OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

ISAAC TURIEL JOHANNA KOLLAR AND JAMES MCMAHON

DRAFT REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

APRIL 28,1995 OVERVIEW OFINTERNATIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

ISAAC TURIELJOHANNA KOLLARAND JAMES MCMAHON

DRAFT REPORT TOTHE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

APRIL 28, 1995

" ..OVERVIEW OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Survey of Testing Protocols Introduction 2.1 Present Status of Testing Protocols 2.2 Attempts to Harmonize Protocols 2.3 Impediments to Harmonization of Protocols 2.4 Strategies to Introduce Comparability into Testing Protocols Chapter 3 Survey of Performance Specifications Introduction 3.1 Present Status of Labels, Efficiency Standards and Procurement Programs 3.2 Barriers to International Harmonization of Performance Specifications 3.3 Strategies for Introducing Comparability into Performance Specifications 3.4 Wet Appliances as an Example for Harmonization of Energy Efficiency Standards Chapter 4 Overview of Product Characteristics Introduction 4.1 Refrigerator-freezers 4.2 Wet Appliances 4.3 Air Conditioners 4.4 Water Heating 4.5 Cooking Products 4.6 Other Appliances Chapter 5: Criteria for Identification of Products Amenable to International Harmonization Efforts Introduction 5.1 Refrigerators and freezers 5.2 Wet Appliances 5.3 Air Conditioners 5.4 Other Appliances 5.5 Conclusions Chapter 6: Survey of Prior Assessments of Performance Specifications 6.1 Survey of Prior Assessments 6.2 Estimates of Energy Savings from Harmonization OVERVIEW OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS TABLE OF CONTENTS 

### Chapter 1Introduction Chapter 2 Survey ofTesting Protocols Introduction 2.1 Present Status ofTesting Protocols 2.2 Attempts to Harmonize Protocols 2.3 Impediments to Harmonization ofProtocols 2.4 Strategies to Introduce Comparability into Testing Protocols Chapter 3 Survey ofPerformance Specifications Introduction 3.1 Present Status ofLabels, Efficiency Standards and Procurement Programs 3.2 Barriers to International Harmonization ofPerformance Specifications 3.3 Strategies for Introducing Comparability into Performance Specifications 3.4 Wet Appliances as an Example for Harmonization ofEnergy Efficiency Standards Chapter 4 Overview ofProduct Characteristics Introduction 4.1 Refrigerator-freezers 4.2 Wet Appliances 4.3 Air 

### Conditioners 4.4 Water Heating 4.5 Cooking Products 4.6 Other Appliances Chapter 5: Criteria for Identification ofProducts Amenable to International Harmonization Efforts Introduction 5.1 Refrigerators and freezers 5.2 Wet Appliances 5.3 Air 

### Conditioners 5.4 Other Appliances 5.5 Conclusions Chapter 6: Survey ofPrior Assessments ofPerformance Specifications 6.1 Survey ofPrior Assessments 6.2 Estimates ofEnergy Savings from HarmonizationCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

During the last several years, interest in energy efficient appliance procurement and efficiency standards has grown rapidly around the World. Many countries have realized that minimum energy efficiency standards offer a reliable method to reduce residential and commercial sector electricity demand. That demand reduction results in fewer new power plants being built (and concomitant reductions in capital outlays) and a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide. The latter is a greenhouse gas whose emissions many countries have agreed to lower back to 1990 levels. Since world demand for major appliances is projected to grow at an annual average rate of 4% through at least 1997, it is important to reduce the demand of individual units; otherwise, electricity demand in the residential sector will continue to grow rapidly (Appliance, 1994). This is particularly true in the developing countries where demand is growing most rapidly. This paper discusses the status of performance specifications and testing protocols for residential appliances. Performance specifications include labeling, efficiency standards and technology procurement. Companion papers on refrigerators and office products have also been prepared; therefore, office products will not be covered at all in this paper. Refrigerators and freezers will be covered in order to have one paper where all major appliances will be discussed. A survey of prior assessments of benefits and costs of national and regional performance specifications is also included along with some estimates of additional benefits to be derived from international standards. The authors have endeavored to obtain the most up-to-date information for this report however, due to fast changing conditions around the world, some errors and omissions may appear in this. overview of energy efficiency standards. We are concentrating primarily on members of the IEA. It should be noted that appliance demand is growing fastest in the developing countries and that is where the greatest opportunities for energy use reduction lie. Information in this paper is mostly arranged as follows: It is first divided into countries (or groups of countries such as the European Union), and within that categorization, each product is discussed. For example, to learn about refrigerator testing protocols in Australia, the reader should look in Chapter 2, Survey of Testing Protocols, then in descending order, Australia and refrigerator/freezers. After this introduction, we describe the present status of testing protocols (Chapter 2) because so much follows from the ability to measure energy use or energy efficiency with a commonly agreed upon testing protocol, or test procedure. Chapter 3 covers several kinds of performance specifications

.These include: labeling, efficiency standards and energy efficient -procurement. Chapter 4 contains an overview of product characteristics and usage in various countries. This leads to Chapter 5 which identifies products that might be amenable to potential harmonization. of performance specifications

. The final Chapter summarizes previous estimates of benefits and costs of performance specifications and estimates additional savings that may arise from harmonized performance specifications. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

### During the last several years, interest in energy efficient appliance procurement and efficiency standards has grown rapidly around the World. Many countries have realized that minimum energy efficiency standards offer a reliable method to reduce residential and commercial sector electricity demand. That demand reduction results in fewer new power plants being built (and concomitant reductions in capital outlays) and a reduction in emissions ofcarbon dioxide. The latter is agreenhouse gas whose emissions many countries have agreed to lower back to 1990 levels. Since world demand for major appliances is projected to grow at an annual average rate of 4% through at least 1997, it is important to reduce the demand ofindividual**units~** 

### otherwise, electricity demand in the residential sector will continue to grow rapidly (Appliance, 1994). This is particularly true in the developing countries where demand is growing most rapidly. This paper discusses the status ofperformance specifications and testing protocOls for residential appliances. Performance specifications include labeling, efficiency standards and technology procurement. Companion papers on refiigerators and office products have also been prepared; therefore, office products will 

### not be covered at all in this paper. Refiigerators and freezers will 

### be covered in order to have one paper where all 

### major appliances will be discussed. A survey of prior assessments ofbenefits and costs ofnational and regional performance specifications is also included along with some estimates ofadditional benefits to be derived from international standards. The authors have endeavored to obtain the most up-to-date information for this report however, due to fast changing conditions around the world, some errors and omissions may appear in this. overview ofenergy efficiency standards. We are concentrating primarily on members ofthe IEA 

### It should be noted that appliance demand is growing fastest in the developing countries and that is where the greatest opportunities for energy use reduction lie. Information in this paper is mostly arranged as follows: It

### is first divided into countries (or groups ofcountries such as the European Union), and within that categorization, each product is discussed. For example, to learn about refiigerator testing protocols in Australia, the reader should look in Chapter 2, Survey ofTesting Protocols, then in descending order, Australia and refrigerator/freezers.

- After this introduction, we describe the present status oftesting protocols (Chapter 2) because so much follows from the ability to measure energy use or energy efficiency with a commonly agreed upon testing**protoco~** 

### ortest procedure. Chapter 3 covers several kinds ofperformanCe specifications.These include: labeling, efficiency**~dards** 

### and energy efficient-procurement. Chapter4 contains an overview ofproduct characteristics and usage in various countries. This leads to Chapter 5which identifies products that might be amenable to potential harmonization-of performance specifications. The 

### final Chapter summarizes previous estimates ofbenefits and costs ofperformance specifications and estimates additional savings that may arise from harmonized performance specifications.Chapter 2 Survey of Testing Protocols

Introduction This Chapter summarizes the present status of testing protocols for residential appliances. At the present time, test protocols differ among countries for most products. Since office equipment is covered in paper 2B, there will not be any discussion of those products here. Refrigerators will be discussed in order to have all major appliances discussed in one location. For IEA members, we will list those products that have testing protocols and when possible,.provide information for other countries. It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe each test procedure for each product in each country. We will attempt to identify the particular test procedures being used for the most significant products and the differences and similarities between test protocols among countries. We will also discuss the principal impediments to international harmonization of testing protocols as well as various strategies for introducing comparability into testing protocols. In Table 2.1, we list some of the test protocol parameters that will be considered in this chapter. These parameters will be considered when barriers to harmonization are discussed. Table 2.1 Parameters for Comparisons of Test Protocols 1. Input voltage and frequency 2. Energy efficiency metric 3. Air temperature and humidity conditions 4. Water temperatures 5. Usage assumptions 6. Energy efficiency credits or debits for special features 7. Performance specifications 2.1 Present Status of Testing Protocols Australia/New Zealand Australia has established test procedures for refrigerators and freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, air conditioners, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, space heaters, motors, and fluorescent ballasts and lamps

. In some cases, for example refrigerators and freezers, New Zealand utilizes the same test protocol. Table 2.2 lists the test procedure for each of these products (Wilkenfeld, 1995). The Australian refrigerator/freezers-testing protocols are very similar to the U. S. protocols for those products. Details are discussed later in this chapter where various refrigerator/freezer test protocols are compared. Australian test protocols for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers are also discussed later in this chapter.

2-1 

### Chapter 2 Survey ofTesting Protocols Introduction 

### This Chapter summarizes the present status oftesting protocols for residential appliances. At the present time, test protocols differ among countries for most products. Since office equipment is covered in paper 2B, there will 

### not be any discussion ofthose products here. Refiigeiators will 

### be discussed in order to have all major appliances discussed in one location. For lEA members, we will 

### list those products that have testing protocols and when possible, .provide information for other countries. It

### is beyond the scope ofthis paper to describe each test procedure for each product in each country. We will attempt to identify the particular tes!**procedur~s** 

### being used for the most significant products and the differences and similarities between test protocols among countries. We will 

### also discuss the principal impediments to international**h~onization** 

### oftesting protocols as well as various strategies for introducing comparability into testing protocols. In 

### Table 2.1, we list some ofthe test protocol parameters that will 

### be considered in this chapter. These parameters will be considered when barriers to harmonization are discussed. Table 2.1 Parameters for Comparisons ofTest Protocols 

### 1. Input voltage and frequency 2. Energy efficiency metric j. 

### Air temperature and humidity conditions 4. Watertemperatures 5. Usage assumptions 6. Energy efficiency credits or debits for special features 7. Performance specifications 2.1 Present Status ofTesting Protocols AustraiiaINewZealand 

### Australia has established test procedures for refiigerators and freezers, dishwashers,'clothes washers, clothes dryers, air conditioners, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters,

. space heaters, motors, and fluorescent ballasts and lamps. In some cases, for example refiigerators and freezers, New Zealand utilizes the same test protocol. Table 2.2 lists the test procedure for each ofthese products (Wtlkenfeld, 1995). The Australian refiigerator/freezers·testing protocols. are very similarto the U.S. protocols for those products. Details are discussed laterin this chapter where various refrigerator/freezertest protocols are compared. Australian test protocols for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers are also discussed later 

### in this chapter.

2-1Table 2.2 Test Protocols for Australia

PRODUCT TEST PROTOCOL Refrigerators and freezers AS 2575.2 Dishwashers AS 2000 Clothes Washers AS 2040 Clothes Dryer AS 2442 Air Conditioners AS 1861.1 Electric Storage Water Heater AS 1056.4 & NZS 4602,4606 Gas Storage/ Instantaneous Water Heater AGA Code AG 102 Space Heater AGA Code AG 103 Central Heater AGA Code AG 106 Fluorescent Ballasts AS 2643/IEC 921 Fluorescent Lamp CIE Publication 25 Motors AS 1359.6/IE 34.2

Canada The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has established testing protocols for all of the household appliances we are discussing in this paper. In most cases, the protocols are similar to the U.S. protocols for those products; therefore, we have not listed the Canadian protocols. For the purposes of this paper, we can say that the test protocols for refrigerators, clothes washers, clothes dryers and dishwashers are equivalent to the US test protocols. China In China, the State Technology Supervision Bureau (STSB) has established test protocols for refrigerators, clothes washers and room air conditioners. The refrigerator/freezer test procedures are similar to the U.S. procedures; the main difference being that the ambient temperature is 30C for the Chinese protocol rather than 32 C in the U.S. protocol. There are also test protocols for several other less energy intensive appliances such as fans, rice cookers and irons. For clothes washers and room air conditioners, the IEC and ISO test protocols have been somewhat modified

2-2 

### Table 2.2 Test Protocols for Australia
PRODUCT TEST PROTOCOL Refrigerators and freezers AS 2575.2 Dishwashers AS 2000 Clothes Washers AS 2040 Clothes Dryer AS 2442 Air Conditioners AS 1861.1 Electric Storage Water Heater AS 1056.4 & 

### NZS 4602,4606

. Gas Storage/ Instantaneous Water Heater AGA Code AG 102 Space Heater AGA Code AG 103 Central Heater AGA .code AG 106 Fluorescent Ballasts AS 2643lIEC 921 Fluorescent Lamp CIE Publication 25 Motors AS 1359.61lE 34.2

Canada 

### The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has established testing protocols for all ofthe household appliances we are discussing in this paper. In

### most cases, the protocols are similarto the U.S. protocols for those**products~** 

### therefore, we have not listed the Canadian protocols. For the purposes ofthis paper, we can say that the test protocols for refrigerators, clothes washers, clothes dryers and dishwashers are equivalent tothe US test protocols. 

### China In

### China, the State Technology Supervision Bureau (STSB) 

### has established test protocols for refrigerators, clothes washers and room air conditioners. The refrigerator/freezertest procedures are similarto the U.S. procedures; the main difference being that the ambient temperature is 30C for the Chinese protocol ratherthan 32 C in the U.S. protocol. There are also test protocols for several other less energy intensive appliances such as fans, rice cookers aneiirons. For clothes washers and room air conditioners, the IEC and ISO test protocols have been somewhat modified
2-2for use with Chinese models.

European Union - The European Union utilizes ISO (International Standards Organization) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) test protocols as the basis for European household product test protocols. Two European groups, CEN and CENELEC, develop European counterpart standards to the ISO and IEC standards. The CEN (European Normalization Comite) handles the ISO projects and the CENELEC (European Normalization Committee Electrotechnic) handles the IEC projects. The ISO has established test protocols for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and air conditioners. These protocols are the basis of protocols used by the European Union and other countries. These ISO protocols are both discussed below. Refrigerators and Freezers For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the ISO protocols (ISO, 1987 & 1988) are used as thebasis of the European protocol, EN 153. There are separate protocols for manual and autodefrost refrigerator-freezers. The tests are closed door with food loading. Depending upon the star rating, the inside cabinet temperature will vary. The test protocol for refrigerator-freezers is discussed in more detail below where various refrigerator-freezer protocols are compared Wet Appliances For wet appliances, dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers, IEC test protocols are used to measure energy consumption and in some cases performance (IEC 436, IEC 456 and IEC 1121, respectively). These protocols are discussed later in this chapter where the Australian, the North American and European protocols are compared. Air Conditioners For room air conditioners and mini-split systems with one indoor coil, the ISO standard ISO 5151 is used (ISO 5151, 1994). 'Table 2.3 shows the test conditions for determining cooling capacity. The COP of the air conditioner is obtained by dividing cooling capacity in Watts by input in Watts. There are options to rate at three different outdoor temperatures, 27 C, 35 C, and 46 C, as shown in Table 2.3 . For ducted heat pumps and air conditioners, a new standard is about to be released, ISO 13253. This new test protocol is appropriate to larger, central cooling and heating equipment

. As is the case for room air conditioners, the equipment is rated at a single rating condition but there is an option to use any of the same three rating conditions as are used for room air conditioners.

2-3 

### for use with Chinese models. European Union 

### The European Union utilizes ISO (International Standards Organization) and 

### mc (International Electrotechnical Commission) test protocols as the basis for European household product test protocols. Two European groups, CEN and CENELEC, develop European counterpart standards to the ISO and IEC standards. The CEN (European Normalization Comite) handles the ISO projects and the CENELEC (European Normalization Committee Electrotechnic) handles the IEC projects. The ISO has established test protocols for refrigerators,**refrigerator-freezers~** 

### freezers and air conditioners. These protocols are the basis ofprotocols used by the European Union and other countries. These ISO protocols are both discussed below. 

### Refrigerators and

### Freezers For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the ISO protocols (ISO, 1987 & 

### 1988) are used as the basis ofthe European protocol, EN 153. There are separate protocols for manual and autodefrost refrigerator-freezers. The tests are closed door with food loading. Depending upon the star rating, the inside cabinet temperature 

### will vary. The test protocol for refrigerator-freezers is discussed in more detail below where various refrigerator-freezer protocols are compared 

### WetAppliances For wet appliances, dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers, IEC test protocols are used to measure energy consumption and in some cases perfol1I1ance (IEC 436, 

## mc 456 arid 

## mc
. 1121, respectively). These protocols are discussed later 

### in this chapter where the Australian, the North American and European protocols are compared. 

### Air Conditioners Forroom air conditioners and mini-split systems with one indoor coil, the ISO standard ISO 5151 is used (ISO 5151, 1994). Table 2.3 shows the test conditions for determining cooling capacity. The COP ofthe air conditioner is obtained by dividing cooling capacity in Watts by input in Watts. There are options to rate at three different outdoor temperatures, 27 C, 35 C, and

## 46 C, as shown in Table 2.3. For ducted heat pumps and 

### air conditioners, a new standard is about to be released, ISO 13253. This new test protocol is appropriate to larger, central cooling and heating equipment. As is the case for room 

### air conditioners, the equipment is rated at a single rating conditionbutthere is an option to use 

### any ofthe same three rating conditions as are used for room 

### air conditioners.

2-3Table 2.3 Test Conditions for Rating Room Air Conditioners (ISO 5151)
Test Conditions Cool Moderate Hot Indoor Drybulb Temp. 21 C (70F) 27 C (80F) 29 C (85F) Indoor Wetbulb Temp. 15 (59F) 19 C (67F) 19 C (67 F) Outdoor Drybulb Temp. 27 C (80F) 35 C (95 F) 46 C (115 F) Outdoor Wetbulb Temp. 19 C (67F) 24 C (75 F) 24 C (75 F) Equipment with dual-rated frequencies must be tested at each frequency. For dual-rated voltage equipment, testing must be performed at both voltages or at the lower if only a single rating is published. Japan Japan has established testing procedures for all of the household appliances we are discussing in this paper. The Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS B 8608) for refrigerators/freezers is the most different from U.S or European protocols (see Table 2.5). It prescribes a certain quantity of door openings and also requires testing at two ambient temperatures (15 and 30C). In Table 2.5, the Japanese refrigerator standard is compared to those for other countries. The room air conditioner test protocol, JIS C 9612, is equivalent to the ISO test protocol for the cooling mode. There are also conditions established for heating capacity when the air conditioner is operated in the heating mode (see Table 2.4)

Table 2.4 Room Air Conditioner Test Conditions (JIS C 9612) (Units are in °C)
Test Conditions Cooling Heating, standard Heating, ' '

Low temperature Indoor Drybulb Temp. 27 20 20 Indoor Wetbulb Temp. 19

-- 12 Outdoor Drybulb Temp. 35 7 2 Outdoor Wetbulb Temp. 24 6 1

2-4 Table 2.3 Test Conditions for Rating Room Air Conditioners (ISO 5151)

Test Conditions Cool

. Moderate Hot IndoorDrybulb Temp. 21 C (70F) 27 C (80F) 29 C (85F) IndoorWetbulb Temp. 15 (59F) 19 C (67F) 19 C (67 F) OutdoorDrybulb Temp. 27 C (80F) 35 C (95 F) 46 C (115 F) OutdoorWetbulb Temp. 19 C (67F) 24 C (75 F) 24 C (75 F) Equipment with dual-rated frequencies must be tested at each frequency. For dual-rated voltage equipment, testing must be performed at both voltages or at the lower ifonly a single rating is published. Japan Japan has established testing procedures for all ofthe household appliances we are discussing in this paper. TheJapanese Industrial Standard (TIS B 8608) for refrigerators/freezers is the most
. different from U.S orEuropean protocols (see Table 2.5). It prescribes a certain quantity ofdoor openings and also requires testing at two ambient temperatures (15 and 30C). In Table 2.5, the

. Japanese refrigerator standard is compared to those for other countries. The room air conditioner test protocol, TIS C 9612, is equivalent to the ISO test protocol for the cooling mode. There are also conditions established for heating capacity when the 

### air conditioner is operated in the heating mode**(s~** Table 2.4)

Table 2.4 Room Air Conditioner Test Conditions (TIS C 9612) (Units are in °C)
Test Conditions Cooling Heating, Heating, standard Low temperature Indoor Drybulb Temp. 27 • 20 20 IndoorWetbulb Temp. 19 

## -- 12 OutdoorDrybulb Temp. 35 7 2 OutdoorWetbulb Temp. 24 

### 6 1

2-4Korea

Korea has established test procedures for several appliances, including refrigerator/freezers and air conditioners. They utilize the same protocols for these two products as described above for Japan.
Mexico Mexico has established test procedures for refrigerator/freezers, air conditioners, and motors. The test procedures are very similar to the U.S. test procedures ( discussed below) for these products.
Russian Federation Russia has established test procedures for refrigerators, boilers, fluorescent lamp ballasts and motors. We do not have any information on these test protocols.
United States The U.S. has established test procedures for all major household appliances. They can all be found in one document published by the US Department of Energy (CFR, 1995). Test protocols have also been established for lighting products and office equipment (See paper 2B). The U.S. test protocols are generally different from those established by the IEC or ISO. An exception is the microwave oven protocol which is based on the IEC 705 test protocol. Since it would take too much space to describe each test protocol, we will discuss some of the U. S. protocols in the context of comparing test protocols among nations and regions of the World. 2.2 Attempts to Harmonize Protocols North America Partially as a result of the NAFTA agreement among Canada, the U. S. and Mexico, Canada and the United States have recently entered into negotiations to harmonize test protocols for certain appliances, several meetings have already been held. At this time there are no official agreements between the two countries. As mentioned above, the U. S. and Mexico already use the same test procedure for refrigerator/freezers, room air conditioners and motors. Ultimately, it is expected that Mexico would take part in the discussions. European Union and Eastern Europe The European Community has succeeded in harmonizing test protocols for a number of appliances and is still working on others. They have been successful with refrigerator/ freezers, clothes washers and clothes dryers although, modifications to these protocols are still in progress. The European standardization bodies are CENELEC, Comite European de Normalization

2-5 Korea 

### 'Korea has established test procedures for several appliances, including refrigerator/freezers and air conditioners. They utilize the same protocols for these two products as described above for Japan. Mexico 

### Mexico has established test procedures for refrigerator/freezers, air 

### conditioners, and motors. The test procedures are very similarto the US. test procedures ( discussed below) for these products.
Russian Federation 

### Russia has established test procedures for refrigerators, boilers, fluorescent lamp" ballasts and motors. We do not have any information on these test protocols. UnitedStates 

### The US. has established test procedures for all major household appliances. They can all be found in one document published by the US Department ofEnergy (CFR, 1995). Test protocols have also been established for lighting products and office equipment (See paper 2B). The US. test protocols are generally different from those established by the IEC orISO. An 

### exception is the microwave oven protocol which is based on the IEC 705 test protocol. Since it

### would take"too much space to describe each test protocol, we will 

### discuss some ofthe US. protocols in the context ofcomparing test protocols among nations and regions ofthe World. 2.2 Attempts to Harmonize Protocols 

### North America Partially as a result ofthe NAFTA agreement among Canada, the US. and Mexico, Canada and the United States have recently entered into negotiations to harmonize test protocols for certain appliances, several meetings have already been held. At this time there are no official agreements between the two countries. As mentioned above, the U.S. and Mexico already use the same test procedure for refrigerator/freezers, room air 

### conditioners and motors. Ultimately, it is expected that Mexico would take part in the discussions. European Union and Eastern Europe The European Community has succeeded in harmonizing test protocols for a number of appliances and is still working on others. They have been successful with refrigerator/fi:eezers, clothes washers and clothes dryers although, modifications to these protocols are still in progress. The European standardization bodies are CENELEC, Comite European de Normalization

2-5Electrotechnique, and CEN, Comite European de Normalization. They base their standards on

international standards established by ISO and IEC. The European protocols are designated with the letters EN as a prefix. In Eastern Europe there have been efforts to harmonize test protocols for appliances. A meeting took place in Italy in December of 1994. A report is being prepared which will discuss the present status of test protocols with the ultimate goal of harmonization. These countries mostly use ISO or IEC protocols but some harmonization work is still needed. Under auspices of the ISO, air conditioner test protocols have been harmonized to some.extent among many nations. However, there are still differences between the US and Canadian test protocol and the ISO protocols (discussed below). 2.3 Impediments to Harmonization of Protocols There are several barriers to harmonization of test protocols across all countries. For electrical appliances, the supply current has different voltages and frequency (e.g., 120V and 60 HZ or 220V and 50 Hz) around the world, so testing is performed at these local electrical conditions. Appliance are manufactured to work at the local electrical conditions and must be tested according to the specified input requirements. Another factor influencing test protocols is climate, local conditions will affect the values of measurement parameters. For example, air conditioner test conditions vary with local climate conditions which are different around the world. Other products whose test protocol is affected by climate are heat pumps and furnaces. Characteristics of appliances influence the test protocols.. An example with refrigerator-freezers is the use of multiple doors in Japan, multiple freezer compartment temperatures in Europe and through-the-door features in the United States. Appliance usage also may enter into test protocol development; wash 'temperatures for dishwashers and clothes washers vary in different parts of the world; European temperatures tend to be higher than U.S. values. Several comparisons of test protocols will illustrate some of these impediments to harmonization of test protocols. Refrigerator

/ freezers For refrigerator/freezers, we have provided a table that compares some of the values of the main test parameters for five test protocols. This provides an example of the variance in approaches to measuring energy consumption for one appliance. The ISO protocol is used throughout Europe and the JIS protocol is used in Japan and Korea. The values in Table 2.5 are for three star refrigerator-freezers for the ISO and JIS test protocols.

2-6 Electrotechnique, and CEN, Comite European deNormalization. They base their standards on international standards established by ISO and IEC. The European protocols are designated with theletters EN as a prefix. InEastern Europethere have been efforts to harmonize test protocols for appliances. A meeting took place in Italy in December of 1994. A report is being prepared which will discuss the present status oftest protocols with the ultimate goal ofharmonization. These c9untries mostly use ISO or IEC protocols but some harmonization work is still needed. Under auspices ofthe ISO, air conditioner test protocols have been hannonized to some.extent among :nany nations. However, there are still differences between the US and Canadian test protocol and the ISO protocols (discussed below). 2.3 Impediments to Harmonization ofProtocols There are several barriers to harmonization oftest protocols across all countries. For electrical appliances, the supply current has different voltages and frequency (e.g., 120V and 60 HZ or 220Vand 50 Hz) aroundthe world, so testing is performed at these local electrical conditions. Appliance are manufactured to work at the local electrical conditions and must be tested according to the specified input requirements.
Another factor influencing test protocols is climate, local conditions will affect the values of measurement parameters. For example, air conditioner test conditions vary with local climate conditions which are different around the world. Otherproducts whose test protocol is affected by climate areheat pumps and furnaces. Characteristics ofappliances influence thetest protocols. An example withrefrigerator-freezers is the use ofmultiple doors in Japan, multiple freezer' compartment temperatures in Europe and through-the-door features in the United States. Appliance usage also may enter into test protocol development; wash'temperatures for

. dishwashers and clothes washers vary in different parts ofthe world;**Europe~** temperatures tend

to be higher than U.S. values. Several comparisons oftest protocols will illustrate some ofthese impediments to harmonization oftest protocols. Refrigerator/freezen
Forrefrigerator/freezers, we have provided a table that compares some ofthe values ofthe 

### main test parametersfor five test protocols. This provides an example ofthe variance 

### in approaches to measuring energy consumption for one appliance. TheISO protocol is used throughout Europe and the

## ns protocol is used in Japan and Korea. The values in Table 2.5 are for three star refrigerator-freezers for theISO and

## ns test protocols.

2-6Table 2.5 Refrigerator/Freezer Testing Protocols

Parameter ISO JIS US Australia/NZ China Ambient 25C 15&30C 32.2 C 32C . 30C Temperature Fresh Food 5 C 3 C 3.3 C 3 C 3 C Temperature Freezer -18C -18C -15C -t5C -18C Temperature Door No Yes No No No Openings Loading Yes No No No No

It can be seen that the U.S., Australian and Chinese protocols are similar to each other, with only small differences in the ambient and cabinet temperatures. As mentioned earlier, Canada and Mexico also use test protocols for refrigerator/freezers that are very similar to the U.S. protocol. On the other hand, the Japanese protocol (also used by Korea) is very different from the others in that measurements are taken at two ambient temperatures and later weighted to one final energy. use value. Additionally, the Japanese protocol is performed with a certain number of door openings. The ISO test protocol used throughout the EU is significantly different because of the lower ambient temperature. A recent paper compares several testing protocols for refrigerators (Bansal, 1994). Another paper, compares refrigerator and freezer efficiency standards among the US, Europe and Australia (Harrington, 1994). Since paper 2A discusses these issues in depth for refrigerators, they are not discussed any further here. Wet Appliances For dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers (wet appliances) we have compared Australian, international, and U. S. test procedures. We have compared four factors for the first two products, three of them are the same for each product type: normal wash temperature, usage in cycles per week, and use of a performance standard to measure how well the machine cleans dishes or clothes. Performance measurements are the most difficult to agree upon, manufacturers. and testing agencies often have different approaches to measuring the performance of dishwashers and clothes washers. Table 2.6 shows the wash temperature and usages for dishwashers. In the IEC test, incoming
2-7 

### Table 2.5 RefrigeratorlFreezer Testing Protocols
Parameter ISO TIS US AustraliaINZ China Ambient 25 C 15 & 

### 30 C 32.2C 32C 30C

.Temperature Fresh Food 5C 3C 3.3 C 3(:: 3C Temperature Freezer -18 C -18 C - 15 C

- t5 C -18 C Temperature Door No Yes No No No Openings Loading Yes No No No No

It can be seen that the U.S., Australian and Chinese protocols are similar to each other, with only small differences in the ambient and cabinet temperatures. As mentioned earlier, Canada and Mexico also use test protocols for refrigerator/freezers that are very similar to the U.S. protocol.

