wmi~::;:r:::i:rt:::f:::::;·:f·J::,·:::c::.~·::::.:·.:::·.~:·:·;:·t:J!.::;:E;::;;;** Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered: from RegulatoryAction; Gas & Oil: [0.07

- 7.95]16 Electric: [0.87

- 3.45 

# r6 Cumulative (Quads) Specific examples below: 2003-2030 •.....•..

## - ....•• ". Electric 3"lnsul., Sidearm Ht. Traps, 2"lnsul., w/80% Ht Traps 2.5"lnsul. Ht Traps, flue baffle Flue 

### & lnsul. 

### & lnsul. 3"Insul. 

### & Heat 

### & Heat Baffle 

### & Tank Tank Plastic 

### Gas Traps Traps 

### lID Bottom Bottom Tank

............ ....-....-_..-

### .......... .......................... 1"Foam lnsul. 

### & 2"Foam 3" Heat lnsul. 

### & Insul.,82 Oil Traps Heat Traps 

### %HX 0.07 0.76 7.95 0.87 2.17 3.45

.......... Potential Economic [6.0

- (30.6)] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% BenefitslBurdens 0.10 0.03 (7.33) 1.38 

### 1.74 0.24 Potential Environmental or S02 Energy SecurityBenefits NOx CO2 Emissionreductions in (Kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2, Based on 1999 analysis, and includes oil, gas and electric. Status ofRequired Changes Changes not required for standards. Final rule for testprocedure was published to Test Procedures in 1998. Other RegulatoryActions EPA phaseout ofHCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Corrunission initiative for prevention ofignition offlarrunable vapors by gas water heaters. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Demand-side management programs for high efi1ciency water heaters. orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Electronic ignition has impact on customer utility. Fuel switching. Replacement blowing agent for insulation. Installation 

### in small spaces. FY 

### 1999 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

### NOPR-12/99 Final Rule

- 07/00 Rationale for Priority Level

16 Based on DOE analysis May 1999. Energy savings reduced due to phaseout ofHCFC-141b insulation blowing agent in 2003. 

## 40 Draft

- June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in I No changed needed Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

### Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule 

### Test Procedure published in May 1998.



## 41 Draft - June 22, 1999 

# Test Procedure Product: Residential WaterHeaters

- Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori



### 41 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards

Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) 2000 -2030 Potential Economic Not available Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes Not required for standards. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phaseout of IICFC-22 refrigerant. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Final Rule Issued - September 24, 1997 FY 1999 Priority Low
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Propose d Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule Issued

- September 24, 1997



## 42 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Room Air Conditioners 

### Priority: Low 

# Standards**.:::;;:~M~~~ci;:j*f:·~j~i:~tY;$.ii~tj);S.:i::·:i:;\::·:)~:;iI::t!:r;:i{;t.~.~·::\:~::::i::;::i::·:}:·U):;):\·;:·:·:****~M,4~~'~~f.·;:::.::::;;::·:::;;i:":::.:;\::::·:·;::\·:::·: ::-';;;:;·:;:·;·:)~;;}:·::}l;:;t:.f**  

### Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. 

### Cumulative (Quads) 2000 -2030 

### Potential Economic Not available 

### Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available 

### Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes Not required for standards. 

### to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions EPA phaseout ofHCFC-22 refrigerant. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. 

### orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Final Rule Issued

- September 24, 1997 

### FY 1999 Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule Issued

- September 24,1997 

### Rationale for Priori



## 42 Draft

- June 22, 1999

## Test Procedure

Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

### Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Low 

# I

43 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: 

### Room Air 

### Conditioners Priority: 

### Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

43 

## Draft - June 22, 1999

# Standards Determination

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Medium
Potential Energy Savings [0.8-4.5]" from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

### emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e. g. white goods) are exempt. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues None. FY 1999 Priority Medium
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level

17 Based on draft DOE report, May 1996. 

## 44 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Medium 

## Standards Determination



# :**::':;r~«~ii: ~'iJm~t:J&.i~ij~iruii::~~:::;:·;·:::~;:';:·:~~:~;:~:~;\::G::~::;i~i::;~;;;;{::;::.I:.:::P:;·;;:.m;~:t}·;;:~ii~~IDi~~f:~::In~:g;:::;~·;;~::~ii:::fi\:::·;;:g;:;:;;::::;::~::·.~** **;:::;r;;:·;~~:;iI:{;::~:i:** Potential Energy Savings 

### [0.8-4.5]17 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimaL Status ofRequired Changes IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Small motors used inNAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) are exempt. Recommendations 

### by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven NoneknoWll. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues None. FY 1999 Priority Medimn
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are lowto moderate. Determination required by EPACT.

17 Based ondraft DOEreport, May 1996. 

## 44 Draft - June 22, 1999

# Test Procedure

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori Level Low

Dependent on Determination.



## 45 Draft - June 22, 1999 Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priori 

# Test Procedure

Dependent on Determination.



## 45 Draft

- June 22, 1999