. On the other hand, the Japanese protocol (also used by Korea) is very different from the others in that measurements are taken at two ambient temperatures and later weighted to one final energy. use value. Additionally, the Japanese protocol is perfonned with a certain number ofdoor openings. The ISO test protocol used throughout the EU is significantly different because ofthe lower ambient temperature. Arecent paper compares several testing protocols for refrigerators (Bansal, 1994). Another paper, compares refrigerator and freezer efficiency standards among the US, Europe and Australia (Harrington, 1994). Since paper 2A discusses these issues in depth for refrigerators, they are not discussed any further here. • . WetAppliances 

### For dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers (wet appliances) we have compared Australian, international, and U.S. test procedures. We have compared four factors for the first two products, three ofthem are the same for each product type: normal wash temperature, usage in cycles per week, and use ofa perfonnance standard to measure how well the machine cleans dishes or clothes. Perfonnance measurements are the most difficult to agree upon, manufacturers. and testing agencies often have different'approaches to measuring the perfonnance ofdishwashers and clothes washers. Table 2.6 .shows the wash temperature and usages for dishwashers. In

### the IEC test, incoming
2-7water at 15`C is raised to an average of 65C by an internal water heater for European type

dishwashers with no hot water inlet. In the US/Canadian test protocol a water heater supplies hot water at 49C and an internal water heater provides some additional heat to bring the final temperature to about 60C. U. S. usage value will probably be lowered from 6.2 to 4.4 cycles per week to coincide with more recent consumer behavior. The Australian test procedure is the only dishwasher protocol of the three being compared that presently includes a performance test, it covers washing and drying performance. CENELEC, the European standards organization, is .expected to develop a European performance standard which they hope will make performance measurements internationally applicable. None of the U. S. test procedures contain performance measurements.

Table 2.6 Dishwasher Test Protocols
Protocol Wash Temperature °C Usage

(cycles/week) Performance

Standard Loaded/Soil

Australia 65 7.0 Yes Yes/Yes IEC 65 4.0 No Yes/Yes U.S. 60 6.2 No Yes/No

In the U.S. test protocol, kWh/cycle is calculated by taking the average of two measurements; one with electric drying and one without. Recently, adaptive control dishwashers have appeared on the market. These dishwashers sense the dirtiness of the load and adjust the water use to the load. Because clean dishes are used in the present US test procedure, it does not allow for proper energy use measurement of such models. On the other hand, the IEC and Australian protocols use soiled dishes and can be used to determine the energy efficiency of such models. The U.S. energy use metric is the inverse of kWh/cycle, the IEC energy use metric is kWh/setting and the Australian metric is kWh/yr. Table 2.7 shows the wash temperature and usage for clothes washers. For the IEC test protocol, there are two sets of two possible wash temperatures; the first set is from the existing protocol and the second set is the long-term proposal, which reflects the trend towards lower wash temperature in Europe. The IEC protocol also contains a performance test which the U. S. does not. The usage value for the U.S. protocol is likely to be reduced from 8.0 to 7.3 cycles per week in the future since more recent consumer behavior indicates that the existing usage value is too high. The Australian usage value is about twice as high as reported in one Australian statistical study. In Australia, there is also a credit for moisture removal which assumes a certain amount of clothes dryer use and clothes dryer efficiency. The U. S. test protocol may be revised to allow a
2-8 

### water at 15c

### C is raised to an average of65C by an internal water heater for European type dishwashers with no hot water inlet. In the US/Canadian test protocol a water heater supplies hot water at 49C and an internal water heater provides some additional heat to bring the final temperature to about 60C. U.S. usage value will probably be lowered from 6.2 to 4.4 cycles per week to coincide with more recent consumer behavior. The Australian test procedure is the only dishwasher protocol ofthe three being compared that presently includes a .performancetest, it covers washing and drying performance. CENELEC; the European standards organization, is .expected to develop aEuropean performance standard which they hope will 

### make performance measurements internationally applicable. None ofthe U.S. test procedures contain performance measurements.

Table 2.6 Dishwasher Test Protocols
Protocol Wash Temperature Usage Performance Loaded/Soil °C (cycles/week) Standard Australia 65 7.0 Yes Yes/Yes IEC 65 4.0 No Yes/Yes U.S. 60 6.2 No YesINo

In

### the U.S. test protocol, kWh/cycle is calculated by taking the average oftwo measurements; one with electric drying and one without. Recently, adaptive control dishwashers have appeared on the market. These dishwashers sense the dirtiness ofthe load and adjust the water use to the load. Because clean dishes are used in the present US test procedure, it does not allow for proper energy use measurement ofsuch models. On

### the other hand, the IEC and Australian protocols use soiled dishes and can be used to determine the energy efficiency ofsuch models. The U.S. energy use metric is the inverse ofkWh/cycle, the IEC energy use metric is kWh/setting and the Australian metric is kWh/yr. Table 2.7 shows the wash temperature and usage for clothes washers. Forthe IEC test protocol, there are two sets of two possible wash temperatures; the first set is from the existing protocOl and the second set is the long-term proposal, which reflects the trend towards lower wash temperature 

### in Europe. The IEC 

### protocol also contains a performance test which the 

### (!.S. does not. The usage value for the U.S. protocol is likely tobe reduced from 8.0 to 7.3 

### cyclesperweek in the future since more recent consumerbehaviorindicates that the existing usage value is 

### too high. The Australian usage value is about twice as high as reported 

### in one Australian 

### statistical study. In

### Australia, there is also a credit for moisture removal which assumes a

### certain amount of clothes dryer use and clothes dryer efficiency. The U.S. test protocol may be revised to allow a . 

### 2-8credit based on water retention after the spin cycle.

In the U. S'. protocol, water and energy consumption are both measured at maximum and minimum water fills and weighted with factors equal to 72 and 28%,respectively. There are also temperature use factors (TUFs) that weight the gallons of water use; these factors represent consumer behavior with respect to wash and rinse temperature settings

. For three temperature selection machines (where the rinse is always with cold water), the TUFs are 30, 55 and 15% for hot, warm and cold washes, respectively

. Three temperature selection machines are most common now in the U. S. The U. S: energy efficiency metric is in capacity (ft3)/kWh. For the European countries, kWh/kg is used as the efficiency metric.

Table 2.7 Clothes Washer Test Protocols
Protocol Wash Temperature Usage Remaining Performance °C (cycles/week) Moisture Standard Credit Australia 35 7.0 Yes Yes IEC 90 and 60 4.6. No Yes

(60 and 40)* U. S. 60 8.0 No+ No
* The long-term proposal for clothes washer test protocol is to lower the wash temperature to 60 C for cotton and 40 C for easy care clothes. + The US test protocol may be changed to credit washers with higher spin speed that can reduce the remaining moisture level. Clothes dryer test protocols are compared in Table 2

.8 for Australia, Europe, ( the IEC) and the U.S. The energy efficiency metric is kWh per kg in Australia and Europe and kWh per pound in the U

.S. In the U

.S. test procedure, a 7 pound (3.2 kg) load of clothes with a moisture content equal to 70% of the dry weight is the test load. Energy use is measured to reduce moisture content to 2.5 to 5% of dry weight and then scaled to zero percent of dry weight. In the IEC protocol, the final moisture content depends upon the type of test load and ranges from 0 to 18%.This energy use is multiplied by a field use factor of 1.18 for tuner activated termination of drying and 1.04 for automatic termination of drying

. In Australia, the field use factor is 1.10 for non-automatic models and 1 .0 for automatic termination models . The IEC protocol has no field use factor

. In the EEC protocol, the test load is proportional to drum size whereas in the North
2-9 

### credit based on water retention after the spin cycle. In the US. protocol, water and energy consumption are both measured at maximum and minimum water fills and weighted with factors equal to 72 and 28%,respectively. There are also temperature use factors (TUFs) that weight the gallons ofwater use; these factors represent consumer behavior with respect to wash and rinse temperature settings. Forthree temperature
. selection machines (where the rinse is always with cold water), the TUFs are 30,55 and 15% for hot, warm and cold washes, respectively. Three temperature selection machines are most common now in the US. The US: energy efficiency metric is in capacity (ft3)lkWh. 

### Forthe European countries, kWh/kg is used as the efficiency metric.

Table 2.7 Clothes Washer Test Protocols
Protocol Wash Temperature Usage Remaining Performance °C (cycles/week) Moisture Standard Credit Australia 35 7.0 Yes Yes IEC 90 and 60 4.6 No Yes (60 and 40)*

.US. 60 8.0 No+ No

til 

### The long-term proposal for clothes washer test protocol is to lowerthe wash temperature to 60 Cfor cotton and 40 C for easy care clothes. 

### +The US test protocol may be changed to credit washers with higher spin speed that**c~** 

### reduce the remaining moisture level. Clothes dryertest protocols are compared in Table 2.8 for Australia, Europe, (theIEC) and the

. U.S. The energy efficiency metric is kWh per kg in Australia and Europe and kWh perpound in the U.S. In the U.S. test procedure, a 7 pound (3.2 kg) load of**~lothes** 

### with a moisture content equal to 70% ofthe dry 

### weight is the test load. Energy use is measured to reduce moisture content to 2.5 to 5% ofdry weight and then scaled to zero percent ofdry weight. In

### the IEC**protoco~** 

### the 

### final moisture content depends uponthe type oftest load and ranges from 0to 18%.This energy use is multiplied by a field use factor of1.18 for timer activated**~ermination** 

### of drying and 1.04 for automatic termination ofdrying. In

### Australia, the field use factor is 1.10 for non-automatic models and 1.0 for automatic termination models. The IEC protocol has no field use factor. In the IEC**protoco~** 

### the test load is proportional to drum size whereas in the North 2-9American protocols the size of the test load depends upon whether the dryer is designated a

compact (< 125 liters) or a standard (> 125 liters). The test load is 1.36 kg for a compact and 3.2 kg for a standard-sized dryer Load size is very important.because it affects dryer energy efficiency. Table 2.8 Test Protocols for Clothes Dryers

Protocol Auto Termination Credit- Usage cycles/week Performance

Standard Australia Yes 7.0 Yes IEC No 3.4 Yes U. S. Yes 8.0 No

Air Conditioners For room air conditioners and central air conditioners, the international protocols (ISO 5151 and ISO 13253) are such that there are options to rate cooling efficiency at any of three outdoor temperatures. One (35 C) of the three outdoor drybulb temperatures is used by Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and the U.S. in their protocols. A major difference appears when protocols for central air conditioners are compared. The U. S. protocol uses a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) to rate central heat pumps and air conditioners. Several test points are needed to calculate the SEER whereas only one rating point is used in the international protocol. Therefore, these two protocols are not comparable for heat pump or central air conditioner efficiency ratings.
Other Products Test protocols for other appliances such as cooking products, water heaters and space heaters are mostly dependent on the characteristics and usage of those appliances in each country. Harmonization of those test protocols will generally be more difficult than for the previously. discussed appliances. The US test protocol for storage water heaters serves as an example for how distinct each countries protocol can be. Storage water heater ratings are based on US DOE tet protocols, in particular a 24 hour simulated use'test that involves six equal draws at one hour intervals, at a draw rate of 3 gallons per minute, for a total of 64.3 gallons. This test is used to determine standby heat loss, recovery efficiency and energy factor. The energy factor is considered to be a measure of overall efficiency with a typical load. The load will impact both total energy use and also the value of the energy factor. Microwave ovens are different from thes other products in that the same test procedure is used around the world (IEC 705, 1988). In 1993, the IEC amended that procedure. 2.4 Strategies to Introduce Comparability into Testing Protocols
2-10 

### American protocols the size ofthe test load depends upon whether the dryer is designated a compact 

## « 125 liters) or a standard (> 

### 125 liters). The test load is 1.36 kg for a compact and 3.2 kg for a standard-sized dryer Load size is very important.because it affects dryer energy efficiency. Table 2.8 Test Protocols for Clothes Dryers
Protocol Auto Termination Credit· Usage Performance cycles/week Standard Australia Yes 7.0 Yes IEC No 3.4 Yes U.S. Yes 8.0 No



### Air Conditioners For room air conditioners and central air 

### conditioners, the international protocols (ISO 5151 and ISO 13253) are such that there are options to rate cooling efficiency at any ofthree outdoor temperatures. One (35 C) ofthe three outdoor drybulb temperatures is used by Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and the U.S. in

### their protocols. Amajor difference appears when protocols for central air**condition~rs** 

### are compared. The U.S. protocol uses a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) to rate central heat pumps and air 

### conditioners. Several test points are needed to
. calculate the SEER whereas only one rating point is used 

### in the international protocol. Therefore, these two protocols are not comparable for heat pump or central air conditioner efficiency ratings. 

### OtherProducts Test protocols for other appliances such as cooking products, water heaters and space heaters are mostly dependent on the characteristics and usage ofthose appliances in each country. Harmonization ofthose test protocols will 

### generally be more difficult than for the previously. discussed appliances. The US test protocol for storage water heaters serves as an example for how distinct each countries protocol can be. Storage water heater ratings are based on US DOE tet protQcols, in particular a 24 hour simulated use test that involves six equal draws at one hour· intervals, at a draw rate of3 gallQns per minute, for atotal of64.3·gallons. This test is used to determine standby heat lQss, recovery efficiency and energy factor. The energy factor is considered to be 

### a measure ofoverall efficiency with atypical load. The load will 

### impact both total energyuse and also the value ofthe energy factor. Microwave ovens are different from thes otherproducts 

### in that the sametest procedure is used around the world(IEC 705, 1988). 

### In 1993, the IEC**am~nded** 

### that procedure. 

### 2.4 Strategies to Introduce Comparability into Testing Protocols
2-10The key to developing test protocols that are comparable among countries is continued

international cooperation. An example is room air conditioners, where the ISO protocol allows for a rating at one of three operating conditions. One of those conditions is the same as the condition used in the US test protocol. This sort of flexibility on rating conditions for climate sensitive products could provide an opening to require all countries to provide a rating for at least one specified operating condition and to also provide additional rating information if they wish. Ideally, one condition would be necessary and sufficient however, the wide variation in climate across the countries utilizing air conditioners makes it difficult to agree on the one set of operating conditions. Flexibility is also needed to allow for testing protocols that account for special features. This can be done by developing international protocols that include testing methodologies that measure energy used by features such as through-the-door ice makers on refrigerator-freezers and power drying cycles for dishwashers. Protocols must also be able to give credit for features that reduce energy use. An example for clothes washers is that higher spin speeds on the spin-dry cycle result in less remaining moisture in the clothes, which in turn results in lower dryer, energy use when the clothes are dried in a clothes dryer. It should be possible to convene protocol committees with the purpose of harmonizing testing protocols around the world. Participants at such meetings would include representatives from appliance manufacturers, government testing agencies and other experts. This will be a lengthy process but also one with a valuable end; products could more easily move•across borders with energy use or energy efficiency labels that are accepted in all countries

. Common test protocols would be a necessary step before harmonizing labels. Appliance manufacturers must be involved in this harmonization process and can be expected to support such a simplification process. Of course, the ease of movement across borders is also dependent upon harmonization of efficiency standards. However, without harmonized test protocols, standards harmonization is not possible. The key to developing test protocols that are comparaple among countries is continued _WJernational cooperation. An example is room air conditioners, where the ISO protocol allows for a rating'at one ofthree operating conditions. One ofthose conditions is the same as the condition used in the US test protocol. This sort offlexibility on**ratiI~g** conditions for climate sensitive products could provide an opening to require all countries to provide a rating for at least one specified operating condition and to also provide additional rating infonnation ifthey wish. Ideally, one condition would be necessary and sufficient however, the wide variation in climate across the countries utilizing air conditioners makes it difficult to agree onthe one set of operating conditions. Flexibility is also needed to allow for testing protocols that account for speciai features. This can be done by developing international protocols that include testing methodologies that measure energy used by features such as through-the-door ice makers on refrigerator-freezers and power drying cycles for dishwashers. Protocols must also be able to give credit for features that reduce energy use. An example for clothes washers is that higher spin speeds on the spin-dry cycle result in less remaining moisture in the clothes, which in tum results in lower dryer, energy use when the clothes are dried in a clothes dryer. It should be possible to convene protocol committees with the purpose ofharmonizing testing protocols around the world. Participants at such meetings would include representatives from appliance manufacturers, government testing agencies and other experts. This will be a lengthy process but also one with a valuable end; products could more easily move'across borders with energyuse or energy efficiency labels that are accepted in all countries. Common test protocols would be a necessary step before harmonizing labels. Appliance manufacturers must be involved

. 

### in this harmonization process and can be expected to support such a simplification process. Of**course~** the ease ofmovement across borders is also dependent upon harmonization ofefficiency standards. However, without harmonized test protocols, standards harmonization is not possible.

2-113. Survey of Performance Specifications

Introduction There a several types of energy performance specifications for appliances and other equipment. These include: labeling, efficiency standards, rebates and energy efficient procurement

. Because utility rebate programs, which typically offer the consumer a cash rebate for purchasing a product of a designated efficiency, are continually changing in terms of the products for which rebates are offered as well as the amount and timing of the rebates , such programs will not be discussed in this paper

. The other approaches are discussed below. Label There are several types of labels being used in various countries; they can be grouped into three categories: efficiency type labels, ecolabels (e.g., Green Seal) and efficiency seals of approval (e.g., Energy Star). This section describes the three types of labels and gives examples of their use. A number of countries use efficiency labels to allow consumers to compare different models of a type of similar product. An example would be a label for clothes washers that indicates the efficiency of a particular model of standard sized washer. Typically, the label will also show the efficiency or energy use of the least and most efficient models available for purchase. Some labels will also show the cost of operating that model over some time period, often one year. Eco type labels consider more than one aspect of a product; for example, in addition to energy use factors such as noise, waste disposal, and air and water emissions are also considered

. An example of such a label that is used in the United States (US) is the Green Seal (Green Seal, 1993). There are also labels that indicate that a product has met certain criteria but that do not show the degree by which the criteria were met. An example is Energy Star, this label which was developed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, indicates that a computer monitor reduces its standby power level when not in use for some fixed time period. Effi&n!gy Standard Efficiency standards can be either mandatory or voluntary in nature. They can be in the form of a minimum allowable efficiency or an average sales weighted value. A number of countries currently have minimum energy performance standards ( MEPS) or are in the process of developing them There are two approaches to developing MEPS; the statistical approach and the engineering/economics approach

. The former approach evaluates the present status of the marketplace for a product and then establishes standards that eliminate the least efficient models. The engineering

/economics approach assesses the costs of improving the efficiency of a particular product and establishes standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified. The statistical approach is often used when standards are first considered and the engineering approach is often used for updates and modifications to the initial standards (see Turiel, 1993 for details on methodology). Figure 3

. 1 illustrates the different approaches to standards setting. The

3-1 

### '3. Survey ofPerformance Specifications Introduction 

### There a several types ofenergy performance specifications for appliances and other equipment. These include: labeling, efficiency standards, rebates and energy efficient procurement. Because utility rebate programs, which typically offer the conSumer a cash rebate for purchasing aproduct ofa designated efficiency, are continually changing in terms ofthe products for which rebates are offered as well as the amount and timing 

### ofthe rebates, such programs will notbe discussed in this 

### paper. The other approaches are discussed below. Labeling There are several types oflabels being used invarious countries; they canbe grouped into three categories: efficiency type labels, ecolabels (e.g., Green Seal) and efficiency seals ofapproval (e.g., Energy Star). This section describes the three types oflabels and gives examples oftheir use. A number ofcountries use efficiency labels to allow consumers to compare different models ofa type 

### ofsimilar product. An example would be alabel for clothes washers that indicates the efficiency ofa particular model ofstandard sized washer. Typically, the label will also show the efficiency or energyuse ofthe least and most efficient models available for purchase: Some labels will also show the cost ofoperating that model over some time period, often one year. Eco type 

### labels consider more than one aspect ofa product; for example, in 

### additionto energyuse factors such as noise, waste disposal, and air 

### and water emissions are also considered. An example ofsuch a label that is used in the United States (US) is 

### the Green Seal 

### (Green Seal, 1993). There are also labels that indicate that aproduct has met 

### e;ertain criteriabut that do not show the degree by which the criteriawere met. An example is Energy Star; this label which was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, indicates that a computer monitor reduces its 

### standby power level when not in 

### use for some fixed time period. ' Efficiency Standards Efficiency standards canbe eithermandatory orvoluntary in

### nature. They canbe inthe form**~f**

### a minimum allowable efficiencY or an average sales weightedvalue. A number ofcountries currently have minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) or are in the process ofdeveloping them. There are two approaches to developing MEPS; the 

### statistical approach and the engineering/economics approach. The former approach evaluates the present status ofthe marketplace for a product and then establishes standards that eliminate the least efficientmodels. The engineering/economics approach assesses the costs ofimproving the efficiency ofa particuiar product and establishes standards that 

### are technologically feasible and economicallyjustified.**~** 

### statistical approach is 

### often

### used when standards are first 

### considered and the 

### engineering approach is 

### oftenused for updates and modifications to the 

### initial standards (see**Turie~**

### 1993 for details on methodology). Figure 3.1 illustrates the different approaches to standards setting. The


### 3-.1.J



# Top-Mount Auto. Defrost refrigerator
-Freezer

1600 . . . . . . . . 

# I

IT

AHAM 1989 ^--NAECA 1990 Std. --- 1993 Standard



### 600

400 I 

### 10 20 30



# Adjusted Volume (cat, ft.) 40 Q) 

# en ::> 

# > 0) 

# '"'" Q) 

# c 

# w



# - m 

## ::s 

## s::: s::: 

# <t • ·u....·· - • 

# Top-Mount Auto. Defrost Refrigerator-Freezer

1400

1200

1000

800

600 m

III II m

### e



### m m 

## 8 e

e
e .t:J



### m e e ee e**400+---~~~~~~--~~~~~~----~~4** 

## 10 20 30 

## 40 

# Adjusted Volume (cU. 

# ft.) Q AHAM 1989 NAECA 1990 Std. 1993 Standard1990 standard (solid line) was obtained through a consensus approach between manufacturers and

environmental groups; the net result of that approach is to eliminate about half of the models available in 1989. The engineering/economic approach was used to develop the 1993 standards (dashed line). It can be seen that when the 1993 standard was established in 1989, that there were no top-mount auto-defrost refrigerator-freezer models that met the 1993 standard. A statistical approach could never produce such a result as was obtained for the 1993 ' standards. The statistical approach however, has the advantage of being carried out much more quickly than the engineering/economic methodology. All that are required are current energy efficiency data on existing models of the appliance in question. Procurement Golden Carrot type procurement programs have been used in a number of countries; examples are technology procurement in Sweden and the Golden Carrot in the US. In such programs some group offers appliance or equipment manufacturers the opportunity to bid on the offering of a specified number of models at some specified efficiency greater than can be achieved by any existing products. All of the programs discussed above will be discussed in detail in the country and product-specific sections below. 3.1 Present Status of Labels, Efficiency Standards, and Procurement Programs Australia Energy efficiency type labels are presently required for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dryers, air conditioners and gas-fired space, and water heaters in Australia. Test procedures have been adopted for all of those products. In 1993, a study was commissioned by the SECV (State Electricity Commission of Victoria) to investigate the benefits and costs of minimum energy performance standards in Australia for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dryers, air conditioners and water heaters. The results and present status of each product type are discussed below. At this time, we are not aware of any procurement type programs. Refrigerators/freezers The 1993 study, which was mainly based on a statistical analysis, concluded that, for refrigerators and freezers, the benefits outweighed the costs and that standards should be enacted (Wlkenfeld, 1993). The final levels were negotiated among government local manufacturers and importers and are due for implementation throughout Australia in 1997. Table 3.1 shows the proposed Australian MEPS for refrigerators and freezers

. The standards are expressed as linear equations for each product class; the intercept and slope for each product class is found in Table 3.1. It is expected that the same performance levels will be adopted in New Zealand, which has essentially the same product range as Australia.

3-2 

### 1990 standard (solid line) was obtained through a consensus approach between manufacturers and**environm~nta1** 

### groups; the net result ofthat approach is to eliminate about half

### pfthe models available in 1989. The engineering/economic approach was used to develop the 1993 standards (dashed line). It can be seen that when the 1993 standard was established in 1989, that there were no top-mount auto-defrost refrigerator-freezer models that met the 1993 standard. A statistical approach could never produce such aresult as was obtained for the 1993" standards. The

. statistical approach however, has the advantage ofbeing carried out much more quickly than 

### the engineering/economic methodology. All that are required are current energy efficiency data 

### on existing models ofthe appliance in question. Procurement Golden Carrottype procurement programs have been used in anumber ofcountries; examples are technology procurement in Sweden and the Golden Carrot in the US. In 

### such programs some group offers appliance or equipment manufacturers the opportunity to bid on the offeripg ofa specified number ofmodels at some specified efficiency greater than 

### can be achieved by any existing products. All ofthe programs discussed above will 

### be discussed in detail in the country and product-specific sections below. 3.1 Present Status ofLabeis, Efficiency Standards, and ProcurementPrograms



### Energy efficiencytype labels are presently required for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dryers, air 

### conditioners and gas-fired space'and waterheaters in**Australia~** 

### Test procedureshave been adopted for all 

### ofthose products. In 

### 1993, a study

### was comnnssionedby the SECV (State Electricity Commission ofVictoria) to investigate the benefits and costs of minimum energy performance standards inAustralia for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dryers, air conditioners and water heaters. The results and present status ofeach producttype are discussed below. 

### At this time, we are not aware ofany procurement

# type programs. Refrigerators/freezers The 1993 study, 

### whichwas mainly

### based on a statistical analysis, concluded that, for refrigerators and freezers, the benefits outweighed the costs and 

### that standards shouldbe

### enacted (Wllkenfeltt 1993). The 

### final levels were negotiated among government local manufacturers and importers 

### and are due for implementation throughoutAustralia in 1997. Table 3.1 shows the proposed AustralianMEPS for refrigerators and freezers. The standards are expressed as linearequations for each product class; 

### the intercept and slope for each product class is 

### found in Table 3.1. 

### It is expected 

### that the same performance levels 

### will be adopted 

### inNewZealand, whichhas 

### essentially the same product range as 

### Australia.

3-2Table 3

. 1 Proposed Australian Refrigerator MEPS'
Australian Class Description Maximum Energy Use (kWh/yr) 1 All Refrigerator 368 + 0.892AV 2 Cyclic Defrost (1 dr) 300 + 0.728AV 3 Cyclic Defrost (ldr)* 330 + 0.800AV 4 Cyclic Defrost (2dr) 424 + 1.020AV 5T &5B T

-MB-M No frost

. 424 + 1.256AV 5S Side

-by-Side No frost 465 + 1.378AV 6C Chest freezer 248 + 0.670AV 6U Upright freezer 439 + 0.641AV 7 No frost freezer 439 + 1.020AV
Source: L. Harrington, Comparison of Household Refrigerator Efficiency Standards in the USA with those proposed for Australia and Europe , Informal paper at ACEEE Summer Study, Asilomar, CA, USA, August, 1994.
0 Class 5 units have an additional allowance of 120 kWh for a through

-the-door ice dispenser where provided

. An example illustrates how the MEPS is expressed

. For top

-mount refrigeratorfreezers, with no frost: E (kWh ) = 424 +1

.256*AV where AV, adjusted volume, is equal to the fresh food volume plus the freezer adjustment factor times the freezer volume in liters. Freezer adjustment factors are 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 for product class 2, product class 3, and product classes 4 through 7, respectively. See Chapter 2 for a

3-3 

### Table 3.1 Proposed AustralianRefrigeratorMEPS'
Australian Class Description MaximumEnergy Use (kWhlyr)
( 

### 1 All 

### Refrigerator 368 + 0.892AV 2 Cyclic Defrost (1 dr) 300 + 0.728AV 3 Cyclic Defrost (1dr)* 330 + 0.800AV 4 CyclicDefrost (2dr) 424 + 1.020A V 5T&5B T-MlB-M

### No frost· 424 + 1.256AV 5S Side-by-SideNo frost 465 

## -+ 1.378AV 6C Chestfreezer 248 + 0.670AV 6U 

### Upright freezer 439 + 0.641AV 7 No frost freezer. 439+ 1.020AV Source: L. 

### Harrington, Comparison ofHousehold RefrigeratorEfficiency Standards in

### the USA with those proposed for Australia and Europe, Informal paper at ACEEE Summer Study, Asilomar, CA, USA, August, 1994.

Class 5units have an additional allowance of120 kWhfor athrough-the-doorice dispenserwher.e provided. An 

### example illustrates how the MEPS is 

### expressed. Fortop-mount refrigeratorfreezers, with no frost:

. E (kWh) = 

### 424 +1.256*AV whereAV, adjustedvolume, 

### is equal tothefresh food volume plus the freezer adjustmentfactor times the freezervolume in 

### liters. Freezer adjustmentfactors are 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 for product class 2, product class 3, and product classes 4 through 7, respectively. See Chapter2 for 

### a
3-3discussion of adjustment factors.

Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers A study was performed to assess the. benefits and costs of imposing minimum energy performance standards on dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers (Wilkenfeld, 1993). This statistical approach to standards found small benefits from imposing standards; that is, the range of efficiencies for these products was such that the energy savings that would result from eliminating the least efficient models from the marketplace would be minimal. The report recommended standards for electric clothes dryers only, the recommendation was that annual energy use be given by: E (kWh) = 129 + 113. 3x (kg of nominal load)
The federal government has not acted on this recommendation. Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Air conditioners were evaluated in the Wilkenfeld report but standards were not recommended at this time. Water Heaters The same study cited above assessed electric water heaters. A heat loss standard was recommended but not acted upon by the Australian government. For electric storage water heaters of 80 liters and greater, the Wilkenfeld report recommended that the heat loss limit be lowered to 55% of the values in the existing, but non-mandatory Australian standard. This would correspond to about 75 mm of foam insulation. The present thickness ranges from 25 to 32 mm. For tanks of less than 80 liters, it was recommended that the heat loss limit be lowered to 70% of the existing standard. Industry has requested a limit of 100%, which would have a minor impact since there are models with a heat loss of 110 to 120% of the limit.
Canada


## s Since 1978, manufacturers have been required to place energy consumption labels on refrigerators, freezers, ranges, dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers

. In March of 1994, proposed regulations concerning the new modified EnerGuide label were published in the Canada Gazette. The new label shows energy use in kWh per year and the range of energy use for similar models of the product. In addition to EnerGuide labels, there is also a seal of approval type

3-4 

### discussion ofadjustment factors.
Dishwashers) Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers A study

### was performed to assess the benefits and costs ofimposing minimum energy performance standards on dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers (Wtlkenfeld, 1993). This statistical approach to standards found small benefits from imposing standards; that is) the range of efficiencies for these products was such that the energy savings that would result from eliminating the least efficient models from the marketplace would be minimal. The report recommended standards for electric clothes dryers only; the recommendation was that annual energy use be given by: E (kWh) 

### = 129 

### + 113.3x (kg 

### ofnominal load)

The federal government has not acted onthis recommendation. Air 

### Conditioners and HeatPumps Air 

### conditioners were evaluated in 

### the Wtlkenfeld report but standards were not recommended at 

### this time. Water Heaters The same study

### cited above assessed electric waterheaters. Aheat loss standard was recommended butnot acted upon by the Australian government. For electric storage water heaters of80 liters and greater) the Wtlkenfeld report recommended that**~e** 

### heat loss limitbe lowered to 55% ofthe values in 

### the existing) but non-mandatory Australian standard. This would correspond to about 75 mm offoaminsulation. The present thickness ranges from 25"to 32 mm. Fortanks 

### oflessthan 80 liters) it was recommended that the heat loss limit be lowered to 70010 of the existing standard. Industry has requested a limit of10(010) which would have a minor impact

. since there are models with 

### a heat loss of110 to 120010 ofthe limit.

Labeling 

### Since 1978, manufacturers havebeenrequired toplace energy consumption labels on refrigerators, freezers, ranges, dishwashers, clothes 

### washers, and clothes dryers. In

### Marchof " 1994, proposed regulations concerning the new modifiedEnerGuide label were published 

### in the 

### Canada Gazette. The new label shows energy use 

### in kWh per

### year and the range ofenergy usefor 

### similarmodels ofthe product. In 

### addition to

### EnerGuide labels, there is also a 

### seal ofapproval type

3-4label promoted by Power Smart, a Vancouver-based consortium of utilities and energy agencies in

Canada, the U. S., the Caribbean and Eastern Europe. Standards During the last several years, the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Ontario, established efficiency standards that applied to products sold within their borders. On January 1, 1993, the energy Efficiency Act came into force empowering Natural ResourcesCanada (NRC) to regulate the minimum energy efficiency of prescribed energy-using productsthat are commercially shipped across provincial borders or imported into Canada. In 1995 NRC regulations for the following twenty products became law: refrigerators, freezers, clotheswashers, dishwashers, dryers, gas and electric ranges and ovens, four types of heat pumps (airsource split and single systems, ground and water source, and internal water loop) gas fi naces, split system and single package central air conditioning systems, room air conditioners, oil, gas, and electric water heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and electric motors of greater than one horsepower. A recent draft of a guide to energy efficiency regulations contains more information on these standards (Guide, 1995). The Canadian energy efficiency standards are being harmonized with US efficiency standards. For appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers and dishwashers, this has already been accomplished. The Canadian efficiency standards will not be described here since they are essentially the same as the US standards for similar products. 

### China At this time, there is no labeling program for Chinese appliances. China has established minimum energy performance standards for refrigerators, clothes washers and room air conditioners. Work is underway to revise the standards for refrigerators and air conditioners. There are also efficiency standards for less energy intensive appliances such as fans, rice cookers and irons. Refrigerators/Freezers China has minimum efficiency standards that have eliminated particularly inefficient models fromthe market. The standards vary as a function of unit size.. For a 180 to 209 liter refrigeratorfreezer, energy use must be less than or equal to 1.3 kWh per day (475 kWh/yr) when tested at an ambient temperature of 27 C (STSB, 1989a). The Chinese State Technology Supervision (STSB) has begun to develop a new minimum efficiency standard for refrigerators

. The project is expected to take three years (Nadel, 1995). Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers China presently has efficiency standards for clothes washers. Although most of the energy for washing clothes is to heat water, China has a standard for washer electricity use. For a two-tube

3-5 

### label promoted by Power Smart, a Vancouver-based consortium ofutilities and energy agencies in Canada, the U.

### S., the Caribbean and Eas.temEurope. Standards During 

### the 

### last several years, the provinces ofBritish Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia,

.and Ontario, established efficiency standards mat applied to products sold within theirborders. On 

### January 1, 1993, the energyEfficiency Act came into force empowering Natural Resources Canada (NRC) to regulate the minimum energy efficiency ofpres'?ribed energy-using products· that are commercially shipped across provincial borders or imported into Canada. In 

### 1995 NRC regulations for the following twenty productsbecame law: refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, dryers, gas and electric ranges and ovens, four types ofheat pumps (airsource split and single systems, ground and water source, and internal water loop) gas furnaces, split system and single package central air conditioning systems, room air conditioners, oil, gas, and electric water heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and electric motors ofgreater than one horsepower. A recent draft 

### ofa guide to energy efficiency regulations contains more information onthese standards (Guide, 1995). The Canadian energy efficiency standards are being harmonized with US efficiency standards. For appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers and dishwashers, this 

### has already

### been accomplished. The Canadian efficiency standards will not 

### be described here since they are essentially the same as the US standards for 

### similarproducts. 

### Citi"" Atthis time, there 

### is no labeling program for Chinese appliances. China 

### has established minimum

. energy performance standards for refrigerators, clothes washers and room air conditioners. Work is 

### underway to revise the standards for refrigerators and air**condition~rs**

### ..There are also efficiency standards for less energy intensive appliances such as 

### fans, rice cookers and irons. RefrigeratorslFreezers China 

### has minimum efficiency standards that have eliminated particularly inefficient models from the market. The standards vary as a function ofunit 

### size

.. For a 180 to 209 literrefrigeratorfreezer, energyuse must

### be less 

### than orequal to 1.3 kWhperday (475 kWblyr) when tested at

### an ambienttemperature of27 C (STSB, 1989a). The Chinese State Technology Supervision (STSB) has begun

### to develop 

### anew minimum efficiency standard for refrigerators. The project is expected

### totakethree

### years (Nadel, 

### 1995)

.

. Dishwashers, ClothesWashers and ClothesDryers Chinapresently 

### has efficiency standards for clothes washers. Although most

# ofthe energy for washing clothes is 

### toheat water, China has a standard for washer electricityuse. For a

### two-tube

3-5washer with an automatic wash/rinse cycle control, the maximum energy use is 32 Wh/kg of

clothes. For an automatic washer, the maximum energy use is 38 Wh/kg (STSB, 1989b). Twotube machines consist of one bin for washing the clothes and a second for spinning the. clothes to extract excess water prior to drying. Clothes must be manually transferred from one bin to the other. Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Air conditioning is a major new electricity use for those households that can afford it. China has minimum energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners and for split system units. The standards require a coefficient of performance (COP) of 2.20-2.32 for window units (depending on cooling capacity) and 2.30-2.44 for split system units (STSB, 1989c). In the'early 1990s, a proposal was made to raise China's minimum COP for room air conditioners to 3.1. That proposal was not accepted at that time. China is now reconsidering modified standards, for room air conditioners. Eastern Europe The countries of Eastern Europe recently (December of 1994) held a meeting to review the status of labeling systems and energy efficiency standards in the European Union (EU) and in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (BCE, 1995). In some CEE countries, they are modifying their standards systems in close relation to those of the EU as part of the preparatory process for entering as full members of the EU from their current Associate Member status. Other countries are evaluating the U. S. standards and still others are cooperating with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Some representatives of countries pointed out that standards could be used as a barrier to international trade in contravention. to the General Agreement to Trade and Tariffs (GATT). A report will be written which concentrates on refrigerators and freezers and shows how their efficiency can be enhanced through the introduction of labels, standards, and certification schemes. Some of the countries presently working on development of labeling systems and efficiency standards are the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania. In the Czech Republic, labels for refrigerators and clothes washers have already been developed. European Union In 1986, the Council of Ministers of the European Communities adopted the goal of improving end-use energy efficiency by 20'/ o before 1995

. However, in 1988 and 1990, surveys of initiatives taken by member states revealed that this objective could not be fulfilled unless more effective programs were established

. In 1989, the Council adopted the PACE program, an action plan for the efficient use of energy, which includes energy labeling and the introduction of efficiency standards on household appliances

. During the same year, the EC established an objective to stabilize the emission of CO2 at its 1990 level by the year 2000.

3-6 

### washer with an automatic wash/rinse cycle control, the maxiinum energy use is 32 WhIk:g 

### of clothes. For an automatic washer, the maximum energy use is 38 Wh/kg 

### (STSB, 1989b). Twotube machines consist ofone bin for washing the clothes and a second for spinning the,clothes to extract excess water prior to drying. Clothes must be manually transferred from one bin to the other. Air Conditioners and HeatPumps Air conditioning is a major new electricity use for those households that can afford it. 

### Chinahas minimnm**~nergy** 

### efficiency standards for room air conditioners and for split system units. The standards require a coefficient ofperformance (COP) of2.20-2.32 for window units (depending on cooling capacity) and 2.30-2.44 for split systemunits (STSB, 1989c). In the'early 

### 199Os, a proposal was made to raise China's minimum COP for room air**conditione~s** 

### to 3.1. That proposal was not accepted at that time. China is now reconsidering modified standards.for room air conditioners. 

### Eastern Europe The countries ofEasternEurope recently (December of 1994) held a meeting to review the status oflabeling systems and energy efficiency standards inthe European Union (EU) and in 

### Central**~d** 

### EasternEuropean (CEE) countries (ECE, 1995). In some CEE countries, they are modi1Ying their standards systems in close relation to those ofthe EU as part ofthe preparatory process for entering as full members ofthe EDfrom their current Associate Member status'. Other countries are evaluating the U.

### S. standards and 

### still others are cooperating with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Some representatives ofcountries pointed out that standards couldbe used as abarrierto international trade in contravention,tothe General Agreement to Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Areport will 

### be written which concentrates on refrigerators and freezers and shows how their efficiency can be enhanced through the introduction oflabels, standards, and certification schemes. Some ofthe countries presently working on development oflabeling systems and efficiency standards are the CzechRepublic, Poland and Romania. Inthe Czech Republic, labels for refrigerators and clothes washers have already been developed. 

### European Union

, In 

### 1986, the Council of Ministers ofthe European Communities adopted the goal ofimproving

. end-use energy efficiencyby 20010 before 1995. However, 

### in 1988 and 1990, surveys ofinitiatives takenby member states revealed that

### this objective could not

### be fulfilled unless more effective

. programs were established. In 1989, the Council adopted the PACE program, an action plan for the efficientuse ofenergy, which includes energy 

### labeling and the introduction ofefficiency standards onhousehold appliances. During

### the sameyear, theEC established an objective to 

### stabilize the emission ofCO2 

### at its 1990 level by theyear 2000.

3-6In 1991, the French Agency for Energy Management (AFME now ADEME) performed an

analysis of the European appliance market for the Directorate General for Energy (DGXVII) of the Commission of the European Community. This study estimated the electricity savings that would be derived from energy efficiency standards for five residential appliances; refrigerators; freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers (Lebot, 1991). Since the greatest energy savings would come from standards for refrigerators and freezers, member countries first focused their attention on these products. Labeling for refrigerators and freezers has been established for the EU. Refrigerators/

Freezcrs In January, 1992, the Commission received a notification from the Netherlands that it intended to introduce mandatory efficiency standards for refrigerators sold in their country. The Commission suspended this initiative because it represented a potential barrier to free trade in the Community. The Commission indicated that it intended to establish a Community-wide proposal for standards for refrigerator/freezers. As a result of the Netherlands proposal, the Group for Efficient Appliances (GEA) was asked to perform a study of energy efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers in the EU. GEA carried out this work under contract from the Directorate General for Energy of the Commission of the European Communities (CEC-DG XVII). In their report, they recommended energy efficiency standards for short term (1995-1997) and long-term (1999-2001) implementation (GEA, 1993). The short term standards were designed to achieve a 10% or 15% reduction in energy consumption relative to units available at the time of the study. Table 3.2 shows the recommended standards for a 10% reduction in energy use. For each appliance category defined, standards were expressed as a linear equation relating the maximum allowed energy consumption to a volume parameter, called the adjusted volume (AV). The adjusted volume, measured in liters, is employed to take into account the different temperature zones found within refrigeration appliances. Under the proposed system, refrigeration appliances with energy consumption greater than the maximum consumption given by the linear equation would be prohibited from the market. Short term energy standards were developed using a statistical analysis of data on refrigeration appliances available in European Community member states

. These data include specifications on 3771 refrigeration appliances available in 8 EC countries, or approximately 75% of all units available on the EC market. Long

-term standards were based upon an engineering study of what was technically feasible and economically attractive. The results of that study were that energy savings of 38 to 55% were possible relative to existing models.

3-7 In 

### 1991, the French Agency for Energy Management (AFME now ADEME) performed an 

### analysis ofthe European appliance**marke~** 

### for the Directorate General for Energy (DGXVTI) 

### of the Commission ofthe European Community. This study 

### estimated the electricity savings that would be 

### derived from energy efficiency standards for five residential appliances; refrigerators; freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers (Lebot, 

### 1991). Since the greatest energy savings would come from standards for refrigerators and freezers, member countries first 

### focused their attention on these products. Labeling for refrigerators and freezers has 

### been established for the EU. 

### Refrigeraton/Fr«urs In

### January, 1992, the Commission received a notification from the Netherlands that it intended to introduce mandatory efficiency standards for refrigerators sold in their country. The Commission suspended this initiative because it represented apotential barrier to free trade inthe Community. The Commission indicated that it intended to establish a Community-wide proposal for standards for refrigerator/freezers. As 

### aresult ofthe Netherlands proposal, the Group for Efficient Appliances (GEA) 

### was asked to perform a study 

### ofenergy efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers in the EU. GEA

### carried outthis workunder contract from the Directorate General for Energy ofthe Commission ofthe European Communities (CEC-DGXVll). In

### their report, theyrecommended energy efficiency standards for short term (1995-1997) and long-term (1999-2001) implementation (GEA, 

### 1993). The short term standards were designed to achieve a 10010 or 15% reduction in energy consumptionrelative to units available at the time of the study. 

### Table 3.2 shows the recommended standards for a 10010 

### reduction in energyuse. For each appliance category defined, standards were expressed as a

### linear equation relating the maximum allowed energy consumption to avolume parameter, called the adjustedvolume (A V). 

### The adjusted volume, measured in liters, is 

### employed to take into account the different temperature zones found 

### within refrigeration appliances. Underthe proposed system, refrigeration appliances with energy consumptiongreaterthan 

### the maximum consumption given by

### the 

### linear equationwould be prohibited from the market. Shortterm energy standards were developed using 

### a statistical 

### analysis ofdata 

### onrefrigeration appliances available inEuropean Communitymember states. These data 

### include specifications:on 3771 refrigeration appliances available in 8EC 

### countries, orapproximately 75% ofallunits available ontheEC market. Long-term standards werebasedupon an**engin~** study

### ofwhat was 

### technically feasible and economically attractive. The results ofthat study

### were that 

### energy savings 

### of38to 55% were possible relative to existing 

### models.

3-7Table 3.2: Recommended alternatives for short-term minimum efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers in European Union

Code Category

FFC: Frozen Food Compartment C max= Maximum Energy Consumption Allowed

(kWh/yr) 10% "Standard Rl Ref- 1 Star FFC AV * 0.599 + 178. R2 Ref

- 2 Star FFC AV * 0.437 + 238 R3 Ref- 3 Star FFC AV * 0.616 + 221 R4 Ref- 4 Star FFC AV * 0.778 + 303 R5 Ref- Chiller AV * 0.225 + 237 R6 Other Refrigerators AV * 0.225 + 237 F1 Chest Freezers AV * 0.519 + 211 F2 Upright Freezers AV * 0.478 + 289 For all appliances except no-frostmodels, energy consumption is determined by testing procedure EN 153. For no-frostappliances, energy consumption is determined by testing procedure ISO/DP 8561. For no-frost models, multiply Cmax by 1.35 to obtain Cmax no frost.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union just released a draft directive (3 years after the original Dutch notification) for minimum energy efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers. The directive uses the 10% savings lines defined by the GEA study but delays implementation until 2000. There is no fixed commitment to introduce new standards later, instead there is an inexact statement pledging a review of the standards within four years of their coming into effect. There is no mention ofstandards based on an engineering type approach; thus, most of the recommendations of the GEA report have been ignored or, weakened. This proposal is going to go before the Council of Energy Ministers for their approval and then on to the European parliament (either of which may reject the proposal or demand revisions). As of January 1995, mandatory labeling for refrigerator/freezers was approved. The label provides energy use information and has an energy efficiency scale from A to G and an arrow pointing to the efficiency bin in which the model lies. A is most efficient and G is least. The energy testing is performed by manufacturers and, as in the US, there is no provision for independent testing.

3-8 

### Table 3.2: Recommended alternatives for short-term minimum efficiency standards for refrigerator/fre-ezers in

### European Union

Code Category C max=

### Maximum FFC: FrozenFood Energy Consumption Allowed Compartment**(kWhlyr~** 

### 100/0

. Standard R1 Ref- 1StarFFC AV 

## *0.599 

### + 178. R2 

### Ref- 2 StarFFC AV 

## *0.437 

### +238 R3 

### Ref- 3 StarFFC AV 

## *0.616 

### +221 R4 Ref- 4 StarFFC AV 

## *0.778 

### +303 R5 

### Ref- Chiller AV 

## *0.225 

### +237 R6 OtherRefrigerators AV 

## *0.225 

### +237 F1 Chest Freezers AV 

## *0.519 

### +211 F2 Upright Freezers AV 

## *0.478 

### +289 

### Forallappliances exceptno-frostmodels, energy consumption isdeterminedby testing procedureEN153. 

### Forno-frostappliances, energy consumption isdeterminedby testing procedureISOIDP 8561.

. . 

### Forno-frostmodels, multiply Cmax by 1.35

### to obtain Cmax nofrost.

The EuropeanParliament and the Council ofthe EuropeanUnionjustreleased a dmft 

### directive (3 

### years after the original Dutch notification) for minimnm energy efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers. The directive uses the 100/0 savings lines defined by the GEA studybut· delays implementationunti12000. There is 

### no fixed commitment to introduce new standards later, instead there is 

### an inexact statementpledging 

### areview ofthe standards within fouryears oftheir coming 

### into effect. There is 

### no mention ofstandards based on an engineering type 

### approach; thus,. most ofthe recommendations ofthe GEAreporthave been ignored orweakened. This proposal is 

### going to go before the Council ofEnergyMinisters for their approval and then on to the Europeanparliament (either ofwhichmayrejectthe proposal or demand revisions). As 

### ofJanuary 

### 1995, mandatory labeling for refrigerator/freezers was approved. The label provides energy

### use information and has an energy efficiency scale fromA to G and an arrow pointing to 

### the efficiencybin inwhichthe model lies. A is most efficient and G is least. The energytesting is performed by mamJfacturers and, as in the US, there is 

### no provision for independent testing.

3-8

"Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers

During August of 1994, the Danish Energy Agency published a notification to the Commission that it intended to establish efficiency standards for clothes washers and dishwashers. As was the case for refrigerator/freezers, the Commission has 12 months to respond to Denmark's request. The standards are based on a statistical study of the Danish market for these two products. For dishwashers, there are standards for compact ( less than 10 settings) and standard sized models (GEA, 1994). Since there is presently no internationally accepted washing performance standard for dishwashers, there is no performance requirement associated with the efficiency standard. A European performance standard is expected later this year. For clothes washers, the efficiency standard is in units of kWh per kilogram of wash load. Washing performance is measured by requirements established by the Consumer Agency of Denmark and the Danish Energy Agency. The European Union (EU) will soon have a voluntary environmental label for dishwashers and clothes washers. All models that meet the EU environmental label requirements will also meet the Danish efficiency standard. The test procedure used for dishwashers is IEC 436 issued by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. The efficiency standard for dishwashers is as follows: for compacts, the maximum energy use per wash is 0.2 + 0.135x number of settings; for standard models, the maximum energy use per wash is 0.132 kWh per setting. For clothes washers, the test protocol to be used is EEC 456, issued by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization and further established in EN 60456. The wash temperature is 90 C. When the standard is revised in the future, any recognized European test protocol which may exist in 1995 for other washing conditions (including washing at 60 C) will be incorporated to the degree necessary. The maximum allowable energy use is either 0.41 kWh per kgm of wash load or 0.55 kWh per kgm of wash load, if the loading when testing consists of 1 kgm of washing per 13 liters of drum volume.

Japan Japan has a labeling requirement for refrigerators and freezers that requires monthly energy consumption to be displayed

. Japan is considering labels for many other types of appliances such as air conditioners, color televisions, washing machines, microwave ovens, clothes dryers, water heaters, space heaters and lighting equipment . They also have established voluntary target efficiency standards for air conditioners, fluorescent lamps, copiers and televisions. Refrigerators and freezers were excluded because their efficiency was felt to have improved sufficiently and

3-9 

### Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers During 

### August of 1994, the DanishEnergy Agency published a notification to the Commission that 

### it intended to establish efficiency standards for clothes washers and dishwashers. As 

### was the case for refrigerator/freezers, the Commission has 

### 12months to respond.to Denmark's request. The standards are based on a statistical study 

### ofthe Danish market for these two products. For dishwashers, there are standards for compact ( less than 

### 1 0 settings) and standard sized models (GEA, 1994). Since there is 

### presently no internationally accepted washing performance standard for dishwashers, there is 

### no performance requirement associated withthe efficiency standard. A European performance standard is expected laterthis year. For clothes washers, the efficiency standard is inunits ofkWh per kilogram ofwash load. Washing performance is 

### measuredby requirements established by the Consumer Agency ofDenmark and the DanishEnergy Agency. The EuropeanUnion (EU)

### \Vill 

### soon have avoluntary environmenta11abel for dishwashers and clothes washers. All models that 

### meetthe ED environmenta11abel requirements \Vill 

### also meetthe Danish efficiency standard. The test procedure used for dishwashers is IEC 436 issued by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization. The efficiency standard for dishwashers is as follows: for compacts, the maximum. energyuse perwashis 0.2 

### +0.135x number ofsettings; for standard models, the maximum. energyuse perwash is 

### 0.132 kWh per setting. For clothes washers, the testprotocol tobe used is 

### IEC 456, issued by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization and further established inEN 60456. The wash temperature is 

### 90 C. Whenthe standard is revised in the future, any recognized European test protocol which may exist in 1995 for other washing conditions (including washing at 60 C) \Vill 

### be incorporated to the degree necessary. The maximum allowable energy use is either 0.41 kWh per kgm 

### ofwash load or0.55 kWh per kgm ofwash load, if

### the loading when testing consists of 1kgm 

### ofwashing per 13 liters ofdrum 

### volume.



### Japan Japan has 

### alabeling requirement for refrigerators and freezers that

### requires monthly energy consumptionto be

### displayed. Japan is 

### considering labels for many othertypes ofappliances such as air

### conditioners, colortelevisions, washing machines, microwave ovens, clothes dryers, water heaters, space heaters and lighting 

### equipment. They also have established voluntary target efficiency standards for air 

### conditioners, fluorescent lamps, copiers and televisions. Refrigerators and freezers were excluded because their efficiency was felt to have improved sufficiently and

3-9also because a changeover from CFCs to HCFCs in insulation and refrigerant is in progress and

substitutions will affect energy efficiency. After the CFC replacement occurs, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (NIITI) will decide whether to develop new efficiency standards for refrigerators

. The present Japanese efficiency standards are official regulations but no penalty is indicated for not meeting the standards . Although the standards are not mandatory, the issue of voluntary versus mandatory standards is probably moot because usually all manufacturers can meet the standard level eventually chosen by negotiation between manufacturers and industry . In accordance with their Energy Conservation Law the government will also encourage energy efficient appliances by giving awards to exceptional products. Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Manufacturers and importers who provide air conditioners to the Japanese market should ensure that the harmonic mean value of the energy consumption efficiency of each model as weighted by the shipped quantity ("weighted harmonic mean value") will not exceed the target value indicated below in 1998

. Table 3

.3 shows the target values of heating/cooling combination type air conditioners is for both cooling COP and heating COP. There are two cases shown; the left column shows separate COPS for heating and cooling and the right column shows a combined target value

. The rate of improvement from 1992 to 1998 is 5-6%.

Table 3

.3 Target Values of Combination Air Conditioners
Division Cooling COP Cooling COP+Heating COP Heating COP divided by 2 (heating /cooling (heating/cooling control) mean control Utilized type of cooling 2.19 2.33 capacity 4kw and less 2.38 Separate type of cooling 2.67 2.97 capacity 4kw and less 3.20 Cooling capacity over 4kw to 2.34 2.50 7.1 kw 2.56 Cooling capacity over 7.1 kw 2.45 2.59 2.62

3-10 

### also because a changeover from CFCs to HCFCs in**~tion** 

### and refrigerant is in progress and .substitutions will 

### affect energy efficiency. After the CFC replacement occurs, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (WTI)

### will 

### decide whether to develop new efficiency standards for refrigerators. The present Japanese efficiency standards are official regulations but no penalty is 

### indicated for not meeting the standards. Althoughthe standards arenot mandatory, the issue of voluntaryversus mandatory standards is probably moot because usually all 

### manufacturers can meetthe standard level eventually chosenby negotiationbetween manufacturers and industiy. In 

### accordance with theirEnergy ConservationLaw the government will 

### also encourage energy efficient appliances by giving 

### awards to exceptional products. Air 

### Conditioners and HeatPumps Manufacturers and importers who provide air 

### conditioners to the Japanese market should ensure that the harmonic mean value ofthe energy consumption efficiency ofeach model as weighted by the shipped quantity (''weighted harmonic meanvalue") will 

### not exceed the target value indicated below in 1998. Table 3.3 shows the target values ofheating/cooling combination type 

### air 

### conditioners is 

### for both cooling COP and heating COP. There are two cases'shown; the left column shows separate COPs for heating and cooling and the right column shows a combined targetvalue. The rate ofimprovement from 1992 to 1998 is 5-6%.

Table 3.3 TargetValues ofCombination Air 

### Conditiofters
Division Cooling COP Cooling COP+Heating COP' Heating COP divided by 2 (heating/cooling (heating/cooling control) mean control Utilized type ofcooling 2.19 2.33 capacity 4kw and less 2.38 Separate type ofcooling 2.67 2.97 capacity 4kw and less 3.20 Cooling capacity over4kw to 2.34 2.50 7.1 kw 

### 2.56 Cooling capacity over7.1 kw 

### 2.45 2.59 2.62

3-10,The target values for cooling COPS of air conditioners dedicated to cooling are shown in

Table3.4. The rate of improvement from 1984, the former target year, is an average of 6%.

Table 3

.4 Target values of Cooling Type Air Conditioners

Division Target value (cooling COP) Utilized type of cooling capacity 4kw and less 2.45 Utilized type of cooling capacity between 4kw and 7kw 2.20 Separate type of cooling capacity 4kw and less 3.09 Separate type of cooling capacity between 4kw and 7kw 2.42 Cooling capacity over 7.1kw 2.45

Televisions The television sets discussed are those generally used in homes, excluding LED televisions. The energy efficiency is the annually consumed electric energy calculated assuming that operating time is 4.5 hours and stand-by time is 19

.5 hours. Manufacturers and importers are required to ensure that the weighted mean value of each type of television will not exceed the target value indicated in the following table by 1998. The rate of improvement from the current level will be 5-8% for standard televisions with screens of 21 inches and smaller, 10-12% for standard televisions with screens larger than 21 inches, 13-17% for wide screen televisions, and 18-25% for BDTVs. 

### ·The targetvalues for cooling COPs ofair 

### conditioners dedicated to cooling are shovm in

. 

### Table3.4. The rate ofimprovement from 1984. the former targetyear. is an average of6%.

Table 3.4 Targetvalues ofCooling Type Air 

### Conditioners

Division Targetvalue (cooling COP) Utilized type ofcooling capacity 4kw and less 2.45 Utilized type ofcooling capacity between 4kw 2.20 and 7kw 

### Separatetype ofcooling capacity 4kw and 3.09 less Separate type 

### ofcooling capacitybetween 2.42 4kwand 7kw 

### Cooling capacity over 7.1kw 2.45

Televisions The television sets discussed are those generally used in 

### homes. excluding LED televisions. The energy efficiency is

### the annually consumed electric energy calculated assuming that operating time is 

### 4.5 hours and stand-bytime is 

### 19.5 hours.

. . Manufacturers and importers are required to ensure that the weighted meanvalue ofeach type 

### of televisionwill 

### not exceed the targetvalue indicated inthe following table by 1998. The rate of improvement from the current levelwillbe 

### 5-8% for standardtelevisions with screens of21 inches and smaller, 10-12% for standardtelevisions with screens largerthan 21 inches. 13-17% for wide screentelevisions, and 18-25% forHDTVs.

3-11Table 3.5 Target Values for Televisions Category Target-Value Standard - 21 inches or smaller Em=6.24S+14.5+A Standard - 22 inches or larger Em=6.245+34.2+B Wide-screen television Em=7.065+53.9+B HDTV • Em=9.865+99.4 Standard televisions have a 4:3 aspect. Wide-screen televisions have a 16:9 aspect and HDTVs have both 4:3 and 16:9 aspects. Em=target value for standard annual electricity use (kWh/yr) S=screen size A and B are defined below. A Built-in broadcast satellite reception 16.4 Built-in video-deck 44.6 Built-in broadcast satellite reception and video-deck 61.0

Others 0

B 

### Built-in video deck 44.6 Others 0

3-12 

### Table 3.5 Target Values for Televisions Category Target-Value 

### Standard

- 21 inches or smaller Em=6.24S+14.5+A Standard

- 22 inches or larger Eni=6.24S+34.2+B Wide-screentelevision Em=7.06S+53.9+B HDTV Em=9.86S+99.4 Standard televisions have a 4:3 aspect. Wide-screen televisions have a 16:9 aspect and HDTVs have both 

### 4:3 and 16:9 aspects. Em=targetvalue for standard annual electricity use (kWhlyr) 

### S=screen size A and B are defined below. A



### Built-inbroadcast satellite reception 16.4 Built-invideo-deck 44.6 Built-inbroadcast satellite reception and 61.0 video-deck Others 0

B 

# I::**~deo** deck

3-12Korea

The Korean government has established a labeling system and efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and for air conditioners. In September of 1992, the government, under energy management law, issued the regulation for the main energy-consuming products refrigerators, air conditioners and lighting. The methodology employed both statistical and engineering analyses to develop efficiency standards and target values. Refrigerators/Freezers For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the target energy consumption by the year 2000 was projected to be 67% of 1992 consumption. For 1995, the target reductions in energy use of 15% and 20% relative to 1992, for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers respectively, were designed to keep up with Japanese products. Table 3.6 shows the maximum allowable energy consumption and the target equations for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The second column shows the equation for average energy use in 1992. The third column shows the maximum allowable energy use and the fourth column show the target energy use. Energy use is expressed in kWh per month and adjusted volume (AV) is in liters.

Table 3.6 Korean Standards and Target Equations
Product Type Average equation Standards equation Target equation Refrigerator 0.04xAV + 12.01 0.03xAV + 14.57 0.026xAV + 12.39 Refrigerator

-freezer AV< 500 liters 0.05xAV + 17.25 0.054xAV + 18.26 0.043xAV + 14.61 Refrigerator-freezer AV >500 liters 0. 12xAV - 19.41 0.12 xAV - 14.63 0.096xAV - 11.71
AV = adjusted volume = refrigerator volume + 2.3 x Freezer Volume



### Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Korea has established efficiency targets for single package (window) and split-system air conditioners. The efficiency metric is an EER, or energy efficiency rating, in kcal/h per Watt. The efficiency target in 1995 for single-package air conditioners is a 15% reduction in the 1991, average EER For split-system air conditioners, the 1995 efficiency target is a 20% reduction in the 1991 average EER. Table 3.7 shows the Korean minimum EERs and EER targets.
3-13 

### Korea The Korean government has established a labeling system and efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and for air conditioners. In 

### September of 1992, the government, under energy managementlaw, issued the regulation for the main energy-consuming products refrigerators, air conditioners and lighting. The meth9dology employed both statistical and engineering analyses to develop efficiency stap.dards and target values. RefrigeratorslFreezers Forrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the target energy consumptionby the year 2000 was projected to be 67% of 1992 consumption. For 1995, the target reductions in energy use of15% and 20010 

### relative to 1992, for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers respectively, were designed to keep up with Japanese products. Table 3.6 shows the maximum**a1lo~able** 

### energy consumption and the target equations for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The second column shows the equation for average energy use in 1992; The third column shows the maximum allowable energy use and the fourth column show the target energy use. Energy use is expressed in kWh permonth and adjustedvolume (A V)

### is in liters.

Table 3.6 Korean Standards and TargetEquations
Product Type Average equation Standards equation Target equation Refrigerator O.04xA V 

### + 12.01 0.03xA V 

### + 14.57 0.026xAV 

### + 12.39 Refrigerator-freezer 0.05xAV 

### + 17.25 0.054xAV 

### + 18.26 0.043xA V 

### + 14.61 AV< 500 liters Refrigerator-freezer 0.12xA V - 19.41 0.12 xAV - 14.63 0.096xAV

- 11.71 AV>5oo liters
AV

## =adjustedvolume

## =refrigeratorvolume 

### +2.3 x FreezerVolume

Air

### Conditioners and HeatPumps Korea 

### has esiablished efficiencytargets for single package ('window) and split-system

### air conditioners. The efficiency metric is 

### an EER, 

### orenergy efficiency

### rating, inkca1lh perWatt. The efficiency target ia 

### 1995 for single-package 

### air conditioners is 

### a 15% reduction 

### in**~the** 

### 1991**~ ~**  

### average EER 

### For split-system 

### airconditioners, the 1995 efficiency target is 

### a 20010 reduction in the 1991 average BER Table 3.7 shows theKorean minimum 

### BERs and EERtargets.
3-13Table 3

.7 Korean EER Standards for Air Conditioners

Product Type Minimum EER (kcal/hW) Target EER ( kcal/hW) Single

-package 2.35 2.8 Split (< 3550 kcal/h) 2.47 3.1 Split (> 3550 kcal/h) 2.27 2.8

Latin America As far as we know, there are no appliance minimum energy efficiency standards in Central or South America. Several countries, such as Costa Rica, Colombia, Chile, and Brazil have shown some interest in pursuing standards

. In Brazil, there have been discussions about voluntary targets for refrigerators and fluorescent lamp ballasts

. In Brazil, PROCEL, the National Program for Electricity Conservation has developed a labeling program for refrigerators , freezers and electric showers.

Mexico Mexico established energy efficiency standards for refrigerators , room air conditioners and motors that took effect this year

. Labels are required for refrigerators and air conditioners. The labels contain features found in both EU and U.S. labels

. Each model is ranked on a scale of A to E and the annual energy use or efficiency is also provided. Mexico utilizes test protocols very similar to those of the U. S. and has established efficiency standards similar to those of the US. Mexico is in the process of developing other efficiency standards for incandescent lamps , well pumps, washing machines and televisions. Ref rigerators/FreezersEfficiency standards were established for seven product classes of refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. Table 3.8 shows the maximum energy use in the form of a linear equation

. The maximum allowable energy use is in kWh/ yr and the adjusted volume (AV) is in liters. The standard is effective April, 1995

. In 1997, the maximum energy use limits for the first three product classes
3-14 

### Table 3.7 Korean EER Standards for Air Conditioners

.

Product Type Minimum EER (kcallh W) TargetEER (kcallhW) Single-package 2.35 2.8 Split

## « 3550 kcallh) 2.47 3.1 Split (> 

### 3550 kcallh) 2.27 2.8



### LatinAmerica .As

### far as we know, there are no appliance minimum energy efficiency standards in Central or South America. Several countries, such as CostaRica, Colombia, Chile, and Brazil have shown some interest in pursuing standards. In

### Brazil, there have been discussions about voluntary targets for refrigerators and fluorescent lamp ballasts. In

### Brazil, PROCEL, the National Programfor

. Electricity Conservation has 

### developed a labeling progratp. for refrigerators, freezers and electric showers.

Maico



# . Mexico established energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, room air conditioners and motors that

### took effect this year. Labels are required for refrigerators and air conditioners. The labels contain features found inbothEU and U.S. labels. Each model is ranked on a scale of

### AtoE and the annual energyuse or efficiency is 

### also 

### provided. Mexico utilizes test protocolsvery similar

### to those oftheU.S. and has established efficiency standards similar to those ofthe U.S. Mexico is 

### in the process ofdeveloping other efficiency standards for incandescent lamps, well pumps, washing machines and televisions. Refrigerators/Freezers Efficiency standards were established for seven product classes ofrefrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. Table 3.8 shows the 

### maximum energyuse inthe form ofa linear equation. The 

### maximum allowable energyuse is 

### in kWhlyr and the adjustedvolume (A V) is 

### in liters. The standard is 

### effective April, 1995. 

### In 1997, the 

### maximum energyuse limits for the first 

### three product**c~s** 

### 3-14are expected to become more stringent while the limits for the last four classes will remain the

same. The equations for the first three product classes will then become; 0.476AV + 299, 0.367AV + 398, and 0.564AV + 355, respectively.

Table 3.8 Maximum Energy Use for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-freezers
Product Class Maximum Energy Use (kWh/yr) Refrigerators 0.986AV + 254 for AV > 90 liters 0.476AV + 299 for AV < 90 liters Partial A-D Refrigerator

-freezers 0.491AV + 601 Top-Mount A-D Refrigerator

-freezers 0.349AV + 545 Side-by-Side A-D Refrigerator-freezers 0.416AV + 501 Bottom

-Mount Refrigerator

-freezers 0.582AV + 367 Top-Mount A -D with TTD Features 0.620AV +391 Side-by-Side A-D with TTD Features 0.575AV + 527 TTD = through the door features like ice makers or cold water. AD= auto defrost AV = adjusted volume

Room Air Conditioners Room air conditioner efficiency standards are expressed as an EER and occur in two steps. The . first step was effective January, 1995 and the second step is effective one year later

. In the second. step, the efficiency standards for room air conditioners are exactly the same as the U.S. standards which took effect in 1990

. The first step allows for slightly less efficient products

. The minimum efficiencies are expressed as a COP (W/W) and as an energy efficiency ratio (EER) in units of Btu/Wh

. Table 3

. 9 shows the minimum efficiency standards for each product class.

3-15 

### are expected to become more stringent while the limitS' for the last four classes will 

### remain the same. The equations for the first three product classes will

### then become; 0.476AV + 299, 0.367AV + 398, and 0.564AV + 355, respectively.

Table 3.8 Maximum

### Energy Use for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-freezers
Product Class Maximum

### Energy Use (kWh/yr) 

### Refrigerators 0.986AV + 254 0.476A V + 299 PartialA-D Refrigerator-freezers 0.491AV + 601 Top:-MountA-D Refrigerator-freezers 0.349AV + 545 Side-by-Side A-D Refrigerator-freezers 0.416AV + 501 Bottom-MountRefrigerator-freezers 0.582A V + 367

, 

### Top-MountA-D with TTD Features 0.620AV +391 Side-by-Side A-D with TIDFeatures 0.575A V + 527
TTD = 

### through the doorfeatures like ice makers or cold water. AD= 

### auto defrost AV 

## =adjusted volume

RoomAir Conditioners for A V 

### > 90 liters for A V < 

### 90 liters

Room 

### airconditioner efficiency standards are expressed as anEER and occur 

### intwo steps. The first step was effective January, 1995 and the second step is 

### effective oneyear later. In

### the second· step, the efficiency standards for room 

### air conditioners are exactly the same as the U.S. standards whichtook effect 

### in 1990. The first step allows for slightlyless 'efficientproducts. The minimnm efficiencies are expressed as a COP (WIW) and as an energy efficiencyratio (EER) 

### inunits of Btu/Wh. Table 3.9 shows the minimum efficiency standards for each prOduct class.

3-15Table 3.9 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Room Air Conditioners

Product Class Stage 1 EER (COP) Stage 2 EER (COP) <6000 Btu/h (< 1758 W) 8.0 (2.34) 8.0 (2.34) 6000 to 7999 Btu/h 8.5 (2.49) 8.5 (2.49) (1759 to 2343 W) 8000 to 1399 Btu/h 8.5 (2.49) 9.0 (2.64) (2344 to 4101 W) 14000 to 19999 Btu/h 8.5 (2.49) 8.8 (2.58) (4102 to 5859 W) 20000 to 36000 Btu/h 8.2 (2.40) 8.2 (2.40) (5860 to 10548 W)

Nordic Countries (

Denmark Finland; Iceland, Norway, Sweden) The Nordnorm Commission represents the Nordic countries listed above. The Commission supports voluntary efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers, electric water heaters, electric ovens, washing machines, dishwashers, and dryers. The Commission has concluded that manufacture involvement is very important and that voluntary agreements create the best basis for cooperation with suppliers. A procedure has been set up for establishing voluntary standards that eliminate the least efficient models. At the present time, such voluntary standards have not been established. Technology Procurement The Department of Energy Efficiency at Sweden's NUTEK (Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development), has taken the lead in the area of innovative procurement. They have organized groups of buyers to request efficient products from suppliers

. It is important to gather enough buyers to influence the producers of a product to improve its efficiency. The purchase of a specified number of units is guaranteed if a particular efficiency is achieved. The goal is to achieve market transformation, by influencing all or most producers to improve the efficiency of their products at a faster rate than would have otherwise occurred

. One of the big successes of this approach was the contest won by Electrolux to produce.very efficient 3-16 

### Table 3.9 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Room Air 

### Conditioners
Product Class Stage 1EER (COP) Stage 2EER (COP) <6000 Btu/h 

## « 1758 W) 

### 8.0 (2.34) 8.0 (2.34) 6000 to 7999 Btu/h 8.5 (2.49) 8.5 (2.49)

. (1759 to 2343 W) 

### 8000 to 1399 Btu/h 8.5 (2.49) 9.0 (2.64) (2344 to 4101 W) 

### 14000 to 19999 Btu/h 8.5 (2.49) 8.8 (2.58)

(4102 to 5859 W) 

### 20000 to 36000 Btu/h 8.2 (2.40) 8.2 (2.40)

(5860 to 10548 W)



### Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) TheNordnorm Commissionrepresents the Nordic countries listed above. The Commission supports voluntary efficiency standards for refrigerator/freezers, electric water heaters, electric ovens, washing machines, dishwashers, and·dryers. The Commission has 

### cOncluded that manufacture involvement is very important and that voluntary agreements create the bestbasis for cooperationwith suppliers. Aprocedure has 

### been set up for establishing voluntary standards that eliminate the least efficient models. At the presenttime, suchvoluntary standards have notbeen established. Technology Procurement The Department ofEnergyEfficiency at Sweden's NUTEK (SwedishNational Boardfor Industrial and Technical Development), has 

### takenthe lead inthe area ofinnovative procurement. Theyhave organized groups ofbuyers torequest efficient products from suppliers. It

### is important to 

### gather enoughbuyers to influence theproducers ofaproduct to improve its efficiency. The purchase ofa specified number ofunits 

### is guaranteed ifaparticular efficiency 

### is achieved. The

. goal 

### is to achieve markettransformation, by influencing 

### all or most producers to improvethe efficiency oftheirproducts at afaster rate 

### than would have otherwise occurred. One ofthe big successes ofthis approachwas the contestwonbyElectrolux to p.roduce.very efficient 3-16refrigerator-freezers. Other products that have been procured through this method are washing

machines and dryers for apartment buildings, improved fluorescent lighting for offices, efficient computer monitors and ventilation fans. Denmark and Finland are also taking part in technology procurement programs. Finland is cooperating with NUTEK on several of the Swedish procurements. In Denmark there is a program to replace older inefficient appliances and a new technology procurement strategy. The Danish approach emphasizes informal brokering between manufacturers/distributors and potential. buyers rather than a formal, open procurement as in Sweden.
Overthe last two years efforts have intensified to promote technology procurement and market transformation at the international level. The lEA has sponsored several workshops to inform member countries about the opportunities for cooperative procurement as a powerful market-pull instrument to accelerate innovation and diffusion of new and more efficient technologies (IEA, 1994). At this time, there is no truly international procurement taking place. Russian Federation There is an agreement between the US and the Russian Federation to harmonize efficiency standards for several appliances, including refrigerators, residential boilers, motors and fluorescent ballasts. Work on the harmonization of standards will begin during the summer of 1995. At the present time, there are only recommended energy consumption indicators. Switzerland In Switzerland, voluntary energy efficiency standards have been established for several appliances; if manufacturers fail to meet the targets, the government could make them mandatory. For refrigerators and freezers, a statistical approach was used to develop target equations that would eliminate from 50 to 60% of existing models. United States Labeling Labeling has been in effect in the United States since 1980. Labeling requirements grew out of the oil shortages of the 1970's along with the growing concern about the environment. Initially, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which manages the labeling program, required labels for seven types of appliances: refrigerators and refrigerator

-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines, room air conditioners, and space heaters

. Central air conditioners (including heart pumps) were added to the list in 1987. Until late 1994, the labels showed the estimated annual operating costs. More recently, the FTC has amended its appliance labeling rule to make the labels easier to read and more useful to consumers by requiring information about energy usage in kilowatt-hours of electricity, in

3-17 

### refrigerator-freezers. Other products that have been procured through this method are washing**~hines** 

### and dryers for apartmentbuildings, improved fluorescent lighting for offices, efficient computer monitors and ventilation fans. Denmark and Finland are also taking 

### part intechnology procurement programs. Finland is cooperating with NUTEK on several ofthe Swedish procurements. In

### Denmarkthere is 

### a programto replace older inefficient appliances and a new technology procurement strategy. The Danish approach emphasizes informal brokering between manufacturers/distributors and potentialbuyers ratherthan 

### a formal, open procurement as 

### in Sweden.

-

-. 

### Overthe last 

### two years efforts have intensified to promote technology procurement and market transformation at the international level. The lEAhas sponsored several workshops to inform member countries about the opportunities for cooperative procurement as apowerful market-pull instrument to accelerate innovation and diffusion ofnew and more efficienttechnologies (lEA, 

### 1994). At this time, there is 

### no truly 

### international procurement taking 

### place. 

### lblssian Federation There is 

### an agreementbetween the US and the RussianFederation to harmonize efficiency standards for several appliances, including refrigerators, residential boilers, motors and fluorescent ballasts. Work on the harmonization ofstandards 

### will begin during the summer of1995. At**th~** 

### presenttime, there are only recommended energy consumption indicators.

In

### Switzerland, voluntary energy efficiency standards have been established for several appliances; ifmamlfacturers 

### fail to meet the targets, the government could make them mandatory. For

- refrigerators and freezers, a statistical approach was used to develop target equations that would eliminate from 50 to 60% ofexisting models.

- 

### UnitedStates Labeling Labeling has been in effect inthe United States since 1980. Labeling requirements grew out ofthe oil shortages ofthe 1970's along withthe growing concern about the environment. 

### Initially, the Federal Trade Commission (FI'C), which manages the

### labeling program. required 

### labels for seven types 

### ofappliances: refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, waterheaters, washing 

### machines, room 

### air conditioners, and space heaters. Central 

### air conditioners (mcluding heart pumps) were added 

### to the 

### list in 1987. Until late 1994, the 

### labels showed the

### estimated annual operating costs. More recently, theFTC 

### has amended its appliance 

### labeling rule to make the 

### labels easiertoread and more useful to consumers byrequiring information about energy usage inkilowatt-hours ofelectricity, ip

3-17addition to annual operating costs. These new requirements are applicable to refrigerators,

refrigerator/freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, and water heaters. For climate-control appliances, a somewhat different approach will be used. Labels for these appliances, for which the energy consumption can vary in different regions and with different seasons, must provide an energy efficiency rating disclosure. For room air conditioners, the cost disclosure must appear on the label. For furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps, the operating cost disclosures must be made either on fact sheets or in industry-produced product directories that meet the rule's requirements. For all labeled appliances, the energy efficiency of each model is also compared to all other similar models by showing the range of available efficiencies and the efficiency of the model of interest. In the U. S., there are also seals of approval issued by Green Seal and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA Energy Star label is used for computer monitors and computers that satisfy a reduced power demand requirement during standby. The EPA plans to expand the Energy Star labeling process to air conditioners, furnaces and water heaters. Green Seal is a non-profit, environmental labeling and consumer education organization that certifies products that are designed and manufactured in an environmentally responsible manner. Once standards are established, manufacturers can apply for an evaluation of their products; those that comply can use the Green Seal Certification mark on their products and in their advertising. Certification standards have been established for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, and cooktops/ovens. Standards In 1987, the U. S. Congress passed the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA 1987). Under NAECA, manufacturers of certain residential appliances must meet legislatively specified energy conservation standards by certain dates. The energy efficiency or energy use for each product type is measured according to test procedures established by the Department of energy (DOE). Some minor standards for clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers took effect on January 1, 1988. The requirements were: no pilot lights for gas clothes dryers, availability of a cold rinse option for clothes washers, and availability of an option to dry without heat for dishwashers. Most models of these products already satisfied these standards when NAECA was written. The first standards of any consequence took effect on January 1, 1990. They apply to refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners, and water heaters. The NAECA legislation mandates periodic updates of these initial standards. Because of national concern about global warming, these updates have been the focus of much attention. Many members of Congress and other interested parties have realized the vast potential for reduction of fossil

-fuel use (and concomitant reduction of CO2 emissions) through more stringent energy-efficiency standards. NAECA standards for the products mentioned above eliminate the most inefficient models. Table 3.10 shows the thirteen product types covered under NAECA. For each product type, there are subcategories of appliances differing in fuel type or some other characteristic affecting energy

3-18 

### addition to annual operating costs. These new requirements are applicable to refrigerators, refrigerator/freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, and water heaters. For climate-control appliances, a somewhat different approach will 

### be used. Labels for these appliances, for which the energy consumption canvary in different regions and with different seasons, must provide an energy efficiency rating disclosure. For room air 

### conditioners, the cost cijsclosure must appear on the label. Forfurnaces, central air 

### conditioners, and heat pUmps, the operating cost disclosures mustbe made either on fact sheets or in industry-produced product directories that meetthe rule's requirements. For 

### all labeled appliances, the energy efficiency of each model is 

### also compared to 

### all other 

### similar models by showing the range ofavailable efficiencies and the efficiency ofthe model ofinterest. In 

### the U.S., there are also seals ofapproval issued by Green Seal and the 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPAEnergy Star label is used for computer monitors and computers that satisfy a reduced power demand requirement during standby. The EPA plans to expand the Energy Star labeling process to air 

### conditioners, furnaces and water heaters. Green Seal is a non-profit, environmental labeling and consumer education organization that certifies products that are designed and manufactured in an environmentally responsible manner. Once standards are established, manufacturers can apply for an evaluation oftheir products; those that comply can use the Green Seal Certification mark ontheir products and in their advertising. Certification standards have been established for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, and cooktopslovens. Standards In 

### 1987, the U.S. Congress passed the National Appliance.Energy Conservation Act (NAECA 1987). UnderNAECA, manufacturers ofcertain residential appliances must meet legislatively specified energy conservation standards by certain dates. The energy efficiency or energyuse for eachproducttype is measured according to test procedures established by the Department 'of energy (DOE). Some minor standards for clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers took effect onJanuary 1, 1988. The requirements were: no pilot lights for gas clothes dryerS, availability ofa cold rinse option for clothes washers, and aVailability ofan option to dry without heat for dishwashers. Most models ofthese products already satisfiedthese standards when NAECA was written. The first 

### standards ofany consequence took effect onJanuary 1, 1990. They apply to refrigerators, freezers, room 

### air conditioners, and waterheaters. The NAECA legislation mandates periodic updates ofthese initial standards. Because ofnational concern about global warming, theseupdates havebeenthe focus ofmuch attention. Many members ofCongress and otherinterested parties have realized the vast potential for reduction offossil-fueluse (and concomitantreduction ofC02emissions) through more stringent energy-efficiency standards. NAECA standards for the products mentioned above eliminatethe most inefficient models. Table 3.10 

### shows the thirteen producttypes covered underNAECA Foreach product type, 

### there are subcategories ofappliances differing in fuel type 

### or some other characteriStic affecting energy
3-l8use; these are known as product classes. For example, gas and electric clothes dryers are in

separate product classes. Table 3.10 Consumer Products Covered Under NAECA Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers Room Air Conditioners Central Air Conditioners and Central Air Conditioning Heat Pumps Water Heaters Furnaces Dishwashers Clothes Washers Clothes Dryers Direct Heating Equipment Kitchen Ranges and Ovens Pool Heaters Television Sets Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
Any new or amended standard must achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE decides whether the benefits exceed the burdens by considering seven factors specified by law:
1. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products; 2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to the increase in prices of (including installation and maintenance) the covered products; 3. The total amount of projected energy savings; 4. Any lessening of the utility of the covered products; 5. The impact of any lessening of competition; 6. The need for national energy conservation; and 7. Other factors that DOE considers relevant.

3-19 

### use; these are known as product classes. For example, gas and electric clothes dryers are in separate product classes. Table 3.10 

### ConsumerProducts Covered UnderNAECA 

### Refiigerators, Refiigerator-Freezers, and Freezers RoomAir Conditioners Central Air Conditioners and Central Air Conditioning HeatPumps Water Heaters Furnaces Dishwashers Clothes Washers Clothes Dryers DirectHeating Equipment Kitchen Ranges and Ovens Pool Heaters Television Sets FluorescentLamp Ballasts
Any new oramended standard must achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency whichDOE 'determines is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. In

### detennjnjng whether a standard is 

### economicallyjustified, 

### DOE decides whetherthe benefits exceed the burdens by considering seven factors specified by law:

1. The economic impact ofthe standard onthe manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe products; 2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life ofthe covered product compared to the increase in prices of(including installation and maintenance) the covered products; 3. The total amount ofprojected energy savings; 4. Any lessening ofthe utility ofthe coveredproducts; S. The impact ofany 

### lessening ofcompetition; 6. The 

### need for national energy conservation; and 7. Otherfactors 

### that DOE considers relevant.

3-19If DOE finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an

energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year, as calculated under the appropriate test procedure, there is a rebuttable presumption that such standard level is economically justified. This is equivalent. to a simplepayback period of less than three years. Thus, unless other factors take precedence, energyefficient designs with payback periods of less than three years will be incorporated into new standards. That is not to say that energy conservation levels with paybacks greater than three years cannot be incorporated into new standards. The first step in the DOE, rulemaking process is the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR). The purpose of this notice is to inform all interested parties of the product types (and classes) for which DOE intends to consider energy conservation standards. Additionally, the designs to be analyzed, and computer models to be utilized are described. Information received by D OE during the public comment period are considered in the preparation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). The NOPR presents the proposed policy, the results of the analysis and the alternatives considered. During another public comment period, hearings are held in Washington D.C. The oral and written comments received on the NOPR are considered in preparing a final rulemaking which contains any new energy conservation standards. In October of 1992, the US Congress passed the Energy Policy Act; this Act expanded energy efficiency standards to commercial sector products, electric motors, lighting products, plumbing products, and office equipment (EPACT, 1992). For some of these products, the DOE must determine whether standards and labels should be established. Research is underway to fulfill the requirements of this Act. Technology Procurement In the US, the Golden Carrot approach has been used to bring more efficient technologies to the market place sooner. The Golden Carrot approach for refrigerator-freezers is discussed below. The DOE and electric and gas utilities have supported this type of program through an . organization called the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). The CEE will be offering incentives to appliance manufacturers who make energy efficient models of such products as refrigerator

-freezers, clothes washers, air conditioners, lamps, and ground source heat pumps. The US government under direction of the DOE is planning a government wide effort to promote energy efficient procurement of products such as computers, copiers , kitchen appliances, space conditioning equipment, and fluorescent lamps ( Barris, 1994). The US government is the largestsingle purchaser in the world for many energy-using products ; they can have a large impact on increasing the energy efficiency of consumer products and commercial equipment

. This new effort is just underway in the US. Refrigerators/

Freezers

3-20 ' If



### DOE finds that the additional cost to the consumer ofpurchasing aproduct compl)ri.ng 'with an energy conservation standard level will 

### be less than 

### three times the value ofthe energy savings during the first year, as calculated under the appropriate test procedure, there is a rebuttable presumption that such standard level is 

### econonucallyjustified. This is equivalent.to a simple paybackperiod oflessthan 

### three years. Thus, unless otherfactors take precedence, energyefficient designs with payback periods ofless than three years will 

### be incorporated into new standards. That is 

### not to say that energy conservation levels with paybacks greater than 

### three years cannot be 

### incorporated into new standards.

.



# . The first step inthe DOE.rulemaking process is the publication ofan Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR). The purpose ofthis notice is to inform all 

### interested parties ofthe product types (and classes) for which DOE intends to consider energy conservation standards. Additionally, the designs to be 

### analyzed, and computer models to be utilized are descnOed. Information received by D OE during the public comment period are considered in the preparation ofthe Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR). The NOPR presents the proposed policy, the results ofthe analysis and the alternatives considered. During 

### another public comment period, hearings are held inWashington D.C. The oral and written comments received on the NOPR are considered in preparing a

### final rulemaking which contains any new energy conservation standards. In 

### October of1992, the US Congress passed the Energy Policy Act; this Act expanded energy efficiency standards to commercial sectorproducts, electric motors, lighting products, plumbing products, and office equipment (EPACT, 1992). For some ofthese products, the DOEmuSt determine whether standards and labels should be established. Research is underway to fulfill the

. 

### requirements ofthis Act. Technology Procurement In

### the US, the Golden Carrot approach has been used to bring more efficient technologies tothe market place sooner. The Golden Carrot approach for refrigerator-freezers is discussed below. The DOE and electric and gas utilities have supported this type ofprogramthrough an .

.organization called the Consortiumfor Energy Efficiency (CEE). The CEE will

### beoffering incentives to appliance manufacturers who make energy efficient models ofsuch products as refrigerator-freezers, clothes washers, air conditioners, lamps, and ground source heatpumps. The US governmentunder direction ofthe DOE is

### planning a governmentwide efforttopromote energy efficientprocurement ofproducts such as computers, copiers, kitchen appliances, space conditioning equipment, and fluorescent lamps (Harris, 1994). The US government is 

### thelargest· single purchaser intheworld for 

### many energy-using products; they can have a large impact on increasing the energy e6iciency ofconsumerproducts and conimercial equipment. 

### This new

### effort is

### just underway intheUS.

. . ReftigeratorslFreezers

3-20

.Minimum efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers first became effective in 1990. They .

were updated in 1989 with new standards that became effective in 1993. New standards that will be effective in 1998 are about to be proposed by the US DOE. Table 3.11 shows the 1993 efficiency standards and the proposed 1998 standards (to be filled in as soon as proposed rule is published by the US DOE). A new process was used to develop the proposed standards, there was much more manufacturer participation in the analyses carried out by the DOE. Manufacturers and environmental groups were able to review work in progress and were able to jointly agree to efficiency standards at a particular level. They provided a joint statement to DOE that formally requested that their agreed upon levels be used as the basis of the revised efficiency standards (Joint, 1994). All parties have found this approach to be more desirable than previous procedures that limited participation by interested parties (sometimes called stakeholders). The Joint Comments proposed that the new standards include two size ranges for some product classes, above and below 220 liters volume. They also recommended that there be a 5% reduction in energy use for compacts relative to their 1993 maximum allowable energy use. Additionally, the Joint Comments asked for a 10% increase in allowable energy use if HCFC free products are required in the future.

Table 3.11 Maximum Allowable Energy Use for Refrigerators and Freezers
Product Class 1993 Standard 1998 Proposed Standard Manual Defrost Refr 299 + 0.046AV & Refr-frz
Partial A-D Refr-frz 398 + 0.364AV Top-Mount A-D Refr-frz 355 + 0.56AV Top-Mount A-D with TTD 391 + 0.616AV Side-Mount A -D Refr-frz 501 + 0.413AV Side-Mount A -D with TTD 527 + 0.571AV Bottom Mount A -D Refr-frz 367 + 0.578AV Upright Manual Freezer 264 + 0.361AV Upright A -D Freezer 391 + 0.522AV Chest Freezer 160 + 0.385AV 

### AD = auto-defrost TTD = through the door features Refr-frz = refrigerator-freezer

3-21 

### Minimum efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers first became effective in 1990. They

. were updated in 1989 with new standards that became effective in 1993. New standards thatwill 

### be effective in 1998 are about to be proposed by the US DOE. Table 3.11 shows the 1993 efficiency standards and theproposed 1998 standards (to be filled 

### in as soon as proposed rule is puBlished by the US DOE). A new process was used to develop the proposed standards, there was much more manufacturer participationinthe analyses carried outby the DOE. Manufacturers and environmental groups were able to review workinprogress and were able tojointly agree to efficiency standards at a particularlevel. They provided ajoint statement to DOE that formally requested that their agreed upon levels be 

### used as the basis ofthe revised efficiency standards{Joint, 1994). All parties have found this approach to be 

### more desirable than 

### previous procedures that limited participationby interested parties (sometimes called stakeholders). The Joint Comments proposed that the new standards include two size 

### ranges for some product classes, above and below 220 liters volume. They also recommended that there be a 5% reduction in energy use for compacts relative to their 1993 

### maximum allowable energy use. Additionally, the Joint Comments asked for a 

### 10010 increase in allowable energy use ifHCFC free products are required in the future.

Table 3.11 Maximum Allowable Energy Use for Refrigerators and Freezers
Product Class 

### Manual DefrostRefr

. & 

### Refr-frz
Partial A-D Refr-frz Top-MountA-D Refr-frz Top-MountA-D with TTD 

### Side-Mount A-D Refr-ftz Side-MountA-D with TTD 

### Bottom-Mount A-D Refr-frz 

### Upright 

### Manual Freezer UprightA-D Freezer 

### ChestFreezer 

### AD 

## =auto-defrost 

### TTD = 

### through the door

### features Refr-frz = 

### refrigerator-freezer 1993 Standard 1998 Proposed Standard 299 + O.046AV

398 + O.364AV 355 +O.56AV 391 + O.616AV 501 + O.413AV 527 + O.571AV • 

### 367 + O.578AV 264 

### + O.361AV 391 + 0.522A V 160 

### +O.385AV

3-21AV = adjusted volume in liters

In July, 1992 a group of U. S

. electric utilities published a request for proposals from refrigerator manufacturers that could produce CFC free refrigerators that were much more (about 25% better) efficient than existing models

. This was known as SERP, the super efficient refrigerator program or sometimes the Golden Carrot, and the organizing group also included environmental groups and state energy offices

. The proposals were judged on the ability of each company to produce, market and sell the units

. The winner, Whirlpool Corporation, received $30 million to develop and manufacture the units

. The winning design was for a side

-by-side refrigerator-freezer with through-the

-door features

. More than 10,000 units have been shipped at a price of about $1250. Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers Minimum efficiency standards for these products became effective in May of 1994 , The standards are shown in Table 3

. 12. There are separate standards for compact and standard-sized dishwashers and clothes washers (CW) and standards for four classes of clothes dryers (CD). The clothes dryer standards include separate standards for gas-fired machines.

Table 3

. 12 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Dryers
Product Class Energy Factor Compact Dishwasher (< 56 cm width) 0.62 cycles/kWh Standard Dishwasher (>56 cm width) 0.46 cycles/kWh Top Loading Compact CW (< 45.7 liters) 25.7 liters/kWh Top-Loading Standard CW (> 45

.7 liters) 33.7 liters/kWh Electric Standard Dryer (> 125 liters) 1.37 kg/kWh Electric Compact CD 120 V (< 125 liters) 1.42 kg/kWh Electric Compact CD 240 V (< 125 liters) 1.32 kg/kWh

Gas Dryer 1.21kg/kWh
Cooking Products Minor efficiency standards were first established for gas-fired ranges and ovens with electric
3-22 

### A V 

### =adjusted volume in liters

In

### July, 

### 1992 agroup ofU.S. electric utilities published a request for proposals from refrigerator manufacturers that could produce CFC free refrigerators thatwere much more (about 25% better) efficient than existing models. This was known as SERP, the super efficient refrigeratorprogram or sometimes the Golden Carrot, and the organizing group also included environmental groups and state energy offices. The proposals werejudged onthe ability ofeach company to produce, market 

### and sell 

### the units. The winner, Whirlpool Corporation, received $30 million to develop and manufacture the units. The winning 

### design was for a side-by-side refrigerator-freezerwith through-the-door features. More than 10,000 units have been shipped at a price ofabout $1250

.

.Dishwashers, Clothes Washers and Clothes Dryers Minimum efficiency standards for these products became effective inMay of 1994, The standards are shown in Table 3.12. There are separate standards for compact and standard-sized dishwashers and clothes washers (CW) 

### and standards for four classes ofclothes dryers (CD). The clothes dryer standards include separate standards for gas-fired machines.

Table 3.12 :MinimumEfficiency Standards for Dishwashers, ClothesWashers and Dryers
Product Class EnergyFactor CompactDishwasher

# « 56 cm width) 0.62 cycleslkWh Standard Dishwasher (>56 em 

### width) 0.46 cycleslkWh Top Loading Compact CW

## « 45.7 liters) 25.7literslkWh Top-Loading Standard CW 

### (> 45.7 liters) 33.7liters/kWh Electric StandardDryer (> 125 liters) 1.37 kglkWh Electric Compact CD 

### 120 V 

## « 125 liters) 1.42 kglkWh Electric Compact CD 

### 240 V 

## « 125 liters) 1.32kg1kWh Gas 

### Dryer 1.21kg1kWh
Cooking 

### Products Minor efficiency standards were first 

### established for gas-fired ranges and ovens with electric 3-22power cords. As of 1990, such products could no longer have standing pilot lights. In 1994 the

DOE proposed revised standards for these products and for microwave ovens (Federal Register, 1994). The DOE is now preparing a final rulemaking for these products.
Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps . For room air conditioners, efficiency standards became effective in 1990. In 1994, the DOE proposed revised standards for these products (Federal Register, 1994) and is now working on a final rule. For central air conditioners and heat pumps efficiency standards became effective in 1992 and 1993 for split systems and single-package systems, respectively. Tables 3.13 and 3.14 show these standards. The DOE is presently analyzing central systems with the intent to propose new standards.

Table 3.13 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Room Air Conditioners
Product Class EER (Btu/Wh) Without reverse cycle & with louvered Sides < 6000 Btu/hr 8.0 6000 to 79999 Btu/hr 8.5 8000 to 13999 Btu/hr 9.0 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/hr 8.8 >20,000 Btu/hr 8.2_ Without reverse cycle and without louvered sides < 6000 Btu/hr 8.0 6000 to 7999 Btu/hr 8.5 8000 to 13999 Btu/hr 8.5 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/hr 8.5 >20,000 Btu/hr 8.2

3-23 

### power cords. As 

### of 1990, such products could no longer have standing pilot lights. In 

### 1994 the DOEproposed revised standards for these products and for microwave ovens (Federal Register, 1994). The DOEis now preparing a final 

### rulemaldng for these products.

Air 

### Conditioners and Heat Pumps

. Forroom 

### air conditioners, efficiency standardsbecame effective in 1990. In 

### 1994, the DOE proposed revised standards for these products (Federal Register, 1994) and is now working 

## OIi a 

### final rule. For central 

### air conditioners and heat pumps efficiency standards became effective in 1992 and 1993 for split systems and single-package systems, respectively. Tables 3.13 ana 3.14 showthese standards. The DOE is 

### presently analyzing central systems withthe intent to propose new standards.

Table 3.13 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Room Air 

### Conditioners
Product Class EER (BtuIWh) 

### Without reverse cycle & 

### with louvered Sides


### < 6000 Btu/hr 8.0 6000 to 79999 BtuIhr 8.5 8000 to 13999 BtuIhr 9.0 14,000 to 19,999 Btu/hr 8.8 >20,000 Btu/hr 8.2 Without reverse cycle and without louvered sides


### < 6000 Btu/hr 8.0 6000 to

### 7999 BtuIhr 8.5 8000 to 13999 BtuIhr 8.5 14,000 to 19,999 BtuIhr 8.5 >20,000 Btu/hr 8.2

3-23Table 3.14 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Central, Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Product Class SEER (Btu/Wh) HSPF (Btu/Wh) Split System 10.0 6.8 Single-package 9.7 6.6 SEER = seasonal energy efficiency ratio HSPF = heating seasonal performance factor The SEER is defined in the DOE test protocols as the total cooling in Btus during the normal annual usage period for cooling divided by the total electric energy input in Watt-hours during the same period

. Several test points must be measured to calculate SEER HSPF is defined as the total heating output in Btus of a heat pump during its normal annual usage divided by the total electric energy use in Watt-hours.
Water Heaters Water heater standards became effective in 1990

. They were modified when the test procedure was revised in 1991

. Table 3

. 15 shows the existing standards

. DOE proposed new revised efficiency standards in 1994 and is expected to promulgate final standards in 1995 , effective 3 years after publication of the final rule. For electric water heaters, a controversial standard was proposed that requires use of heat pump water heaters

. The standard for that product class will be , reproposed by DOE.

Table 3.15 Minimum Efficiency standards for Water Heaters
Product Class Existing Energy Factor Standard Gas 0.62 - 0.0005V Gas Instantaneous 0.62 - 0.0005V Oil 0.59 - 0.0005V Electric 0.93 - 0.00035V V = rated storage volume in liters

3-24 

### Table 3.14 MiD.imumEfficiency Standards for CentralAir 

### Conditioners and Heat Pumps
Product Class SEER (Btu/Wh) 

### HSPF (Btu/Wh) 

### Split System 10.0 Single-package 9.7 SEER = 

### seasonal energy efficiency ratio HSPF = 

### heating seasonal performance factor 6.8 6.6

The SEER is 

### defined in the DOE test protocols as the total cooling in Btus during the normal annual 

### usage period for cooling divided bythe total electric energy input inWatt-hours during 

### the same period. Several test points must be measured to calculate SEER HSPF is 

### defined as the total heating output in Btus ofa heat pump during its normal annual 

### usage divided by f:he total electric energy use inWatt-hours. WaterHeaters Water heater standards became effective in 1990. They were modified when the test procedure was revised in 1991. Table 3.15 shows the existing standards. DOE proposed new revised efficiency standards in 1994 and is expected to promulgate 

### final standards in 1995, effective 3 

### years after publication ofthe 

### final rule. For electric water heaters, a controversial standard was proposed that requires use ofheat pump waterheaters. The standard for that

### product class willbe

. 

### reproposed byDOE.

Table 3.15 :MinimumEfficiency standards forWater Heaters
Product Class Existing EnergyFactor Standard Gas 

### 0.62

- 0.OO05V

, Gas

### Instantaneous 0.62

- O.OOOSV 

### Oil 0.59

- O.OOOSV 

### Electric 0.93

- 0.OO035V 

## v = 

### rated storagevolume inliters

3-24Space Heaters

Efficiency standards also have been established for central heating (ducted) and direct (nonducted) heating products. These are shown in the Appendix. DOE has proposed revised standards for direct heating products and for mobile home fiunaces. These efficiency standards will be finalized in 1995. 3.2 Barriers to International Harmonization of Performance Specifications The major barriers to international harmonization of performance specifications are listed below: 1. Different test protocols 2. Differences in climate 3. Characteristics and usage differences for some products _ 4. Differences in electricity or fuel prices 5. Differences in cultural attitudes with respect to voluntary or mandatory specifications The major barrier to establishing harmonized performance specifications is the differences in test protocols used to measure energy efficiency or energy use. For many products , *countries and regions utilize different test protocols (see Chapter 2) to measure energy consumption. This prevents comparison of energy efficiency for such products across borders where the test protocols differ. As we have discussed in Chapter 2, the energy efficiency of an appliance is very dependent upon the test protocol used to determine that efficiency

. For products whose efficiency is dependent upon climate, local climate condition is another factor affecting energy efficiency. Space heating and cooling products are the main products that are strongly affected by climate. For example for room air conditioners, the EER (energy efficiency ratio) or COP (coefficient of performance) is calculated based on specified operating conditions. North America uses one set of conditions for temperature and humidity whereas most of the world uses the ISO protocol which allows any of three possible sets of conditions to be used

. Since one of the three ISO sets of operating conditions matches the US operating conditions, it is possible to compare products around the world if countries using the ISO protocol would agree to always use the set of conditions that corresponds to the US conditions

. For central air conditioners and heat pumps, the differences in test protocols is greater

- the US uses a seasonal EER (or SEER) whereas the ISO protocol is a single point rating

. For some products such as clothes washers, there are differences in the efficiency metric (e.g., Europe uses kWh/kg and the US uses cubic ft/kWh), that would need to be harmonized also. Characteristic

-and usage differences between products in different countries are discussed in Chapter 4. These differences make it more difficult to agree upon the product classes for which performance specifications should be harmonized

. An example is refrigerator or freezer size, where there are large differences across countries; European models are generally smaller than US - models

. Other parameters such as freezer temperature are also different in Europe and North America

. Usage of products also affects the ability to harmonize performance specifications. For

3-25 

### Space Heaters Efficiency standards also have been established for central heating (ducted) and direct (nonducted) heating products. These are shown inthe Appendix. DOE has proposed revised standards for directheating products and for mobile home :furnaces. These efficiency standards will 

### be finalized 

### in 1995. 

## 3.2 BarrierstoInternational Harmonization ofPerformance Specifications The majorbarriers to international harmonization ofperformance specifications are listed below: 1. 

### Different testprotocols 2. 

### Differences in climate 3. 

### Characteristics and usage differences for some products 4. 

### Differences in electricity or fuel prices 5. 

### Differences in cultural attitudes withrespect to voluntary or mandatory specifications The major barrier to establishing harmonized performance specifications is the differences in test 

### protocolsused to measure energy efficiency or energyuse. For many products•.countries and regions utilize differenttest protocols (see Chapter 2)

### to measure energy consumption. This prevents comparison ofenergy efficiency for suchproducts across borders where the test protocols differ. As 

### wehave discussed in Chapter 2, 

### the energy efficiency ofan appliance is

### very dependentuponthe testprotocol used to determine that efficiency. For products whose efficiency is 

### dependentupon climate. local climate condition is 

### anotherfactor affecting energy efficiency. Space heating 

### and cooling products**~e**

### the main 

### products that are strongly affected by climate. For example for room air conditioners, the EER

### (energy efficiency ratio) or COP (coefficient of performance) is calculatedbased on specified operating conditions. NorthAmericauses one set of conditions for temperature and humidity whereas most ofthe world uses the ISO protocol which allows any ofthree possible sets ofconditions to be

### used. Since one ofthe three ISO sets of operating conditions matches the US operating conditions. it is possible to compare products around theworld if

### countries using the ISO protocol would agree to always use the set**o~** 

### conditions that corresponds to the US conditions. For central air conditioners and heat pumps, the differences intest protocols is 

### greater- the US uses a seasonal EER 

### (or SEER) whereas the ISO protocol is 

### a single 

### point rating. For some products such 

### as clothes washers, there are differences inthe efficiency metric (e.g.• Europe uses kWhlkg and the US uses cubic ftlkWh), that would need tobe

### harmonized also. Characteristic-andusage differences betweenproducts in different countries are discussed in Chapter 4. These 

### differences make 

### itmore difficult to 

### agree uponthe product classes for which performance specifications should be 

### harmonized. An 

### example is 

### refrigerator orfreezer size, where there are large differences across countries; European models are**g~erally** 

### smaller

### thanUS

- models. Other

### parameters such

### as freezertemperature are also different 

### inEurope andNorth America. Usage ofproducts also 

### affects the 

### ability to

### harmonize performance specifications. For

3-25example, if clothes washers are used more often in some regions than others, more stringent

efficiency standards would be economically justified in those regions of greater usage. The impact of different electricity or fuel prices on establishment of performance specifications such as efficiency standards is with respect to the perceived need for such, activities. Regions with low fuel or electricity prices generally are less disposed towards efficiency standards. Additionally, the level of efficiency standard that is cost-effective is strongly dependent upon the price of energy. Another important factor in harmonizing performance specifications is the attitude towards establishing mandatory specifications. For some countries, a voluntary approach fits the existing culture, examples are Japan and Sweden. In these countries it is most important to have harmony between parties with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Therefore, it is not desirable to impose regulations on manufacturers of appliances if a voluntary approach can be worked out. 3.3 Strategies for Introducing Comparability into Performance Specifications The first step in introducing comparability into performance specifications is to harmonize test procedures. That subject is discussed in Chapter 2. Unless that is accomplished, it does not appear possible to harmonize such activities as labeling, efficiency standards or technology procurement. If test protocols can be harmonized, then it will be necessary to find appliances with enough commonality to undertake joint activities. Chapter 5 discusses the criteria for identification of products amenable to international harmonization efforts. Some products are suggested as good candidates for harmonization. An example is microwave ovens which are found in most countries around the world and which have a common test protocol developed by the IEC. It would be relatively easy to develop performance specifications based on the energy efficiency descriptor defined in the existing test protocol. For other products, it will be necessary to convene working groups from around tie world to examine specific appliance types with the goal of looking for commonalities between particular appliances that allow for harmonization of performance specifications. The barriers to harmonization, discussed in the section above, can be overcome through definitions of product classes that provide enough flexibility to accommodate differences that exist in product characteristics and usage. With respect to voluntary performance specifications, these can be utilized by those countries which feel more comfortable with that approach. It should be possible' for such countries to cooperate with others that wish to use a mandatory approach for labels or efficiency standards. Wet Appliances as an Example for Harmonization of Efficiency Standards In this section, energy efficiency standards for dishwashers and clothes washers in Europe and North America are compared. No comparison can be made for clothes dryers since there are no European standards for this appliance

. The clothes washer standards established in the US and in

3-26 

### example, if

### clothes washers are used more**oft~n** 

### in some regions than 

### others, more stringent efficiency standards would be economicallyjustified in those regions ofgreaterusage. The impact ofdifferent electricity or fuel prices on establishment ofperformance specifications such as efficiency standards is with respect to the perceived need for such.activities. Regions with lowfuel orelectricity prices generally are less disposed towards efficiency standards. Additionally, the level ofefficiency standard that is 

### cost-effective is strongly dependentupon the price of energy. Another important factor in harmonizing performance specifications is the attitude towards establishing mandatory specifications. For some countries, avoluntary approach fits the existing culture, examples are Japan and Sweden. Inthese countries it is most important to have harmony betweenparties with avested interest in a particular outcome. Therefore, it is not desirable to impose regulations on manufacturers ofappliances if

### avoluntary approach can be worked out. 3.3 Strategies for Introducing Comparability into Performance Specifications The first step in introducing comparability into performance specifications is 

### to harmonize test procedures. That subject is 

### discussed in Chapter 2. Unless that is accomplished, it does not appear possible to harmonize such activities as labeling, efficiency standards ortechnology procurement. If



### testprotocols can be harmonized, then it will 

### be necessary to 

## find appliances with enough commonality to undertakejoint activities. Chapter 5 discusses the criteriafor identification of products amenable to international harmonization efforts. Some products are suggested as

# good candidates for harmonization An example is 

### microwave ovens which are found in most countries around theworld and which have a commontest protocol developed by the IEC. Itwould be 

### relatively easy 

### to develop performance specifications based on the energy efficiency descriptor defined in the existing test protocol. For other products, it will 

### be necessary to convene working groups from around**~e** 

### world to examine specific appliance types with the goal oflooking for commonalities between particular appliances that allow for harmonization ofperformance specifications. The barriers to
. harmonization, discussed inthe section above, canbe overcome through definitions of product classes thatprovide enough flexibility to accommodate differences that exist inproduct characterlstics and usage. Withrespect to voluntaryperformance specifications, these canbe 

### utilized by those countries which feel more comfortable with

### that approach. It

### should be 

### possible' for such countries to cooperatewith others 

### that wishto use a mandatory approachfor labels or efficiency standards. 

### WetAppliances as an Example for HArmonization ofEfficiency Standards Inthis section, energy efficiency standards for dishwashers and clothes washers inEurope and North America are compared. No comparison canbe made for clothes dryers since there are no European standards for this appliance. The clothes washer standards established in the US**~d** 

### in

3-26Denmark were described earlier in this chapter. Table 3:16 shows both of these standards. The

efficiency descriptors are different so a direct comparison is not possible; additionally, the test protocols are very different (see Chapter 2), so even if the-efficiency descriptors were in the same units, they should not be compared. The action needed for clothes washers, is to establish an internationally agreed upon test protocol, then harmonized efficiency stnadards might be developed based upon that protocol.

Table 3.16 Clothes Washer Minimum Efficiency Standards Comparison

US/Canada Denmark* Compact <46 liters 25.7 liters/kWh 23.6 liters/kWh Standard >46 liters 33.7 liters/kWh 23.6 liters/kWh * The efficiency standard has been converted from 0.55 kWh/kg to liters/kWh by using the conversion factor of 1 kgm per 13 liters of drum volume.
Dishwasher standards are compared in Table 3.17 for North America and Denmark. For dishwashers, the EEC and North American test protocols are very similar. In both cases, the water temperature rise is about 50°C. One difference is that in t)Fe North American test protocol, the average energy use in kWh/cycle is obtained by averaging two measurements , one with power dry and one without power dry activated

. This would tend to increase energy use by a small amount in the North American test relative to the European ([EC) test if electric drying is not common in Euroepan dishwashers. If we temporarily disregard these small differences in the test protocol, we find that the Denmark efficiency standard proposal is stricter than the existing North American standard by about 37% for standard-sized dishwashers and 25% for compacts. Some minor changes in the dishwasher test protocols could result in a harmonized test. In order to harmonize efficiency standards, the North American models would have to be redesigned to reduce water consumption by about 2540%. This would present a significant challenge to US manufacturers and could impact consumer utility of this product. For example, an internal heater may be required which could increase the cycle time and a filter that is manually cleaned could also be required. Clearly, intensive discussions between manufacturer trade groups and government agencies on both sides of the Atlantic would be neeeded to arrive at a consensus position.

3-27 

### Denmark were described earlier inthis chapter. Table 3: 16 shoWs both ofthese standards. The efficiency descriptors are different so a direct comparison is not possible; additionally, the test protocols are very different (see Chapter 2), so even ifthe'efficiency descriptors were inthe same unjts, they should not be 

### compared. The action needed for clothes washers, is to establish an internationally agreed 

### upon test protocol, then harmonized efficiency stnadards mightbe developed based upon that protocol.

. 

### Table 3.16 Clothes Washer Minimum 

### Efficiency Standards Comparison
US/Canada Deninark.* Compact <46 liters 25.7 literslkWh 23.6 literslkWh

, 

### Standard >46 

### liters 33.7literslkWh 23.6 literslkWh

• The efficiency standard has been converted from 0.55 kWb/kg to literslkWh by using the conversion factor of1 kgm

### per 13 

### liters ofdrum 

### volume.

Dishwasher standards are compared in Table 3.17 for North America and Denmark. For dishwashers, the IEC 

### andNorth American testprotocols are very similar. In

### both cases, the water. temperature rise is 

### about 50°C. One difference is that in the North American test protocol, the average energyuse**~**

### kWh/cycle is 

### obtained by averaging two measurements, one withpower dry 

### and one without power dry 

### activated. This would tend to increase eriergy use by a 

### small amount inthe NorthAmerican testrelative to theEuropean (lEC) test ifelectric drying is not common in Euroepan dishwashers. '

. If

### we temporarily disregard these 

### small differences in the test protocol, we find that the Denmark efficiency standardproposal is 

### stricter than 

### the existing NorthAmerican standard by 

### about 3']010 for standard-sized dishwashers and 25% for compacts. Some minor changes in the dishwasher test protocols could result in a harmonized test. In

### orderto harmonize efficiency standards) the North American models would have to be 

### redesigned to reduce water consumptionby about 25-40%. This 

### would present a significant challenge to US manufacturers and could impact consumerutility of this 

### product. For example, an internal 

### heatermay be 

### relJuired whichcouldincrease the cycle time and a filter that is 

### mamJally cleaned could also be 

### required. Clearly, intensive,discussions between

### manufacturertrade groups and government agencies onboth sides ofthe Atlantic would be 

### neeeded to arrive at a consensusposition.

.

3-27Table 3.17 Dishwasher Minimum Efficiency Standard Comparison
US/Canada Denmark Compact 0.62cycles/kWh 0:78 cycles/kWh* Standard 0.46cycles/kWh 0.63cycles/kWh+ * For 8 place settings + For 12 place settings 

### Table 3.17 Dishwasher Minimum Efficiency Standard COIl).parison

.. 

### Compact Standard 

## *For 8 

### place settings 

### +For 12 

### place settings 

### US/Canada Denmark O.62cycleslkWh**O~78** 

### cyc1eslkWh***O.~cleslkWh** 

### O.63cyc1eslkWh+

3-28Chapter 4 Overview of Product Attributes

Introduction This chapter contains a qualitative description of product characteristics for appliances found in all IEA member countries and, in some cases, non-member countries. Chapter 2, on'test protocols, contains some information on physical characteristics and usage of the major appliances in IEA countries. The objective is to discuss how similarities and differences in product. characteristics and usage might present opportunities or barriers to harmonization of test protocols and specifications. This chapter is organized by product type. Cultural differences lead to differences in appliance characteristics and usage. For each product we will consider its physical characteristics such as capacity, usage (for example, wash temperatures), and special features such as auto-defrost or multiple doors for refrigerators. 4.1 Refrigerator-freezers The major difference among countries when refrigerator/freezers are considered is size or capacity. In the U. S., Canada and Australia typical capacities are larger than in the European Union, Japan, and the Nordic countries. Whereas 600 liters is the capacity of a typical refrigerator-freezer in the former countries, 300 liters might be more typical of the latter countries. In China and India, typical sizes are even smaller, about 200-250 liters. Chinese refrigerators tend to be portable and are often placed in the living room as a status symbol. Special features are found in some countries; multiple doors for multiple cabinets are found in Japanese refrigerator-freezers. This allows several temperatures for food preservation. In many European refrigerator-freezers there are choices for the consumer concerning freezer temperature; a star system is used to designate the achievable freezer temperature. In Australia, Canada and the U.S., auto-defrost is more common than in the other countries. Through-the-door features, such as ice or water service, are popular in U.S. refrigerator-freezers. These differences are sometimes reflected in test protocols-and also in achievable energy efficiency. Therefore, not only does a harmonized test protocol need to be broad enough to capture differences in product features but efficiency standards also need to be broad enough to allow for efficiency differences that are inherent in the added utility of these features. Examples are auto-defrost which offers consumer utility at the price of lessened efficiency; the same can be said for multiple doors and through-the-door features. 4.2 Wet Appliances
4.2.1 Dishwashers In countries where dishwashers are found , they are mostly similar in physical characteristics. The main difference is that European dishwashers are usually connected to a cold water supply and

4-1 Chapter4 Overview ofProduct Attributes Introduction This chapter contains a qualitative description ofproduct characteristics for appliances found in all lEA member countries and, in some cases, non-member countries. Chapter 2, on·test 'protocols, contains some information on physical characteristics and usage ofthe major appliances in lEAcountries. The objective is to discuss how similarities and differences in product· charactetJstics and usage might present opportunities or barriers to harmonization oftest protocols and specifications. This chapter is organized by product type. Cultural differences lead to differences in appliance characteristics and usage. For each product we will consider its physical characteristics such as capacity, usage (for example, wash temperatures), and special features such as auto-defrost or multiple doors for refrigerators.

. 4.1 Refrigerator-freezers The major difference among countries when refrigerator/freezers are considered is size or capacity. In the US., Canada and Australia typical capacities are larger than in the European Union, Japan, and the Nordic countries. Whereas 600 liters is the capacity ofa typical refrigerator-freezer in the former countries, 300 liters might be more typical ofthe latter countries. In China and India, typical sizes are even smaller, about 200-250 liters. Chinese refrigerators tend to be portable and are often placed in the living room as a status symbol. Special features are found in some countries; multiple doors for multiple cabinets are found in Japanese refrigerator-freezers. This allows several temperatures for food preservation. Inmany European refrigerator-freezers there are choices for the consumer concerning freezer temperature; a star system is used to designate the achievable freezer temperature. In Australia, Canada and the US., auto-defrost is more common than in the other countries. Through'-the-door features, such as ice orwater service, are popular in US. refrigerator-freezers. These differences are sometimes reflected in test protocols-and also in achievable energy efficiency. Therefore, not only does a harmonized test protocol need to be broad enoughto capture differences in product features but efficiency standards also need to bebroad enoughto allow for efficiency differences that are inherent in the added utility ofthese features. Examples are auto-defrost which offers consumer utility at the price oflessened efficiency; the same canbe said for multiple doors and through-the-door features. 

### 4.2 Wet Appliances
4.2.1 Dishwashers
In countries where dishwashers are found, they are mostly similar in physical characteristics. The main difference is that European dishwashers are usually connected to a cold water supply and

4-1have an internal electric heater that boosts water temperature to 65 °C on average whereas North

American dishwashers are connected to a hot water supply at about 49 °C. A booster heater raises the temperature to about 60 °C. A twelve place setting machine is most typical although compacts are also sold. Usage varies with respect to wash temperature and cycles per week. Chapter 2 contains some comparisons for these parameters among Australia, Europe and the US. Dishwashers are not common in the developing countries of the world.
4.2.2 Clothes Washers Clothes washers vary with respect to several features, such as axis (horizontal or vertical) of rotation, wash temperature, spin speed and weekly usage. They also vary with respect to connections to water heaters; US models are connected to water heaters whereas European models are not. Horizontal axis machines are very popular throught Europe (except for France) whereas vertical axis machines are common in North America and Australia. Horizontal axis machines use less water than vertical axis machines because of their design. European machines tend to be somewhat smaller than US machines, which are typically have about a 75 liter drum volume. US machines can hold 5 to 7 kilograms of clothes whereas European machines may hold about 5 kilograms of clothes. Wash temperatures are higher in Europe than in the US. Spin speed is higher in European models than in US models. Chapter 2 compares washer features in Australia, Europe and the US. In developing countries, clothes washers are often not supplied with hot water from a water heater (external or internal). Cold water may be used for washing or it may be mixed with some hot water warmed over a stove

. On the other hand, some manufacturers, for example Whirlpool, are attempting to market what they call a World Washer which carries a commonality of components while presenting features unique to the needs of each of its markets (Appliance Manufacturer, 1994). The Whirlpool World Washer is made in Brazil for Brazil and the Latin American market

. It is also made in India and Mexico. 4.2.3 Clothes Dryers Tumble dryers are similar in appearance in Europe and North America. In Europe, air-vented tumble dryers are typically about 105 liters in drum volume and have about a 5 kilogram clothes capacity. An average North American dryer has a 170 liter drum volume and can dry a 5 to 7 kilogram load of clothes. 4.3 Air Conditioners
4.3.1 Window Units Window or room air conditioners are very popular in the US . They are found in many other countries too. Air conditioners are not prevalent in Europe because of the generally mild climate; southern Europe is an exception

. In Asia, window units are not as popular as split system units.

4-2 have an internal electric heater that boosts watertemperature to 65°C on average whereas North American dishwashers are connected to a hot water supply at about 49°C. A booster heater raises the temperature to about 60 °C. A twelve place setting machine is most typical although compacts are also sold. Usage varies with respect to wash temperature and cycles per week. Chapter 2 contains some comparisons for these parameters among Australia, Europe and the US. Dishwashers are not common in the developing countries ofthe world.

. 4.2.2 Clothes Washers Clothes washers vary with respect to several features, such as axis (horizontal·or vertical) of rotation, wash temperature, spin speed and weekly usage. They also vary with respect to connections to water heaters; US models are connected to water heaters whereas European models are not. Horizontal axis machines are very popularthrought Europe (except for France) whereas vertical axis machines are common in North America and Australia. Horizontal axis machines use less water than vertical axis machines because oftheir design. European machines tend to be somewhat smaller than US machines, which are typically have about a 75 liter drum volume. US machines can hold 5 to 7 kilograms ofclothes whereas European machines may hold about 5 kilograms ofclothes. Wash temperatures are higher in Europe than in the US. Spin speed is higher in European models than in US models. Chapter 2 compares washer features in Australia, Europe and the US. Indeveloping countries, clothes washers are often not supplied with hot waterfrom a water heater (external orinternal). Cold water may beused for washing or it may be mixed with some hot waterwarmed over a stove. Onthe other hand, some manufacturers, for example**Whirlpoo~** are attempting to market what they call a World Washer which carries a commonality of components while presenting features unique to the needs ofeach ofits markets (Appliance Manufacturer, 1994). The Whirlpool World Washer is made in Brazil for Brazil and the Latin American market. It is also made in India and Mexico.

. 4.2.3 Clothes Dryers
Tumble dryers are similar in appearance inEurope and North America. InEurope, air-vented tumble dryers are typically about 105 liters in drum volume and have about a 5 kilogram clothes capacity. An average North American dryer has a 170 liter drumvolume and can dry a 5 to 7 kilogram load ofclothes. 4.3 Air Conditioners 4.3.1 Wmdow Units
Wmdow or room air conditioners are very popular 

### in the US. They are found inmany other countries too. Air conditioners are not prevalent in Europebecause ofthe generally mild climate; southernEurope is an exception. In Asia, windowunits are not as popular as split systemunits.

4-2Mexico has a high saturation of room air conditioners and has established efficiency standards for

them.

4.3.2 Central Units Central or split system units can be used to cool more than one room at a time. They are very popular in the US and the. majority of new construction comes with such. air conditioners. Split sytem units are popular in Asia and are often installed high on a wall and use remote control- this is done to avoid blocking light coming through windows. Another consideration in Asia and developing countries in general is that voltage fluctuations can be large; the designer needs to allow for this in design of all electrical products. 4.4 Water Heating There are two types of water heaters found in households around the world, instantaneous and storage tank heaters. The storage tank water heaters use oil, gas, or electricity to heat the water and are capable of storing water in an insulated tank for later use. Storage water heaters are common in North America. The instantaneous type water heaters provide hot water on demand by passing cold water through a heating coil. The amount of water available at any time is dependent upon the temperature rise that is required. These kinds of water heaters are popular in Europe and Latin America. Other types of water heaters that are not so common are solar, heat pump water heaters, and desuperheater water heaters. The latter uses waste heat from air _ conditioners. 4.5 Cooking Products Cooking products include ovens, cooktops, rice cookers and microwave ovens. The usage of such products is very variable among countries.Europeans have different habits from North Americans and Asians have different usage patterns from both. For example, in Asia ovens are hardly found but rice cookers are popular and microwave ovens are growing in popularity. The cooking sector is not one of the highest residential energy end-uses and that energy is split among a number of products. There is one cooking appliance type that is found around the world and is growing in saturation in countries such as China and India. It already has a high saturation in Europe and North America. Although its unit energy consumption is relatively low (-150 kWh/yr), it will become more ubiquitous and there is a common test protocol. 4.7 Space Heating Space heating products take many forms from large central furnaces to small room heaters; their fuels vary among natural gas, oil, propane and electricity. Their usage is very climate dependent and also culturally dependent. These would be difficult products for which to attempt test

4-3 Mexico has a high saturation ofroom air conditioners and has established efficiency standards for them.

4.3.2 Central Units Central or split system units can be used to cool more than one room at a time. They are very popular in the US and themajority ofnew construction comes with such.air conditioners. Split sytem units are popular in Asia and are often installed high on a wall and use remote control- this is done to avoid blocking light coming through windows. Another consideration in Asia and developing countries in general is that voltage fluctuations can be large; the designer needs to allow for this in design ofall electrical products. 4.4 Water Heating There are two types ofwater heaters found in households around the world, instantaneous and storage tank heaters. The storage tank water heaters use oil, gas, or electricity to heat the water and are capable ofstoring water in an insulated tank: for lateruse. Storage water heaters are common in NorthAmerica. The instantaneous type water heaters provide hot water on demand by passing cold waterthrough a heating coil. The amount ofwater available at any time is dependent uponthe temperature rise that is required. These kinds ofwater heaters are popular in Europe and LatinAmerica. Othertypes ofwater heaters that are not so common are solar, heat pump water heaters, and desuperheater waterheaters. The latter uses waste heat from 

### air conditioners. 

### 4.5 Cooking Products Cooking products include ovens, cooktops, rice cookers**~nd** microwave ovens. The usage ofsuch products is very variable among countries.Europeans have different habits from North Americans and ASians have different usage patterns from both. For example, in Asia ovens are hardly found but rice cookers are popular and microwave ovens are growing inpopularity. The cooking sector is not one ofthe highest residential energy end-uses and that energy is split among a number of products. There is one cooking appliance type that is found around the world and is growing in saturation in countries such as China and India. It already has a high saturation in Europe and NorthAmerica. Although its unit energy consumption is relatively low (-150kWh/yr), it

### will become more ubiquitous and there is a commontest protocol. 4.7 Space Heating Space heating products take many forms from large central furnaces to small room heaters; 

### their fuels vary among natural gas, oil, propane and electricity. Their usage is very climate dependent and also culturally dependent. These would be difficult products for which to attempt test

4-3protocol or performance standard harmonization.

4-4 protocol or performance standard harmonization.

4-4Chapter 5: Criteria for Identification of Products Amenable to International

Harmonization Efforts Introduction In the previous chapter we summarized some of the product attributes for selected appliances that are similar or different among IEA member (and some non-member) countries. Here we discuss several criteria that need to be considered in deciding which products are most amenable to international efforts at harmonizing labeling, efficiency standards and procurement programs. Table 5.1 lists some of these attributes that must be considered.
Table 5.1 Attributes to Consider for Selection of Each Product for Harmonization 1. Are there test protocols to measure energy efficiency or energy use? 2. Is energy efficiency climate dependent? 3. Is there a wide variation in characteristics and usage across countries? 4. Is total energy use relatively high in a number of countries or likely to become so. Is the saturation expected to increase rapidly? 5. Is technical 'potential energy savings high through selection of best available models in the marketplace or through new technologies? 6. Are large improvements in energy efficiency likely without intervention? 7. Is it already traded across international boundaries? , Harmonization could be considered at many geographical or political boundaries; for example, the European Union (EU), North America, Europe, lEA members, or the World as a whole. If harmonization is considered for less developed countries too, then there are other considerations such as, the state of the art of the appliance manufacturing industry in those countries and capital available for investment in new plant and equipment. The rest of this chapter discusses the status of several products with respect to the above attributes and suggests some that may presently be ready for international harmonization efforts. 5.1 Refrigerators and Freezers Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers are amenable to initiation of international efforts towards harmonization. There are some barriers that would have to be overcome but they are surmountable. The growing saturation of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in.developing countries such as China and India creates a strong incentive to harmonize minimum efficiency standards for these products. China now produces about 8 million refrigerators per year, more than any other country. Trade with these countries may increase and joint ventures are likely to continue. The potential reduction in electricity use and power plants is significant for this product. Refrigerators are already traded across international borders and many large companies own subsidiaries in other countries. The international nature of trade in that product makes it easier to promulgate international standards because manufacturers are already experienced with using

5-1 Chapter 5: Criteria for Identification ofProducts**~menable** to International .JIarmonization Efforts Introduction
Inthe previous chapter we summarized some ofthe product attributes for selected appliances that are similar or different among IEA member (and some non-member) countries. Here we discuss several criteriathat need to be considered in deciding which products are most amenable to international efforts at harmonizing labeling, efficiency standards and procurement programs. Table 5.1 lists some ofthese attributes that must be considered. Table 5.1 Attributes to Consider for Selection ofEach Product for Harmonization 1. Are there test protocols to measure energy efficiency or energy use? 2. Is energy efficiency climate dependent? 3. Is there a wide variation in characteristics and usage across countries? 4. Is total energy use relatively high in a number ofcountries or likely to become so. Is the saturation expected to increase rapidly? 5. Is technical potential energy savings high through selection ofbest available models in the marketplace orthrough new technologies? 6. Are large improvements in energy efficiency likely without intervention? 7. Is it already traded across international boundaries? Harmonization could be considered at many geographical or political boundaries; for example, 

### Ute European Union (EU), North America, Europe, lEAmembers, orthe World as a whole. If harmonization is considered for less developed countries too, then there are other considerations such as, the state ofthe art ofthe appliance manufacturing industry in those countries and capital available for investment in new plant and equipment. The rest ofthis cha:pter discusses the status ofseveral products with respect to the above attributes and suggests some that may presently be ready for international harmonization efforts. 5.1 Refrigerators and Freezers Refiigerators, refiigerator-freezers and freezers are amenable to initiation ofinternational efforts towards harmonization. There are some barriers that would have to be overcome butthey are surmountable. The growing saturation ofrefiigerators and refiigerator-freezers in.developing countries such as China and India creates a strong incentive to harmonize minimum efficiency standards for these products. China now produces about 8 million refiigerators peryear, more than any other country.Tradewiththese countries may increase andJoint ventures are likely to continue. The potential reduction in electricity use and powerplants is significant forthis product.. Refiigerators are already traded across international borders and many large companies own subsidiaries in other countries. Theinternational nature oftrade in that product makes it easierto promulgate international standards because manufacturers are already experienced withusing

5-1more than one test protocol and technology transfer can be easily accelerated through joint

ventures. Switching to an internationally agreed upon protocol should not result in too large a burden to manufacturers, the capital costs for developing countries may present a barrier that will require assistance from richer countries. There are special considerations for refrigerators that have to be dealt with; there are several test protocols being used and different countries have special features commonly found in their products. Both issues can be overcome through an international agreement to amend the present ISO test protocol to accommodate consideration of additional features that impact energy efficiency, such as multiple doors and through-the-door features. There have been some • indications that Japan may convert to the ISO test procedure. Another consideration for refrigerators, as discussed in Chapter 5, is the variation in size across countries. Different minimum efficiency standards equations would need to be developed for different size regimes. In the U. S., this has recently been done through a consensus process between manufacturers and environmental groups (see Chapter 3) and state energy agencies that was assisted by the U. S. Department of Energy. Two or three size groupings would be needed. 5.2 Wet Appliances Dishwashers are relatively similar across the IEA countries; the only significant differences concern cold or hot water supplies (discussed in Chapter 4). As 'discussed in Chapter 2, the test protocols are spmewhat different in the U. S. and Europe. The U. S. has energy efficiency standards and the EU is attempting to establish standards. In order to harmonize efficiency standards in those countries where dishwashers are presently common, an internationally acceptable protocol would have to be agreed upon. The main barrier to establishing such a protocol is the performance aspect of the protocol. Individual European countries have performance protocols and the EU countries have been trying to agree upon a common performance standard for many years; the U. S. does not even have a performance protocol. Clothes washers vary more than dishwashers or tumble dryers across countries. They can be automatic or semi-automatic and they can be horizontal or vertical axis machines. The capacity also varies, with U.S. products being generally larger. Some washers are connected to a cold water supply and have an internal electric heater (common in Europe), other models are connected to both hot and cold water supplies (common in North America). Still other washers, particularly in the developing countries , are connected to a cold water supply and have no internal heater, they use cold water or externally heated water for washing. Their energy use is relativel low compared to clothes washers in Europe or the US. Harmonizing test protocols could prove difficult, especially when performance (such as cleanliness) aspects are considered

. Additionally, the energy savings potential is not great in the developing countries. Clothes dryers are less common than dishwashers or clothes washers. In those countries that have large saturations of clothes dryers, the features of this product are relatively similar. The main .

5-2 more than one test protocol and techno!ogy transfer can be easily accelerated throughjoint ventures. Switching to an internationally agreed upon protocol should not result in too large a' burden to manufacturers, the capital costs for developing countries may present a barrier that will require assistance from richer countries. There are special considerations for refrigerators that have to be dealt with; there are several test protocols being used and different countries have special features commonly found in their products. Bothissues can be overcome through an international**~greement** to amend the present
. ISO test protocol to accommodate consideration ofadditional features that impact energy efficiency, such as multiple doors and through-the-door features. There have been some· indications that Japan may convert to the ISO test procedure. Another consideration for refrigerators, as discussed in Chapter 5, is the variation"in size across countries. Different minimum efficiency standards equations would need to be developed for different size regimes. In the U. S., this has recently been done through a consensus process between manufacturers and environmental groups (see Chapter 3) and state energy agencies that was assisted by the U.S. Department ofEnergy. Two orthree size groupings would be needed. 5.2 Wet Appliances Dishwashers are relatively similar across the IEA countries; the only significant differences concern cold or hot water supplies (discussed in Chapter 4). As 'discussed in Chapter 2, the test protocols are spmewhat different in the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. has energy efficiency standards and the EU is attempting to establish standards. In orderto harmonize efficiency standards in those countries where dishwashers are presently common, an internationally acceptable protocol would have to be agreed upon. The main barrierto establishing such a protocol is the performance aspect ofthe protocol. Individual European countries have

. performance protocols and the EU countries have been trying to**ag~ee** upon a common performance standard for many years; the U.S. does not even. have a performance protocol. Clothes washers vary more than dishwashers ortumble dryers across countries. They canhe automatic or semi-automatic and they canbe horizontal orvertical axis machines. The capacity also varies, withU.S. products being generally larger. Some washers are connected to a cold water supply and have an internal electric heater (common in Europe), other models are connected to bothhot and cold water supplies (common inNorth America). Still otherwashers, particularly in the developing countries, are connected to a cold water supply and have no internal heater, they use cold water or externally heated waterfor washing. Their energy use is relativel low compared to clotheswashers in Europe ortheUS. Harmonizing test protocols could prove difficult, especially when performance (such as cleanliness) aspects are considered. Additionally, the energy savings potential is not great in the developing countries. Clothes dryers are less common than dishwashers or clothes washers. In those countriesthathave large saturations ofclothes dryers, the features ofthis product are relatively similar.**Th~** 

### main.

5-2parameter that varies is the capacity, with U. S. households generally using larger-sized machines.

Other parameters that are different are voltage supply (120V or 240V) and heat source (electricity or natural gas). It should be more feasible to develop a common test protocol for clothes dryers than for washers. The performance aspect of the test protocol, moisture remaining in the clothes, should prove relatively easy to agree upon. Capacity in kilograms is already accounted for in the energy efficiency metric used in North America and in Europe.
5.3 Air Conditioners There is an opportunity to harmonize energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners. The ISO test protocol is used in many countries and those where it is not used rate their products at one of the three possible ISO rating points. The characteristics of the product do not vary much from country to country around the world. The main parameter that does vary is capacity and existing standards are already disaggregated by capacity. The U. S., Mexico and Canada have very similar efficiency standards for room air conditioners. Korea

.uses the Japanese test protocol and has efficiency standards as a function of capacity. The standards are expressed as a COP rather than an EER. The U.S. has efficiency standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. The test protocol requires several test points to be used and combined into a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER). This is a different protocol than the ISO protocol, which does present a barrier to harmonization. Central systems are not very popular throughout the rest of the world, so harmonization of efficiency standards for such products can be delayed. 5.4 Other Appliances In this section we briefly discuss water heating, cooking (including microwave ovens) and space heating. Water heaters do not satisfy many of the criteria listed in Table 5.1. The test protocols differ among nations, the characteristics and usage differ significantly and they are not international appliances. Cooking appliances have the same difficulties as water heaters, except for microwave ovens for which an internation test protocol is used around the world. Microwave ovens are commonly found in most countries and their popularity is growing in developing countries. They are truly international appliances that look the same everywhere. Microwave ovens show a range of efficiencies (52-63%) but do not use very much energy (100 to 200 kWh/yr). They are considered in Chapter 6. There are many types of space heating products as described in the previous chapter and there are no common test protocols. Their energy use and energy efficiency can also be very climate dependent. 5.6 Conclusions

5-3 

### parameter that varies is the capacity, with U.S. households generally using larger-sized machines. Other parameters that are different are voltage supply (l20V or 240V) and heat source (electricity or natural gas). It should be more feasible to develop a common test protocol for clothes dryers than for washers. The performance aspect ofthe test protocol, moisture remaining in the clothes, should prove relatively easy to agree upon. Capacity in kilograms is already accounted for in the energy efficiency metric used in North America and i'n Europe.

. 5.3 Air Conditioners There is an opportunity to harmonize energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners. The ISO test protocol is used in many countries and those where it is not'used rate their products at one ofthe three possible ISO rating points. The characteristics ofthe**pro~uct** 

### do not vary much from country to country around the world. The main parameter that does vary is**cap~city** 

### and existing standards are already disaggregated by capacity. The U.S., Mexico and Canada have very similar efficiency standards for room air conditioners. Korea.uses the Japanesetest protocol and has efficiency standards as a function ofcapacity. The standards are expressed as a COP rather than anEER The U.S. has efficiency standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. The test protocol

.requires several test points to be used and combined into a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER). This is a different protocol than the ISO protocol, which does present a barrierto harmonization. Central systems are not very popular throughout the rest ofthe world, so harmonization ofefficiency standards for such products can be delayed. 5.4 OtherAppliances In this section we briefly discuss water heating, cooking (including microwave ovens) and space heating. Water heaters do not satisfy many ofthe criteria listed in Table 5.1. The test protocols differ among nations, the characteristics and usage differ significantly and they are not international appliances. Cooking appliances have the same difficulties as water heaters, except for microwave ovens for which an internation test protocol is used around the world. Microwave ovens are commonly found in most countries and their popularity is growing in developing countries. They are truly international appliances that lookthe same everywhere. Microwave ovens show a range of efficiencies (52-63%) but do not use very much energy (100 to 200 kWhlyr). They are considered in Chapter 6. There are many types ofspace heating products as described 

### in the previous chapter and there are no common test protocols. Their energy use and energy efficiency**~an** 

### also be very climate

. dependent. 5.6 ConclusionsIn the near term, refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and microwave ovens are good candidates

for attempts at harmonizing labeling, efficiency standards and technology procurement. The former because there is a great potential for energy savings in developing countries and developing common test protocols is difficult but feasible. The latter product because it represents a product for which an early success is achievable. In the longer term, dishwashers, clothes washers room air conditioners and dryers should be considered for harmonization activities. These appliances present more problems with regard to test protocol harmonization and are not common in all countries. A common rating condition for room air conditioners could be agreed upon but then the impact of climate on the optimal efficiency standard must be dealt with. Depending upon the severity of the summer weather, economically optimum efficiency levels will vary in different localities. Table 5.2 summarizes the near and long term targets for harmonization

Table 5.2 Summary of Products Amenable to Harmonization Near Term Targets Long Term Targets Refrigerators Dishwashers Refrigerator-freezers Clothes Washers Microwave Ovens Clothes Dryers Room Air Conditioners The driving force on harmonization efforts is likely to be trade among countries and regions. Appliance manufacturers may ultimately support or even push towards that objective. Initial efforts will be directed towards harmonization of test protocols and labeling. Once test protocols are harmonized, the more difficult task of harmonization of efficiency standards will take place. In general, standards cannot be easily transferred from one country to another because the methodology used to establish standards involves engineering and economic calculations that would differ for each country. Some of the factors that would impact the nature of standards resulting from a typical analysis are: 1. Characteristics of appliances 2. Test procedures 3. Field energy consumption 4. Manufacturer costs for efficiency improvements 5. Fuel price 6. Discount rates It is very likely that consensus standards will be arrived at through negotiations involving

5-4 In the near tenn, refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and microwave ovens are good candidates for attempts at hannonizing labeling, efficiency standards and technology procurement. The fonner because there is a great potential for energy savings in developing countriesand

. developing common test protocols is difficult but feasible. The latter product because it represents a product for which an early success is achievable.

. . . Inthe longer term, dishwashers, clothes washers room air conditioners and dryers should be considered for hannonization activities. These appliances present more problems with regard to test protocol hannonization and are not common in all countries. A common: rating condition for room air conditioners could be agreed upon but then the impact ofclimate on the optimal efficiency standard must be dealt with. Depending upon the severity ofthe summer weather, economically optimum efficiency levels will vary in different localities. Table 5.2 summarizes the near and long tenn targets for hannonization

. Table 5.2 Summary ofProducts Amenable to Hannonization
Near Tenn Targets Long Tenn Targets Refrigerators Dishwashers Refrigerator-freezers Clothes Washers Microwave Ovens Clothes Dryers Room Air Conditioners
The driving force on hannonization efforts is likely to be trade among**~ountries** and regions. Appliance manufacturers may ultimately support or even push towards that objective. Initial efforts will be directed towards hannonization oftest protocols and labeling. Once test protocols are hannonized, the more difficult task ofhannonization ofefficiency standards will take place. In general, standards cannot be easily transferred from one country to anotherbecause the methodologyused to establish standards involves engineering and economic calculations that would differ for each country. Some ofthe factors that would impact the nature ofstandards resulting from a typical analysis are: 1. Characteristics ofappliances 2. Test procedures 3. Field energy consumption 4. Manufacturer costs for efficiency improvements 5. Fuel price 6. Discount rates Itis very likely that consensus standards will be arrived atthrough negotiations involving

5-4government agencies and trade groups representing appliance manufacturers. Representatives

from individual countries will want to determine how a consensus standard will comapre to a standard that would have been economically optimized for conditions in their country. This subject has been explored in a paper presented at the first ECEEE (European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy) Conference (Turiel, 1993). government agencies and trade groups**repre~enting** appliance manufacturers. Representatives from individual countries will want to determine how a consensus standard will comapre to a standard that would have been economically optimized for conditions in their country. 'This subject has been explored in a paper presented at the first ECEEE (European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy) Conference (Turiel, 1993).



### 5-5Chapter 6 : Survey of Benefits and Costs of Prior Performance Specifications

In this section, we describe several studies on a country or regional level that examined both the benefits and'costs of implementing performance specifications. We focus on lEA members. Such studies have been performed for Australia, Canada, European Union, and the United States. Increased producer costs and decreased consumer life cycle costs are discussed, along with the impact on consumer choice. 6.1 Survey of Prior Assessments Table 6.1 shows the projected energy savings for each region from mandatory standards.

Table 6.1 Projected Source Energy Savings and Net Benefit from Standards

Energy Savings (PJ = 1015 J) Cumulative Net Benefit(1990- 2030) YEAR: 2000 2007 2010 (Billion 1990 $) Australia 48 Canada 44 117 European Union (refrigeration 90-160 320-370 potential) United States 1300 3400 133 (existing) United States 1100 2500 75 (proposed)

AUSTRALIA Studies of household appliances were conducted in the early 1990s to provide a basis for efficiency standards. (Wilkenfeld, 1993) The study inch4ded refrigerators , freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, water heaters, and room air conditioners, which together account for 44% of residential electricity. These products (except water heaters) are subject to a mandatory energy labeling program

. The study recommended mandatory minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for refrigerators, freezers, clothes dryers, and water heaters

. These standards were proposed to be implemented in 1996 (after a 2

-3 year notice period). The impacts by year 2007 are projected

6-1 Chapter 6: Survey ofBenefits and Costs ofPriorperformance Specifications
In this section, we describe several studies on a country or regional level that examined both the benefits and'costs ofimplementing performance specifications. W**~**focus on IEAmembers. Such studies have been performed for Australia, Canada, European Union, and the United States. Increased producer costs and decreased consumer life cycle costs are discussed, along with the impact on consumer choice. 6.1 Survey ofPriorAssessments Table 6.1 shows the projected energy savings for each region from mandatory standards.

Table 6.1 Projected Source Energy Savings and Net Benefit from Standards Energy Savings (PJ 

### = lOIS J) CUQ:mlative Net Benefit (1990- 2030) YEAR: 2000 2007 2010 (Billion 1990 $) Australia 48 Canada '44 117 European Union (refrigeration 90-160 320-370 potential) United States 1300 3400 133 (existing) United States 1100 2500 75 (proposed)

AUSTRALIA Studies ofhousehold appliances were conducted in the early 1990s to provide a basisforefficiency standards. (Wilkenfeld, 1993) The study inclqded refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, waterheaters, androom airconditioners, whichtogether account for 44% ofresidential electricity. Theseproducts (except waterheaters) are subjectto a mandatory energy labeling program. The study recommended mandatory minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for refrigerators, freezers, clothes dryers, andwater heaters. These standards wereproposed tobeimpleIrented in 1996 (after a 2-3 yearnotice period). The impacts byyear2007 are projected

6-1to include a 9.7% reduction in annual electricity consumption for the covered products , equivalent

to cumulative savings of 13,290 GWh (47.8 PJ). Projected economic impacts include : 3.1% increase in average retail price, 5.1% reduction in -lifetime electricity cost, and 3

.4% reduction in undiscounted life * cycle cost (2.0% if discounted at 8%). Large savings are identified for water heaters and refrigerators and freezers , and small savings for the other appliances.
CANADA By 1992, Canada had implemented standards for household refrigerators and industrial motors, and considered energy efficiency standards for 20 products, which together account for about 60% of residential energy. Emphasis is placed on coordination of activity in Canada's provincial governments with activity in the United States, to prohibit cross-border trade of the least energy efficient equipment. For these 20 products, aggregate energy savings of 44 PJ are projected in year 2000, of which 23 PJ are natural gas, 20 PJ are electricity, and 0.9 PJ are oil. In 2010, savings of 117 PJ are projected (66 PJ natural gas, 48 PJ electricity, and 2.6 PJ oil); and in 2020, savings of 134 PJ are projected (74 PJ natural gas, 57 PJ electricity, and 2.9 PJ oil). These energy savings are.expected to reduce emissions of CO2 by between 4 and 6 Mt (million tonnes) in 2000, 10-16 Mt in 2010 and 12-19 Mt in 2020. Net consumer benefits per appliance (over the life, discounted at 7% real) are estimated at $34 for refrigerator, $42 per freezer, and $918 per natural gas furnace. Minimum energy-efficiency standard for 22 products (clothes dryers, clothes washers, dishwashers, electric ranges, electric water heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts, freezers, furnaces, gas ranges, gas water heaters, ground or water source heat pumps, integrated over//under washer-dryers, internalwater loop heat pumps, motors, oil-fired water heaters, refrigerators, combination refrigeratorfreezers, room air conditioners, single-package central air conditioners, single-package heat pumps, split-system central air conditioners, and split-system heat pumps) became effective in 1995. The analysis of energy and economic savings is on-going. (Department of .Energy, Mines and Resources, 1994) EUROPEAN UNION In 1986, the Council of Ministers of the EC set an objective to increase end-use energy efficiency by 20% by 1995. In 1989, the PACE program was adopted, to increase efficient use of electricity. In 199 1, SAVE was begun. In 1990, the EC intended to stabilize CO2 emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels. In November, 1990, CEC Directorate General for Energy held a Workshop on Domestic Appliance Efficiencies in Brussels

. Representatives of electricity supply, manufacturers, national governments, consumers, and technical experts provided their viewpoints. In 1991, France produced the first reports analyzing energy standards for domestic appliances. Five

6-2 to include a 9.7% reduction in annual electricity consumption for the covered products, equivalent to cumulative savings of 13,290 GWh (47.8 PJ). Projected economic impacts include: 3.1% increase in average retailprice, 5.1% reduction in .lifetime electricity cost, and 3.4% reduction in undiscounted life'cycle cost (2.0% if discounted at 8%). Large savings are identified for water heaters and refrigerators and freezers, and small savings for the other appliances. CANADA By 1992, Canada had implemented standards for household refrigerators and industrial motors, and considered energy efficiency standards for 20 products, which together account for about 60% of residential energy. Emphasis is placed oncoordination ofactivity in Canada's provincial governments with activity in the United States, to prohibit cross-border trade of the least energy efficient equipment.
Forthese 20products, aggregate energy savings of44 PI are projected in year 2000, ofwhich 23 PJ are natural gas, 20PJ are electricity, and 0,9 PJ are oil. In 2010, savings of 117 PJ are projected (66 PJ natural gas, 48 PJ electricity, and 2.6 PJ oil); and in 2020, savings of 134 PI are projected (74 PJ natural gas, 57 PJelectricity, and 2.9 PJ oil). These energy savings are.expected toreduce emissions ofCO2 by between 4 and 6 Mt (million tonnes) in 2000, 10-16 Mt in 2010 and 12-19 Mt in 2020. Net consumerbenefits per appliance (overthe life, discounted at 7% real) are estimated at $34 for refrigerator, $42per freezer, and $918 per natural gas furnace. Minimumenergy-efficiency standard for 22products (clothes dryers, clowes washers,.dishwashers, electric ranges, electric waterheaters, fluorescent lampballasts, freezers, furnaces, gas ranges, gas water heaters, ground or water source heat pumps, integrated overllunder washer-dryers, internal water loop heat pumps, motors, oil-fired water heaters, refrigerators, combination refrigeratorfreezers, roomairconditioners, single-package central air conditioners, single-package heatpumps, split-system central air conditioners, and split-system heat pumps) became effective in 1995. The analysis ofenergy and economic savings is on-going. (Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources, 1994) EUROPEAN UNION In 1986, the CouncilofMinisters ofthe EC set an objective to increase end-use energy efficiencyby 20% by 1995. In 1989, the PACE programwas adopted, to increase efficient use ofelectricity. In 1991, SA VB was begun. In 1990, the EC intended to stabilize C02 emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels. InNovember. 1990, CECDirectorate Generalfor Energy held a Workshop onDomestic Appliance Efficiencies in

### Brussels. Representatives ofelectricity supply, manufacturers, national governments, consumers, andtechnical experts provided their viewpoints. In 1991. Franceproduced the frrst reports analyzing energy standards for domestic appliances. Five

6-2products

- refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers

- were studied for

the 12 EC countries . (B. Lebot, 1991 .)(AFME - CEC DGXVII, 1991.) In 1991, the Netherlands study of possible standards for refrigerators and freezers was published. (Vermeulen, 1991.) The study included a characterization of the models available for sale at that time, a statistical derivation of possible efficiency standards, and analysis of resulting reduction in average energy consumption per appliance, size and composition (number of models and brands remaining) of the residual market, and effects on minimum and average prices. Opportunities for saving 10-40% of the national consumption of energy by refrigerators were identified, equivalent to about 35-140 MW of capacity. A Danish study was conducted, with participation by Danish manufacturers, of possible standards for refrigerators and freezers. In 1992, the report was presented to the Danish Energy Agency and Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration. (Buhl Pedersen, 1992.) The report included estimates of manufacturer costs, consumer costs (purchase price and life cycle costs). The report

. includes a comparison to previous studies by France and the Netherlands. In 1992, the IEA and ADEME held the International Energy Conference on Use of Efficiency Standards in Energy Policy. A number of papers were presented regarding current energy consumption and possible policy impacts for appliances , lighting, and heating and cooling equipment. (AFME-IEA, 1992.") In 1993, the Group for Efficient Appliances (GEA) issued a final report (begun in 1992) to the European Commission (CEC-DG XVII). (GEA, 1993.) The analysis provided estimates of costs of increased energy efficiency, consumer costs, reductions in operating costs. The report estimated overall energy savings and environmental impacts (reductions in emissions of CO2, NOx, and SOx) for the European Community. Short-term and long-term standards were recommended. The projected electricity savings from those standards for domestic refrigeration appliances amounted to 8-15 TWH/a in 2000, 29-34 TWh/a in 2010, and 34-37 TWh/a in 2015. (In Table 6.1, these have been converted to source PJ assuming 1 TWh = 11 PJ.) In 1994, GEA published an analysis for the "wet" appliances (clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers), including estimates of consumer costs, energy savings, and environmental impacts of standards. (GEA, 1994)

UNITED STATES
The first mandatory regulations banning pilot lights in new products were passed by the State of California in 1976, effective in 1978 for household cooking and fan-type central furnaces , effective in 1979 for clothes dryers and fan-type wall furnaces, and effective in 1984 for swimming pool heaters. Also in 1976, California passed the first appliance efficiency standards for refrigerators, freezers, and room and central air conditioners , effective in two tiers, in 1977 and in 1978!79. The

6-3 products

- ren;gerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, and dishwashers

- were studied for the 12 EC countries. (B. Lebot, 1991.)(AFME

- CEC DGXVII, 1991.)
In 1991, the Netherlands study ofpossible standards for refrigerators and freezers was published. (Vermeulen, 1991.) The study included a characterization ofthe models available for sale at that time, a statistical derivation ofpossible efficiency standards, and, analysis ofresulting reduction in 'average energy consumption per appliance, size and composition (number of models and brands remaining) ofthe residual market, and effects on minimum and average prices. Opportunities for saving 10-40% ofthe national consumption ofenergy by refrigeratorS were identified, equivalent to about 35'-140 MW ofcapacity. A Danish study was conducted, with participation by Danish manufacturers, ofpossible standards for refrigerators and freezers. In 1992, the report was presented to the Darush Energy Agency and NorwegianWater Resources and Energy Administration. (Buhl Pedersen, 1992.) The report included estimates ofmanufacturer costs, consumer costs (purchase price and life cycle costs). The report
. includes a comparison to previous studies by France and the Netherlands.
In 1992, the lEA and ADEME held the International Energy Conference on Use of Efficiency Standards in Energy Policy. A number of papers were presented regarding 'Current energy consumption and possible policy impacts for appliances, lighting, andheating and cooling equipment.

. (AFME-IEA, 1992.")

In 1993, the Group for Efficient Appliances (GEA) issued a final report (begun in 1992) to the European Corrunission (CEC-DG XVII). (GEA, 1993.) The analysis provided estimates ofcostS of increased energy efficiency, consumer costs, reductions in operating costs. The report estimated overallenergy savings and environmental impacts (reductions in emissions ofCO2, NOx, and SOx) for the European Community. Short-term and long-term standards were recommended. The projected electricity savings from those standards for domestic refrigeration appliances amounted to 8-15 TWHIa in 2000,29-34 TWh/a in 2010, and 34-37 TWh/a in 2015. (In Table 6.1, these have**b~n** converted to source PJ assuming 1TWh = 11 PJ.)
In 1994, GEA published an analysis for the "wet" appliances (Clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers), including estimates ofconsumer costs, energy savings, andenvironmental impacts ofstandards. (GEA, 1994)

UNITED STATES The first mandatory regulations banning pilot lights in new products were passed by the State of California in 1976, effective in 1978 for household cooking and fan-type central furnaces, effective in 1979 for clothes dryers and fan-type wall furnaces, and effective in 1984 for swimming pool heaters. Also in 1976, California passed the fIrSt appliance efficiency stanc;fards for refrigerators. freezers, and room and central airconditioners, effective intwo tiers, in 1977 and in 1978n9. The

6-3refrigerator standards were later updated. In 1977, California passed efficiency standards for central

furnaces (small and large), wall furnaces (fan-type and gravity), floor furnaces, room heaters, boilers, unit heaters, duct furnaces, and water heaters (electric and gas). In addition to appliances, California passed efficiency standards for showerheads and faucets, and, in 1982, for fluorescent lamp ballasts, and large air conditioners. (California Energy Commission, 1983) California conducted prospective studies, forecasting impacts of standards, providing a basis for promulgating the standards. The analysts examined impacts including: consumer costs and savings, energy savings in physical and economic units, reduced peak power requirements, ambient air quality. A small amount of retrospective research was undertaken, mostly documenting the range of efficiencies of products available in California after standards were implemented there, in contrast to the range of efficiencies in the (then unregulated) rest of US. A labeling program was implemented in the early 1980s for seven residential products (refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, water heaters, room air conditioners, furnaces and boilers, clothes washers, and dishwashers) by the Federal Trade Commission. Central air conditioners and heat pumps were added in 1987. Subsequent analyses failed to demonstrate that labels alone caused significant efficiency improvements (McMahon, 1992) However, the combination of labels with rebates offered by some utility service territories for the more efficient models, did affect the range of models sold in those local markets. The first national mandatory energy efficiency standards, and a schedule for possible updates, were enacted into law in the United States in 1987. Standards were established for refrigerators and freezers, water heaters, furnaces and boilers, room and central air conditioners, kitchen ranges and ovens, clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers, effective in 1990 to 1992. In 1988, fluorescent lamp ballasts were added to the list, and in 1992, lamps, electric motors, and plumbing products were added. Updates were published in 1989 for refrigerators and freezers and small gas furnaces (effective in 1993) and in 1990 for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers (effective in 1994). Most studies of US national standards were prospective, conducted as part of the Department of Energy's legislatively required obligation to demonstrate "technological feasibility and economic justification." These studies of possible national energy standards began in the US in 1979, and are on-going. (US Department of Energy, 1980, 1989, 1990, 1993) The measures of economic justification include consumer first cost (purchase price and installation cost), consumer operating cost (energy and maintenance expenses), simple payback period, consumer life cycle cost, financial impact on a prototypical manufacturer (several indicators, including shipments, revenues, net income, and return on equity), national energy and economic impacts , impacts on electric utilities (avoided energy and -avoided reliability costs , peak load and capacity reductions , and revenue losses), and environmental impacts (reduced emissions of CO2 , NOx, and SOx). No comparable retrospective studies have been published. The impacts of existing US efficiency standards on residential and commercial buildings are projected

6-4 refrigerator standards were later updated. In 1977, Californiapassed efficiency standards for central furnaces (small and large), wall furnaces (fan-type and gravity), floor furnaces, room heaters, boilers, unit heaters, duct furnaces, and water heaters (electric and gas). In addition to appliances, California passed efficiency standards for showerheads and faucets, and, in 1982, for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
" " and large air conditioners. (CaliforniaEnergy Commission, 1983) "California conducted prospective studies, forecasting impacts of standards, providing a basis for

promulgating the standards. The analysts examined impacts including: consumer costs" and savings, energy savings in physical and economic units, reduced peakpower requirements, ambient air quality. A small amount of retrospective research was undertaken, mostly documenting the range of efficiencies ofproducts available in California after standards were implemented there, in contrast to the range ofefficiencies in the (then unregulated) rest ofUS. A**~ling** programwas implemented in the early 1980s for seven residential products (refrigerators andrefrigerator-freezers, freezers, water heaters, room air conditioners, furnaces and boilers, clothes washers, and dishwashers) by the Federal Trade Commission. Central air conditioners and heat pumps were" added in 1987. Subsequent analyses failed to demonstrate that labels alone caused significant efficiency improvements (McMahon, 1992) However, the combination of labels with rebates offered by some utility service territories for the more efficient models, did affect the range ofmodels sold in those local markets. The first national mandatory energy efficiency standards, and a schedule for possible updates, were enacted into law in the United States in 1987. Standards were established for refrigerators and freezers, waterheaters, furnaces andboilers, room and central airconditioners, kitchen ranges and ovens, clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers, effective in 1990 to 1992. In 1988, fluorescent lamp ballasts were added to the list, and in 1992, lamps, electric motors, and plumbing products were added.**Upda~es** were published in 1989 for refrigerators and freezers and small gas furnaces (effective in 1993) and in 1990 for dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers (effective in 1994). Most studies ofUS national standards were prospective, conducted as part ofthe DepartIIient of Energy's legislatively required obligation to demonstrate "technological feasibility and economic justification." These studies ofpossible national energy standards began in the US in 1979, and are on-going. (US Department of Energy, 1980, 1989, 1990, 1993) The measures of economic justification include consumer first cost (purchase price and installation cost), consumer operating cost (energy and maintenance expenses),**simpl~** paybackperiod, consumerlife cycle cost, fulancial impact ona prototypicalmanufacturer (severalindicators, including shipments, revenues, net income, and return on equity), national energy and economic impacts, impacts onelectric**u~ties** (avoided energy and·avoided reliability costs. peak load and capacity reductions, and revenue losses), and environmental impacts (reduced emissions ofCO2, NOx, and SOx). No comparable retrospective' studies havebeen published.

- The impacts ofexisting US efficiency standards onresidential and commercial buildings are projected


### 64to include significant energy and economic savings. For electricity, an estimated 88 TWH/a will be

saved in year 2000, and peak electricity generating capacity of 21,000 MW, compared to a hypothetical future without standards. In the year 2015, electricity savings are projected at 222 TWH/a, with about 58,000 MW of avoided generating capacity. Overall, the ratio of present value of consumer benefits to costs is about 3:1. Simple payback periods to consumers vary with the product, from about 0.8 to 9 years for average usage patterns. Cumulative government expenditures (from 1979-1994) of about $60 million are projected to produce a present value net savings of over $60 billion (1990-2030). Table 6.2 shows the projected energy savings for each rulemaking, including two proposals not yet in effect. Table 6.3 shows the associated benefits and costs, and net present value (NPV). Benefits are defined as retail value of energy savings, and costs are increased equipment costs. NPV is the net of benefits less costs. Table 6.4. shows the projected reductions in emissions of CO2. NOx, and SOx. Currently analyses are underway for possible updates for all these products, and possible standards for televisions. Studies are underway or planned for updates to lamp standards (incandescent and fluorescent), and a determination will be made regarding the justification for standards for high intensity discharge lamps. to include significant energy and economic savings. For electricity, an estimated 88 TWHIa willbe saved in year 2000, and peak electricity generating capacity of 21,000 MW, compared to a hypothetical future without standards. In the year 2015, electricity savings are projected at 222 TWHIa, with alxmt 58,000 MW ofavoided generating capacity. Overall, the ratio ofpresent value ofconsumer benefits to costs is about 3: 1. Simple payback periods to consumers vary with the product, from about 0.8 to 9 years for average usage patterns. Cumulative government expenditures (from 1979-1994) ofabout $60 million are projected to produce a present value net savings ofover $60billion (1990-2030). • Table 6.2 shows the projected energy savings for each rulemaking, including two proposals notyet ineffect. Table 6.3 shows the associated benefits and costs, and net present value (NPV). Benefits are defined as retail vruue ofenergy savings, and costs are increased equipment costs. NPV is the net ofbenefits less costs. Table 6.4.shows the projected reductions in emissions ofCO2, NOx, and SOx. Currently anruyses are underway for possible updates for all these products, and possipte standards for televisions. Studies are underway or planned for updates to lamp standards (incandescent and fluorescent), and a determination will be made regarding the justification for standards for high intensity discharge lamps.

6-5**:~** '. ... : .

## Table 6.2. US primary energy savings from appliance standards

Standard EJ (primary) saved in 2000 NAECA `87 0.22 0.61 NAECA `88 (ballasts) 0.22 0.30 Refrigerator/freezer update `89 0.16 0.32 "Clean Three" update `91 0.07 0.16 EPAct `92 (lamps only)' 0.42 1.10 EPAct `92 (all other) 0.20 0.58 SUBTOTAL: 1.29 3.07 8 Product Proposed Standard2 1 .02 2.22 Refrigerator

/freezer consensus 0.04 0.26 standard for `98 TOTALS 2.35 5.55

Sources: All figures are taken or derived from DOE Technical Support Documents, EXCEPT for figures on "NAECA `88 (ballasts)," and "EPAct `92 (all other)," which were provided by Howard Geller, ACEEE, and on "Refrigerator/freezer consensus standard for `98", which was derived from press releases.

' Excluding HVAC.
2 Estimate based on an assumed effective date of 1998. EJ (primary) saved in 2015

6-6 

## Table 6.2. US primary energy savings from appliance standards

Standard EJ (primary) savedin 2000 EJ (primary) saved in 2015 NAECA '87 0.22 0.61 NAECA '88 (ballasts) 0.22 0.30 Refrigerator/freezer update '89 0.16 0.32 "Clean Three" update '91 0.07 0.16 EPAct '92 (lamps onlyY 0.42 1.10 EPAct '92 (all other) 0.20 0.58 SUBTOTAL: 1.29 3.07 8 Product Proposed Standard2 1.02 2.22 Refrigerator/freezerconsensus 0.04 0.26 standard for '98 TOTALS 2.35 5.55

Sources: Allfigures aretaken orderived from DOE Technical SupportDocuments, EXCEPT for figures on ''NAECA '88 (ballasts)," and ''EPAct '92 (all other)," which were provided by Howard Geller, ACEEE, and on "Refrigeratorifreezer consensus standardfor '98", whichwas derived from press releases.

1Excluding HVAC.

2 Estimatebased on an assumed effective date of 1998.**--~** .' 6-6

## Table 6.3. Benefits, Costs and Net Present Value (NPV): -National Economic Impact of US Appliance Standards (Values in billion $1990 discounted @ 7% real)

Standard NPV Benefit Cost Forecast to 2015: NAECA `87 40.0 69.0 29.0 NAECA `88 (ballasts) 7.6 10.3 2:7 Refrigerator/freezer update 10.5 15.5 5.0 `89 "Clean Three" update `91 2.5 4.0 1.5


### TOTALS to 2015 60.6 98.8 38.2 Forecast to 2030: EPAct `92 (lamps only) 56.0 73.0 17.0 EPAct `92 (all other) 16.0 - 21.0 5.0 SUBTOTAL: 72.0 94.0 22.0 8 Product NOPR as proposed3 66.5. 98.7 32.2 Refrigerator/freezer 8.2 11.6 3.4 consensus standard for `98 

### TOTALS to 2030 146.7 204.3 57.6

Sources: All figures are taken or derived from published or draft DOE Technical Support Documents, EXCEPT for figures on "NAECA `88 (ballasts)," and "EPAct `92 (all other)," which were provided by Howard Geller, 'ACEEE, and on

"Refrigerator

/ freezer consensus standard for `98", which was derived from press releases.

3 As proposed in March 1994 for room air conditioners, water heaters, direct heating equipment, mobile home furnaces, kitchen ranges and ovens, pool heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and television sets.

6-7 

## Table 6.3. Benefits, Costs and Net Present Value (NPV):**-~ational** 

## Economic Impact ofUS Appliance Standards (Values inbillion $1990 discounted @ 

### 7% real)



### Standard NPV Benefit 

### Forecastto 2015:

NAECA '87 40.0 69.0 NAECA '88 (ballasts) 7.6 10.3 Refrigerator/freezer update 10.5 15.5 '89 "Clean Three" update '91 2.5 4.0


### TOTALS to 2015 60.6 98.8 

### Forecastto 2030: •

EPAct '92 (lamps only) 56.0 73.0 EPAct '92 (all other) 16.0 21.0 SUBTOTAL: 72.0 94.0

8 Product NOPR as proposed3 66.5. 98.7 Refrigerator/freezer 8.2 11.6 consensus standard for '98 

### TOTALS to 2030 146.7 204.3 

### Cost

29.0**2~7**

5.0
1.5
38.2

, 17.0 5.0 22.0 32.2

3.4
57.6

Sources: Allfigures aretaken orderived from published ordraft DOETechnical SupportDocuments, EXCEPTfor figures on "NAECA '88 (ballasts)," and ''EPAct '92 (all other)," which were provided by Howard Geller, ACEEE, and on ''Refrigeratorifreezerconsensus standard for '98", which was derived from press releases.

3 As proposed inMarch 1994 for room airconditioners, waterheaters, direct heating**equipmen~** mobile home furnaces, kitchen ranges and ovens, pool heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and television sets.

6-7

## Table 6.4. Power Plant Emissions Reductions in 2000 and 2015 By US Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards

Standard 

### CO2 (106 tons) NOX (103 tons) SO2 (103 tons) [traded or banked] 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 NAECA'87 18.1 50.6 48.5 100.2 65.1 108.9 NAECA ` 88 (ballasts) 18.1 24.4 48.5 48.4 65.1. 52.6 NAECA updates 19.9 39.3 53.1 77.8 71.4 84.5 ('89 and `91) EPAct `92 (lamps only) 34.6 90.8 92.4 179.7 124.1 195.3 EPAct `92 (all other) 16.4 48.0 43.9 . . 95.0 59.0 103.3 SUBTOTAL: 107.1 253.1 286.4 501.1 384.7 544.6 8 Product Proposed 39.4 187.4 109.3 416.2 141.5 452.4 Standard Refrigerator

/freezer 3.1 20.1 8.3 39.2 11.2 42.3 consensus standard for `984 TOTALS 149.6 460.6 404.0 956.9 537.4 1039.3

Emissions factors for this table were taken from estimates published originally as part of the 1991 National Energy Strategy(NFS) and cited in the December 1992 Analysis of Federal Policy Options for Improving Lighting Energy Efficiency (LBL31469, pp.8/1-8/4). And in the November 1993 TSD covering the 8 product proposed rules (DOE/EE-0009 vol. 1, pp.2-7). These estimates are designed to account for the impact of Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act (HR 3030) on power plant emissions.

4 Estimate based on an assumed effective date of 1998.

6-8 

## Table 6.4. Power Plant Emissions Reductions in 2000 and 2015 By US Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards

Standard 

### COi (106 

### tons)

2000 2015 2000 NAECA '87 18.1 50.6 48.5 NAECA '88 (ballasts) 18.1 24.4 48.5 NAECA updates 19.9 39.3 53.1 ('89 and '91) EPAct '92 (lamps only) 34.6 90.8 92.4 EPAct '92 (all other) 16.4 48.0 43.9 SUBTOTAL: 107.1 253.1 286.4 8 ProductProposed 39.4 187.4 109.3 Standard Refrigerator/freezer 3.1 20.1 8.3 consensus standard for '984 TOTALS 1149.6 460.6 1404.0 

### S02 (103

### tons) [traded orbanked] 2015 2000 2015 100.2 65.1 108.9 48.4 65.1. 52.6 77.8 71.4 84.5
179.7 124.1 19.5.3 .95.0- 59.0 103.3 501.1 384.7 544.6· 416.2 141.5 452.4

39.2 11.2 42.3

956.9 1537.4 1039.3

Fmissions:fuctorsfor this table were taken from estimates published originally as partofthe 1991 National Energy Strategy (NBS) andcited inthe December 1992Analysis ofFederal Policy Options for Improving Lighting Energy Efficiency (LBI.- 31469,pp.811-8/4). And inthe November 1993 TSD coveringthe 8product proposedrules (DOFlEE-0009 vol. 1, pp.2-7). These estimates are designed to account for the impact ofTitle V ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act (HR 3030) on powerplant emissions.

4 Estimate based on anassumed effective date of 1998.

6-8• 6.2 Estimates of Energy Savings from Harmonization

Three hypothetical examples are presented to illustrate the potential energy savings that are possible from standards adopted worldwide. Each example corresponds to an achieveable efficiency for a particular appliance: refrigerators, clothes washers, or microwave ovens. The calculations presented are rough, and are meant only to provide a qualitative measure of the magnitudes of the energy savings possible. The actual savings will depend upon the target levels adopted, the time required for achieving those levels, and the breadth of participation by countries and their populations. General methodology. We made simplifying assumptions to make the calculations transparent. Total energy consumption for a product is defined as the product of number of households times percent of households owning the product, times unit energy consumption. Where the number of households was not readily available, the population was divided by a constant number of persons per household from recent data to obtain number of households. Recent sales trends were extrapolated. Retirement of appliances from the existing stock was calculated by removing a constant fraction of stock annually, namely a fraction corresponding to the inverse of the appliance lifetime. The base (no policy) case assumes constant unit energy consumption over time, ignoring the natural efficiency improvements that technological change and market forces are bringing about. The standards scenario assumes that all new appliance, beginning in year 2000, are more efficient, as described below for each appliance and region. (The calculations can easily be repeated with assumed rates of change in both the base and standards cases.) The principal sources of data included a report on world appliance markets (Euromonitor PLC and Euromonitor International Inc, 1994. "The World Market for White Goods," London) and United Nations population projections. The appliance market projections to 2000 were extrapolated to 2010. Table 6.5 shows a summary of the results for the base and standards cases; energy use is site. Details of data used and calculations performed can be found in Appendix A.

Table 6.5 Site Energy Use EJ (10'$ joules) for Year 2010
Product Base Case Energy Use, 2010 Standards Case Energy Use, 2010 Refrigerators 1.51 1.26 Clothes Washers 0.42 0.31 Microwave Ovens 0.19 0.18

6-9 .6.2 Estimates ofEnergy Savings from Harmonization Three hypothetical examples are presentedto illustrate the potential energy savings that are possible from standards adopted worldwide. Each example corresponds to an achieveable efficiency for a particular appliance: refrigerators, clothes washers, or microwave ovens. The calculations presented are rough, and are meant only to provide a qualitative measure of the magnitudes of the energy savings possible. The actual savings will depend upon the target.levels adopted, the time required for achieving those levels, and the breadth ofparticipationby countries and theirpopulations. General methodology.
Wemade simplifying assumptions to make the calculations transparent. Total energy consumption for a product is defined as the product ofnumber ofhouseholds times percf?nt ofhouseholds owning the product, times unit energy consumption. Where the number of households**w~** not readily available, the populationwas divided by a constant number ofpersons per h.ousehold from recent data to obtain number ofhouseholds. Recent sales trends were (1xtrapolated. Retirement ofappliances

. from the existing stockwas calculatedby removing a constantfraction ofstock annually, namely a fraction corresponding to the inverse ofthe appliance lifetime. The base (no policy) case assumes constant unit energy consumption over time, ignoting the natural

.efficiency improvements that technological change and market forces are bringing about. The

standards scenario assumes that all new appliance, beginning in year 2000, are more efficient, as descnbed below for each appliance andregion. (The calculations caneasily berepeated with assumed rates ofchange inboththe base and standards cases.) The principal sources ofdata included a report .on w.orld appliance markets (EuromonitorPLC and Euromonitor International Inc, 1994. "The World Market for White Goods," London) andUnited Nations population projections. The appliance market projections to 2000 were extrapolated to 2010. Table 6.5 shows a summary ofthe results for the base and standards cases; energy use is site. Details ofdataused andcalculations performed can be found inAppendix A.

Product Refrigerators Cl.othes Washers Microwave Ovens Table 6.5 Site Energy UseEJ (10 18joules) for Year 2010
Base CaseEnergy Use, 2010 1.51 0.42 0.19

6-9 Standards Case Energy Use, 2010 1.26 0.31 0.18The greatest potential energy savings are for refrigerators, followed by clothes washers and

microwave ovens. It should be emphasized that these estimates are subject to a large amount of uncertainty and are meant for discussion purposes only. Refrigerators: The regions studied include Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Southeast Asia, China, and India. (The Middle East, Central America and Africa were excluded for lack of data.) Total projected site energy,is about 1.21 Erin year 2000, and 1.5 EJ in 2010. Annual energy savings of 0.25 EJ are projected by 2010 in the standards scenario, compared to the base case (See Figure 6.1). In North America, updated mandatory efficiency standards are expected to be effective before 2000 and are included in the base scenario; no savings were projected in North America in the standards scenario. In the standards scenario, equivalent standards to North America's are assumed for Australia; unit energy consumption of refrigerators is assumed to decrease by 10% in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe, and by 50% (from a less efficient base) for China, India, Southeast Asia and South America.. Clothes Washers: The regions studied include Western Europe, North America, and Australia. In many of the developing countries, in the absence of storage hot water heaters or washers with internal heaters in households, there is little opportunity for energy savings from efficient clothes washers. Other regions were not analyzed for lack of data. Total projected site energy is about 0.39 EJ in year 2000, and increases to almost 0.42 EJ in 2010. Annual energy savings of 0.10 EJ are projected by 2010 in the standards scenario, compared to the base case (See Figure 6.2). In the standards scenario, unit energy consumption is assumed to decrease by 10 % in Western Europe and Australia; but by 50% in North America (equivalent to replacing vertical axis with horizontal axis machines).
Microwave Ovens: Regions studied include Western Europe, North America, China, and Southeast Asia. Other regions were not analyzed for lack of data. Total projected site energy approaches 0.14 EJ/a in 2000 and 0.19 EJ/a in 2010

. In the standards scenario, unit energy consumption of microwave ovens is assumed to decrease 10%. Potential energy savings of about 0.01 EJ/a are projected in 2010 (See Figure 6.3). The greatest potential energy savings are for refrigerators, followed by clothes washers and microwave ovens. It should be emphasized that these estimates are subject to a large amount of uncertainty and are meant for discussion purposes only. Refrigerators: The regions studied include Western Europe,**E~tern** Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Southeast Asia, China, and India (The Middle East, Central America and Africa were excluded for lack ofdata.) Total projected site energy is about 1.21 EJ" in year 2000, and 1.5

. \ EJ in 2010. Annual energy savings of 0.25 EJ are projected by 2010 in the standards scenario, compared to the base case (See Figure 6.1).
In North America, updated mandatory efficiency standards are expected to be effective before 2000 arid are includedin the base scenario; no savings were projected in North America in the standards scenario. In the standards scenario, equivalent standards to North America's' are assumed for Australia; unit energy consumption ofrefrigerators is assumed to decrease by 10%

# in Western Europe and in Eastern Europe, and by 50% (from a less efficient base) for China, India, Southeast Asia and South America

.. Clothes Washers: The regions studied include Western Europe, North America, and Australia. In many ofthe developing countries, in the absence ofstorage hot water heaters or washers with internal heaters in households, there is little opportunity for energy savings from efficient clothes washers. Otherregions were not analyzed for lack ofdata Totalprojected site energy is about 0.39 EJ in year 2000, and increases to almost 0.42 EJ in 2010. Annual energy savings of 0.10 EJ are projectedby 2010 in the standards scenario, compared to the base case (See Figure 6.2).
Inthe standards scenario, unit energyconsumption is assumed to decrease by 10% in Western Europe and Australia; but by 50% in NorthAmerica (equivalent to replacing vertical axis with horizontal axis machines). 

### Microwave Ovens: Regions studied include Western Europe, North America, China, and Southeast Asia. Otherregions were not analyzed for lack ofdata. Total projected site energy approaches 0.14 Ella in 2000 and 0.19 EJ/a in 2010. In the standards scenario, unit energy consumption of microwave ovens is assumed to decrease 10%. Potential energy savings ofabout 0.01 Ella are projected in 2010 (See Figure 6.3).

6-10Site (EJ/a)

0 J Qn 

### 8

1998-
1969
2000 -

2001
2002 -
2003 -
2004
2005 -
2006 -
2007
2008 -
2009
2010--!.,w-en1.6001.4001.2001.0000.8000.6000.4000.2000.000co0)0),...Figure6.1TotalEnergyUseofRefrigerators(1992-2010)co0)0),...0)00)0),...,...co8C\IYeare-11-+-BaselineCaseI-StandardsCase'0)o,...1993

1994 + 1995 -
1996
1997 1998 - -
1999
2000 - O O O O

O O
O O

InFigure6.2TotalEnergyUseofClothesWashers(1992-2010)0.4500.4000.3500.300.!!0.250..,w-+-BaselineCaseCD:t:UJ0.200-Standards0.1500.1000.0500.000S!(I')-.:tII)co!;;co0)0,...C\I(I')-.:tII)co"co800>0) 0)0)0) 0)08'880 0,....0)0)0>.0)0)0)0) 0)00 00,...,...........,............,....C\IC\IC\IC\IC\IC\IC\I C\IYear6-12Site EJ/a 0 o 0 O O O

O 0 O_ O_ O_ O_ 0 N 

### 8 0 O O 0) O co

0 O

O N

O O C)

O co

0 O

O 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996 1997-
1998
-- 1999 -
2000-1-
2001
2002
2003 -
2004 -
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 2010 to CD 0) -i 0 03 m cD tQ
0 N 

### 3 V 0 0

A 0 03 lD N
to

O s OFigure6.3TotalEnergy·ConsumptionofMicrowaves(1992-2010)0.2000.1800.1600.1400.120.!!!.,w0.100-+-BaselineCase---StandardsCasef/)0.0800.0600.0400.0200.000'"ttU)<0......co0)..-'"C')U).<0......co0)00)0)0)0) 0)0)80 0 0o·80,...0) 0)m m0)m0)0)0 0 0 000.,.. .,.. .,...,...,..,....-..-'"C\I C\IC\IC\IC\IC\I(\JYearAPPENDIX A Energy Use Data and Calculations APPENDIX A Energy Use Data and CalculationsEnergy use data and calculations for refrigerators:

West

. Europe (by geographic region)

Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhtyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWhtyr) Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 155.57 372.2 0.208 372.2 0.208 1993 157.37 372.2 0.211 372.2 0.211 1994 159.19 372.2 0.213 372.2 0.213 1995 161.03 372.2 0.216 372.2 0.216 1996 162.90 372.2 0.218 372.2 0.218 1997 164.79 372.2 0.221 372.2 0.221 1998 166.70 372.2 0.223 372.2 0.223 1999 168.60 372.2 0.226 168.60 372.2 0.226 2000 170.49 372.2 0.228 156.56 13.93 335 0.227 2001 172.37 372.2 0.231 145.37 27.00 335 0.227 2002 174.25 372.2 0.233 134.99 39.26 335 0.228 2003 176.12 372.2 0.236 125.35 50.77 335 0.229 2004 177.98 372.2 0.238 116.39 61.58 335 0.230 2005 179.83 372.2 0.241 108.08 71.75 335 0.231 2006 181.68 372.2 0.243 100.36 81.32 335 0.233 2007 183.64 372.2 0.246 93.19 90.45 335 0.234 2008 185.59 372.2 0.249 86.54 99.06 335 0.235 2009 187.53 372.2 0.251 80.35 107.18 335 0.237 2010 189.46 372.2 0.254 74.61 114.84 335 0.238 Irr-tt4t'^} 34 North America
Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWh/yr) Energy Use Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) 1992 126.51 681.00 0.310 1993 129.93 681.00 0.319 1994 130.69 681.00 0.320 1995 131.49 681.00 0.322 1996 132.33 681.00 0.324 1997 133.20 681.00 0.327 133.20 1998 134.11 496.00 0.327 126.19 7.92 1999 135.06 496.00 0.324 119.55 15.50 2000 136.15 496.00 0.321 113.26 22.89 2001 137.38 496.00 0.319 107.29 30.08 2002 138.71 496.00 0.317 101.65 37.06 2003 140.09 496.00 0.315 96.30 43.79 2004 ' 141.52 496.00 0.314 91.23 50.28 2005 142.99 496.00 0.313 86

.43 56.56 2006 144.50 496.00 0.313 81

.88 62.62 2007 146.06 496.00 0.313 77.57 68.49 2008 147.65 496.00 0.312 73.49 74.16 2009 149.28 496.00 0.313 69

.62 79.66 2010 150.94 498.00 0.313 65

.98 84.98 A-1 Energy use data and**calc~lations** for refrigerators: (by geographic region)

West. Europe
Stock**~Mlllionsl** EnerSl Use Baseline**~kWh/yr)** EnerSl Use I Total iEJl StockiOldl StockiNew) Enersy Use Standards**~kWh/yrl** Enersy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 155.57 372.2 0.208 372.2 0.208 1993 157.37 372.2 0.211 372.2 0.211 1994 159.19 372.2 0.213 372.2 0.213 1995 161.03 372.2 0.216 372.2 0.216 1996 162.90 372.2 0.218 372.2 0.218 1997 164.79 372.2 0.221 372.2 0.221 1998 166.70 372.2 0.223 372.2 0.223 1999 168.60 372.2 0.226 168.60 372.2 0.226 2000 170.49 372.2 0.228 156.56 13.93 335 0.227 2001 172.37 372.2 0.231 145.37 27.00 335 0.227 2002 174.25 372.2 0.233 134.99 39.26 335 0.228 2003 176.12 372.2 0.236 125.35 50.77 335 0.229 2004 1n.98 372.2 0.238 116.39 61.58 335 0.230 2005 179.83 372.2 0.241 108.08 71.75 335 0.231 2006 181.68 372.2 0.243 100.36 81.32 335 0.233 2007 183.64 372.2 0.246 93.19 90.45 335 0.234 2008 185.59 372.2 0.249 86.54 99.06 335 0.235 2009 187.53 372.2 0.251 80.35 107.18 335 0.237 2010 189.46 372.2 0.254 74.61 335 0.238
Nor:th
Stock**~Mllllonsl** EnerSl Use Baseline lkWh/yrl Enersy Use Total {EJ} Stock {Old} Stock (New) ,**N,"':'~t;**,.**;c<:."~** ", ,'.> ;'(,>.**'9f~~;'~~:~A!'/:l~',' :~t':';f.:5n~t~i~t'~~?~~~rf~<** **'0:~;:~',4if:h~:;:\ ~).3;(**  \**~** • ,;;.**>':},t/,~** 1992 126.51 681.00 0.310 1993 129.93 681.00 0.319 1994 130.69 681.00 0.320 1995 131.49 681.00 0.322 1996 132.33 681.00 0.324 1997 133.20 681.00 0.327 133.20 1998 134.11 496.00 0.327 126.19 7.92 1999 135.06 496.00 0.324

. 119.55 15.50 2000 136.15 496.00 0.321 113.26 22.89 2001 137.38 496.00 0.319
. 107.29 30.08 2002 138.71 496.00 0.317 101.65 37.06 2003 140.09 496.00 0.315 96.30 43.79 2004 141.52 496.00 0.314 91.23 50.28 2005 142.99 496.00 0.313
. 86.43 56.56 2006 144.50 496.00 0.313 81.88 62.62

. 2007 146.06 496.00 0.313 77.57 68.49

2008 147.65 496.00 0.312 73.49 74.16 2009 149.28 496.00 0.313 69.62 79.66 2010 150.94 498.00 0.313 85.96 84.98 A-1Energy use data and calculations for refrigerators:

South America (by geographic region)

Stock Millions Energy Use Baseline (kW Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock Old Stock (New Energy Use Standards (kW Ener Y Use II Total (EJ 1992 55.42 413.00 0.082 413.00 0.082 1993 55.56 413.00 0.083 413.00 0.083 1994 55.86 413.00 0.083 413.00 0.083 1995 56.47 413.00 0.084 413.00 0.084 1996 57.36 413.00 0.085 413.00 0.085 1997 58.51 413.00 0.087 413.00 0.087 1998 59.91 413.00 0.089 413.00 0.089 1999 61.72 413.00 0.092 61.72 413.00 0.092 2000 63.91 413.00 0.095 56.70 7.21 207.00 0.090 2001 66.46 413.00 0.099 52.09 14.37 207.00 0.088 2002 69.33 413.00 0.103 47.86 21.47 207.00 0.087 2003 72.49 413.00 0.108 43.96 28.53 207.00 0.087 2004 75.93 413.00 0.113 40.39 35.54 207.00 0.087 2005 79.62 413.00 0.118 37.11 42.52 207.00 0.087 2006 83.54 413.00 0.124 34.09 49.45 207.00 0.088 2007 87.14 413.00 0.130 31.32 55.82 207.00 0.088 2008 90.45 413.00 0.134 28.77 61.68 207.00 0.089 2009 93.49 413.00 0.139 26.43 67.05 207.00 0.089 2010 96.28 413.00 0.143 24.28 71.99 207.00 0.090

East
-Europe
Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhfyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr) Energy Use li Total (EJ) 1992 109.49 452.00 0.178 452 0.178 1993 110.66 452.00 0.180 452 0.180 1994 111.91 452.00 0.182 452 0.182 1995 113.26 452.00 0.184 452 0.184 1996 114.70 452.00 0.187 452 0.187 1997 116.22 452.00 0.189 452 0.189 1998 117.81 452.00 0.192 452 0.192 1999 119.84 452.00 0.195 119.84 452 0.195 2000 122.26 452.00 0.199 113.53 8.73 407 0.198 2001 125.07 452.00 0.204 107.56 17.52 407 0.201 2002 128.25 452.00 0.209 101.90 26.35 407 0.204 200 131.76 452.00 0.214 96.53 35.23 407 0.209 2004 135.61 452.00 0.221 91.45 44.16 407 0.214 2005 139.76 452.00 0.227 86.64 53.12 407 0.219 2006 144.10 452.00 0.234 . 82.08 62.03 407 0.224 2007 148.63 452.00 0.242 77.76 70.87 407 0.23b 2008 153.32 452.00 0.249 73.67 79.66 407 0.237 2009 158.18 452.00 0.257 69.79 88.39 407 0.243 2010 163.18 452.00 0.266 66.12 97.07 407 0.250 

### Energy use data andcalculations for refrigerators: (by geographic region)

South America Stock**~Mlllions!** Enersx Use Baseline**~kWh/yr}** Enersx Use I Total**~EJ} Stock~Old}** **Stock~Newl Ener~x**  Use Standards**~kWhlyrl Ener~y**  Use II Total (EJI 1992 55.42 413.00 0.082 413.00 0.082 1993 55.56 413.00 0.083 413.00 0.083 1994 55.86 413.00 0.083 413.00 0.083 1995 56.47 413.00 0.084 413.00 0.084 1996 57.36 413.00 0.085 413.00 0.085 1997 58.51 413.00 0.087 413.00 0.087 1998 59,91 413.00 0.089 413.00 0.089 1999 61,72 413,00 0.092 61.72 413.00 0.092 2000 63.91 413.00 0.095 56.70 7.21 207.00 0.090 2001 66.46 413.00 0.099 52.09 14.37 207.00 0.088 2002 69.33 413.00 0.103 47,86 21.47 207.00 0.087 2003 72.49 413.00 0.108 43.96 28.53 207.00 0.087 2004 75.93 413.00 0.113 40.39 35.54 207.00 0.087 2005 79.62 413.00 0.118 37.11 42.52 20'7.00 0.087 2006 83.54 413,00 0.124 34.09 49.45 207.00 0.088 2007 87.14 413.00 0.130 31.32 55.82 207.00 0.088 2008 90.45 0.134 28.n 61.68 207.00 0.089 0.139 26.43 67.05 207.00 0.089 0.143 24.28 71.99 207.00 0.090 East,Europe
Stock lMllllonsl Enersx Use Baseline**~kWhlyr) Ener~y**  Use I Total**~EJI** Stock (Old) Stock (Newl**Ener~y** Use Standards (kWhlyrl**Ener~y** Use II Total**~EJ)** 1992 109.49 452.00 0.178 452 0.178 1993 110.66 452.00 0.180 452 0.180 1994 111.91 452.00 0.182 452 0.182 1995 113.26 452.00 0.184 452 0.184 1996' 114,70 452.00 0.187 452 0.187 1997 116.22 452.00 0.189 452 0.189 1998 117.81 452,00 0.192 452 0.192 1999 119,84 452.00 0.195 119.84 452 0.195 2000 122.26 452.00 0.199 113.53 8.73 407 0.198 2001 125.07 452,00 0.204 107.56 17.52 407 0.201 2002 128.25 452.00 0.209 101.90 26.35 407 0.204 2003 131.76 452.00 0.214 96.53 35.23 407 0.209 2004 135.61 452.00 0.221 91.45 44.16 407 0.214 2005 139.76 452.00 0.227 86.64 53.12 407 0.219 2006 144.10

. 452.00 0.234 .82,08 62.03 407 0.224' 2007 148.63 '452.00 0.242 n.76 70.87 407 0.23b 2008 153.32 452.00 0.249 73.67 79.66 407 0.237 2009 158.18 452,00 0.257 69.79 88.39 407 0.243 '2010 163.18 452.00 0.266 66,12 97,07 407 0.250 A-2Energy use data and calculations for refrigerators: (by geographic region)

Australia
Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWh/yr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (new) Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr) Energy Use Ii Total (EJ) 1992 6.55 680 0.016 680 0.0160 1993 6.71 680 0.016 680 0.0164 1994 6.87 680 0.017 680 0.0168 1995 7.04 680 0.017 680 0.0172 1996 7.21 680 0.018 680 0.0176 1997 7.39 680 0.018 680 0.0181 1998 7.57 680 0.019 680 0.0185 1999. 7.75 680 0.019 7.75 680 0.0190 2000 7.94 640 0.019 7.23 0.70 496 0.0190 2001 8.12 640 0.020 6.75 1.37 496 0.0190 2002 8.33 640 0.020 6.30 2.02 496 0.0190 2003 8.53 640 0.020 5.88 2.65 496 0.0191 2004 8.74 640 0.021 5.49 3.25 496 0.0192 2005 8.94 640 0.021 5.12 3.82 496 0.0194 2006 9.15 640 0.022 4.78 4.36 496 0.0195 2007 9.35 640 0.022 4.46 4.89 496 0.0196 2008 9.55 640 0.023 4.17 5.39 496 0.0198 2009 9.76 640 0.023 3.89 5.87 496 0.0200 2010 9.97 640 0.023 3.63 6.34 496 0.0202 South East Asia (excluding Chi na)
Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWh/yr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr) Energy Use ll Total (EJ) 1992 _ 107.52 404 0.156 404 0.156 1993 111.13 404 0.162 404 0.162 1994 114.97 404 0.167 404 0.167 1995 119.02 404 0.173 404 0.173 1996 . 123.28 404 0.179 404 0.179 1997 127.72 404 0.186 404• 0.186 1998 132.35 404 0.192 404 0.192 1999 137.25 404 0.200 137.25 404 0.200 2000 142.40 404 0.207 130.03 12.37 202.00 0.198 2001 147.79 404 0.215 123.18 24.60 202.00 0.197 2002 153.40 404 0.223 416.70 36.70 202.00 0.196 2003 159.23 404 0.232 110.56 48.67 202.00 0.196 2004 165.26 404 0.240 104.74 60.52 202.00 0.196 2005 171.49 404 0.249 99.23 72.26 202.00 0.197 2008 177.90 404 0.259 94.00 83

.89 202.00 0.198 2007 184.48 404 0.268 89.06 95.42 202.00 0.199 2008 19122 404 0.278 84.37 106.85 202.00 0.200 2009 198.12 404 0.288 79.93 118

. 19 202.00 0.202 2010 205.17 404 0.298 75.72 129

.45 202.00 0.204 Energy use data and calculations for refrigerators:**~** (by geographic region) 

### r Australia
Stock {Mlilionsl EnerSl Use Baseline**~kWhlyrl** Enersy Use I Total**~EJl** Stock**~Oldl Stock~new)**  Enersy Use Standards**~kWhlyrl** Enersy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 6.55 680 0.016 680 0.0160 1993 6.71 680 0.016 680

. 0.0164 1994 6.87 680 0.017 680 0.0168 1995 7.04 680 0.017 680 0.0172 1996 7.21 680 0.018 680 0.0176 1997 7.39 680 0.Q18 680 0.0181 1998 7.57 680 0.019 680 0.0185 1999. 7.75 680 0.019 ·7.75 680 0.0190 2000 7.94 640 0.019 7.23 0.70 496 0.0190 2001 8.12 640 0.020 6.75 1.37 496 0.0190 2002 8.33 640 0.020 6.30 2.02 496 0.0190 2003 8.53 640 0.020 5.88 2.65 496 0.0191 2004 8.74 640 0.021 5.49 3.25 496 0.0192 2005 8.94 640 0.021 5.12 3.82 496 0.0194 2006 9.15 640 ·0.022 4.78 4.36 496 0.0195 2007 9.35 640 0.022 4.46 4.89 496 0.0196 2008 9.55 640 0.023 4.17 5.39 496 0.0198 2009 9.76 640 0.023 3.89 5.87 496 0.0200 2010 9.97 640 0.023 3.63 6.34 496 0.0202
South East Asia (excluding China)
Stock**~Mllllonsl** EnerSl Use Baseline**~kWhlyrl** Enersy Use I Total {EJl Stock**~Old)** Stock {Newl Enersy Use Standards**~kWhlyr)** Enersy Use II Total (EJl 1992 107.52 404 0.156 404 0.156 1993 111.13 404 0.162 404 0.162 1994 114.97 404 0.167 404 0.167 1995 119.02 404 0.173 404 0.173 1996 123.28 404 Q.179 404 0.179 1997 127.72 404 0.186 404 0.186 1998 132.35 404 0.192 404 0.192 1999 137.25 404 0.200 137.25 404 0.200 2000 142.40 1404 0.207 130.03 12.37 202.00 0.198 2001 147.79 404 0.215 123.18 24.60 202.00 0.197 2002 153.40 404 0.223 ·116.70 36.70 202.00 0.196 2003 159.23 404 0.232 110.56 48.67 202.00 0.196 2004 165.26 404 0.240 104.71 60.52 202.00 0.196 2005 171.49 404 0.249 99.23 72.26 202.00 0.197 2006 177.90 404 0.259 94.00 83.89 202.00 0.198 2007 184.48 404 0.268 89.06 95.42 202.00 0.199 2008 191.22 404 0.278 84.37 106.85 202.00 0.200 2009 198.12 404 0.288 79.93 118.19 202.00 0.202 2010 205.17 404 0.298 75.72 129.45 202.00 0.204**A-~**Energy use data and calculations for refrigerators:

China (by geographic region)

Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhtyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr) Energy Use 11 Total (EJ) 1992 14.51 475.00 0.025 475.00 0.025 1993 19.87 475.00 0.034 475.00 0.034 1994 25.58 475.00 0.044 475.00 0.044 1995 31.09 475.00 0.053 475.00 0.053 1996 36.43 475.00 0.062 475.00 0.062 1997 41.58 475.00 0.071 475.00 0.071 1998 46.58 475.00 0.080 475.00 0.080 1999 51.42 475.00 0.088 50.01 475.00 0.088 2000 56.11 475.00 0.096 47.38 7.29 237.50 0.087 2001 60.67 475.00 0.104 44.88 14.31 237.50 0.089 2002 65.09 475.00 0.111 42.52 21.06 237.50 0.091 2003 69.39 475.00 0.119 40.28 27.57 237.50 0.092 2004 73.57 475.00 0.126 38.16 33.84 237.50 0.094 2005 77.63 475.00 0.133 36.16 39.89 237.50 0.096. 2006 79.98 475.00 0.137 34.25 45.73 237.50 0.098 2007 83.82 475.00 0.143 32.45 51.37 237.50 0.099 2008 87.56 475.00 0.150 30.74 56.82 237.50 0.101 2009 91.21 475.00 0.156 29.12 62.09 237.50 0.103 2010 94.78 475.00 0.162 27.59 67.19 237.50 0.105
India
Stock (Millions Energy Use Baseline (kW Energy Use I Total (EJ Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kW Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 16.11 700 0.041 700 0.041 1993 16.38 700 0.041 700 0.041 1994 16.64 700 0.042 700 0.042 1995 .16.89 700 0.043 700 0.043 1996 17.13 700 0.043 700 0.043 1997 17.35 700 0.044 700 0.044 1998 17.57 700 0.044 700 0.044 1999 17.78 700 0.045 17.78 700 0.045 2000 17.99 700 0.045 16.59 1.39 350 0.044 2001 18.19 700 0.046 15.49 2.70 350 0.042 2002 18.39 700 0.046 14.46 3.93 350 0.041 2003 18.58 700 0.047 13.49 5.08 350- 0.040 2004 18.76 700 0.047 12.59 6.17 350 0.040 2005 18.95 700 0.048 11.75 7.19 350 0.039 2006 '19.13 700 0.048 10.97 8.15 350 0.038 2007 19.30 700 0.049 10.24 9.06 350 0.037 2008 19.47 700 0.049 9.56 9.91 350 0.037 2009 19.64 700 0.049 8.92 10.72 350 0.036 2010 19.80 700 0.050 8.32 11.48 350 0.035 A-4 

### Energy use data and calculations for refrigerators: (by 

### geographic region)

Stock iMllllonsl

. EnerSl Use Baseline {kWh/yrl EnerSl Use I Total {EJl Stock {Newl Enersy Use Standards {kWh/yrl Enerli!y Use II Total (EJ) 1992 14.51 475.00 0.025 475.00 0.025 1993 19.87 475.00 0.034 475.00 0.034 1994 25.58 475.00 0.044 475.00 0.044 1995 31.09 475.00 0.053 475.00 0.053 1996 36.43 475.00 0.062 475.00 0.062 1997 41.58 475.00 0.071 475.00 0.071 1998 46.58 475.00 0.080 475.00 0.080 1999 51.42 475.00 0.088 50.01 475.00 0.088 2000 56.11 475.00 0.096 47.38 7.29 237.50 0.087 2001 60.67 475.00 0.104 44.88 14.31 237.50 0.089 2002 65.09 475.00 0.111 42.52 21.06 237.50 0.091 2003' 69.39 475.00 0.119 40.28 27.57 237.50 0.092 2004 73.57 475.00 0.126 38.16 33.84 237.50 0.094 2005 n,63 475.00 0.133 36.16 ,39.89 237.50 0.096 2006 79.98 475.00 0.137 34.25 45.73 237.50 0.098 2007 83.82 475.00 0.143 32.45 51.37 237.50 0.099 2008 87.56 475.00 0.150 30.74 56.82 237.50 0.101 91.21 475.00 0.156 29.12 62.09 237.50 0.103 0.162 27.59 0.105
India
Stock {Millions} EnerHl Use Baseline (kWh/yr} EneTHl Use I Total (EJ} Stock (Old} Stock (New) Enerli!y Use Standards (kWh/yr} Enerli!y Use II Total (EJ) 1992 16.11 700 0.041 700 0.041 1993 16.38 700 0.041 700 0.041 1994 16.64 700 0.042 700 0.042 1995 ,16.89 700 0.043 700 0.043 1996 17.13 700 0.043 700 0.043 1997 17.35 700 0.044 700 0.044 1998 17.57 700 0.044 700 0.044 1999 17.78 700 0.045 17.78 700 0.045 2000 17.99 700 0.045 16.59 1.39 350 0.044 2001 18.19 700 0.046 15.49 2.70 350 0.042 2002 18.39 700 0.046 14.46 3.93 350 0.041 2003
. 18.58 700 0.047 13.49 5.08 350· 0.040 2004 18.76 700 0.047 12.59 6.17 350 0.040 2005 18.95 700 0.048 11.75 7.19 350 0.039 2006 '19.13 700 0.048 10.97 8.15 350 0.038 2007 19.30 700 0.049 10.24 9.06 350 0.037 2008 19.47 700 0.049 9.56 9.91 350 0.037 2009 19.64 700 0.049 8.92 10.72 350 0.036 2010 19.80 700 0.050 8.32 11.48 350 0.035 A-4tnergy use uata anu calcuiauons for ciotneswasners: 1 L)y yeUyraNi lit, ICyru 1 1) West

. Europe Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhtyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWhtyr) Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 140.68 225 0.114 225 0.114 1993 142.51 225 0.115 225 0.115 1994 144.27 225 0.117 225 0.117 1995 145.99 225 0.118 225 0.118 1996 147.65 225 0.120 225 0.120 1997 149.26 225 0.121 225 0.121 1998 150.83 225 0.122 225 0.122 1999 152.32 225 0.123 152.32 225 0.123 2000 153.74 225 0.125 140.60 13.14 202.5 0.123 2001 155.10 225 0.126 129.79 25.32 202.5 0.124 2002 156.41 225 0.127 119.80 36.60 202.5 0.124 2003 157.65 225 0.128 110.59 47.07 202.5 0.124 2004 158.85 225 0.129 102.08 56.77 202.5 0.124 2005 160.00 225 0.130 94.23 65.77 202.5 0.124 2006 161.11 225 0.130 86.98 74.13 202.5 0.124 2007 162.18 225 0.131 80.29 81.89 202.5 0.125 2008 163.21 225 0.132 74.11 89.10 202.5 0.125 2009 164.21 225 0.133 68.41 95.80 202.5 0.125 2010 165.18 225 0.134 63.15 102.03 202.5 0.126

North America Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhtyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWhtyr) Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 81.70 674.00 0.198 674 0.198 1993 85.50 674.00 0.207 674 0.207 1994 88.94 674.00 0.216 674 0.216 1995 92.07 674.00 0.223 674 0.223 1996 94.91 674.00 0.230 674- 0.230 1997 97.49 674.00 0.237 674 0.237 1998 99.83 674.00 0.242 674 0.242 1999 101.69 674.00 0.247 101.69 674 0.247 2000 103.10 674.00 0.250 91.52 11.58 337- 0.236 2001 104.11 674.00 0.253 82.37 21.74 337 0.226 2002 105.02 674.00 0.255 74.13 30.89 337 0.217 2003 105.84 674.00 0.257 66.72 39.12 337 0.209 2004 106.58 674.00 0.259 60.05 46.53 337 0.202 2005 107.24 674.00 0.260 54.04 53.20 337 0.196 2006 107.84 674.00 0.262 48.64 59.20 337 0.190 2007 108.38 674.00 0.263 49.77 64.60 337 0.185 2008 108.86 674.04 0.264 39.40 69.46 337 0.180 2009 109.29 674.00 0.265 35.46 73.84 337 0.176 2010 109.69 674.00 0.266 31.91 77.78 337 0.172 A-5 energy use aata ana calculauons lor clomes wasners: \uy \;jt;U\;j1 <l1J111\" It;\;jIUIIJ West. Europe Stock**~Mllllonsl** EnerSl Use Baseline**~kWh/yr)** Enersy Use I Total (EJ) Stock {Old) Stock (New) Ener!:!l Use Standards (kWh/yr) Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 140.68 225 0.114 225 0.114 1993 142.51 225 0.115 225 0.115 1994 144.27 225 0.117 225 0.117 1995 145.99 225 0.118 225 0.118 1996 147.65 225 0.120 225 0.120 1997 149.26 225 0.121 225 0.121 1998 150.83 225 0.122 225 0.122 1999 152.32 225 0.123 152.32 225 0.123 2000 153.74 225 0.125 140.60 13.14 202.5 0.123 2001 155.10 225 0.126 129.79 25.32 202.5 0.124 2002 156.41 225 0.127 119.80 36.60 202.5 0.124 2003 157.65 225 0.128 110.59 47.07 202.5 0.124 2004 158.85 225 0.129 102.08 56.77 202.5 0.124 2005 160.00 225 0.130 94.23 65.77 202.5 0.124 2006 161.11 225 0.130 86.98 74.13 202.5 0.124 2007 162.18 225 0.131 80.29 81.89 202.5 0.125 2008 163.21 225 0.132 74.11 89.10 202.5 0.125 2009 225 0.133 68.41 95.80 202.5 225 0.134 63.15 102.03
North America Stock**~Mllllons) Eners~**  Use Baseline {kWh/yr) EnerlilY Use I Total**~EJ)** Stock {Old) Stock (New) Ener!:!y Use Standards (kWh/yrl Enerli!y Use II Total (EJ) 1992 81.70 674.00 0.198 674 0.198 1993 85.50 674.00 0.207 674 0.207 1994 88.94 674.00 0.216 674 0.216 1995 92.07 674.00 0.223 674 0.223 1996 94.91 674.00 0.230 674' 0.230 1997 97.49 674.00 0.237 674 0.237 1998 99.83 674.00 0.242 674 0.242 1999 101.69 674.00 0.247 101.69 674 0.247 2000 103.10 674.00 0.250 91.52 11.58 337' 0.236 2001 104.11 674.00 0.253 82.37 21.74 337 0.226 2002 105.02 674.00 0.255 74.13 '30.89 337 0.217 2003 105.84 674.00 0.257 66.72 39.12 337 0.209 2004 106.58 674.00 ·0.259 60.05 46.53 337 0.202 2005 107.24 674.00 0.260 54.04 53.20 337 0.196

. 2006 107.84 674.00 0.262 48.64 59.20 337 0.190

2007 108.38 674.00 0.263 43.77 64.60 337 0.185 2008 108.86 674.0<1 0.264 39.40 69.46 337 0.180 2009 109.29 674.00 0.265 35.46 73.84 337 0.176 2010 109.69 674.00 0.266 31.91 77.78 337 0.172 

### A·5G 1U1 yy USG Uald d1 1U u(;LtUUIQUWI la IU1 t.IUU IO VVGJt 1G1 ).

Australia luy yuU91UJIiI aL iul11

Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kW Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (new) Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr) Ener y Use II Total (EJ) 1992 5.66 610 6.012 610 0.012 1993 5.75 610 0.013 610 0.013 1994 5.86 610 0.013 610 0.013 1995 6.01 610 0.013 610 0.013 1996 6.12 610 0.013 610 0.013 1997 6.26 610 0.014 610 0.014 1998 6.38 610 0.014 610 0.014 1999 6.51 610 0.014 6.51 610 0.014 2000 6.63 590 0.014 6.05 0.59 549 0.014 2001 6.75 590 0.015 5.61 1.14 549 0.015 2002 6.88 590 0.015 5.21 1.67 549 0.015 2003 7.00 590 0.015 4.84 2.17 549 0.015 2004 7.13 590 0.015 4.49 2.64 549 0.015 2005 7.26 590 0.015 4.17 3.09 549 0.015 2006 7.38 590 0.015 3.88 3.51 549 0.015 2007 7.50 590 0.016 3.60 3.91 549 0.016 2008 7.62 590 0.016 3.34 4.28 549 0.016 2009 7.74 590 0.016 3.10 4.65 549 0.016 2010 7.87 590 0.016 2.88 4.99 549 0.016 1:.11t::ll:IY**U~t::** UCllCl ClIIU**"ClI"UIClllUII~** lUI**\"IUlIlt::~ WCl~IIt::I~.** 

Australia
Stock iMllllons}**Ener9~** Use Baseline ikWhIyr) Enersy Use I Total iEJ} StockiOld} Stockinew

### !**Eners~** Use Standards ikWhlyr! Enersy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 5.66 610 0:012 610 0.012 1993 5.75 610 0.013 610 0.013 1994 5.86 610 0.013 610 0.013 1995 6.01 610 0.013 610 0.013 1996 6.12 610 0.013 610 0.013 1997 6.26 610 0.014 610 0.014 1998 6.38 610 0.014 610 0.014 1999 6.51 610 0.014 6.51 610 0.014 2000 6.63 590 0.014 6.05 0.59 549 0.014 2001 6.75 590 0.015 5.61 1.14 549 0.015 2002 6.88 590 0.Q15 5.21 1.67 549 0.015 2003 7.00 590 0.015 4.84 2.17 549 0.D15 2004 7.13 590 0.015 4.49 2.64 549 0.015 2005 7.26 590 0.D15 4.17 3.09 549 0.015 2096 7.38 590 0.015 3.88 3.51 549 0.D15 2007 7.50 590 0.016 3.60 3.91 549 0.016 2008 7.62 590 0.D16 3.34 4.28 549 0.016 2009 7.74 590 0.016 3.10 4.65 549 0.016 2010 7.87 590 0.016 2.88 4.99 549 0.016

A-6energyuseuata anu calculations for microwave ovens: West

. Europe tuygeograpnic region.

Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhlyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWhtyr) Energy Use 11 Total (EJ) 1992 46.34 150 0.025 150 1993 51.36 150 0.028 150 0.028 1994 56.37 150 0.030 150 0.030 1995 61.39 150 0.033 150 0.033 1996 66.41 150 0.036 150 0.036 1997 71.42 150 0.039 150 0.039 1998 76.44 150 0.041 150 0.041 1999 81.39 150 0.044 81.39 150 0.044 2000 86.27 150 0.047 77.11 9.16 135 0.046 2001 91.09 150 0.049 73.05 18.04 135 0.048 2002 95.84 150 0.052 69.20 26.64 135 0.050 2003 100.54 150 0.054 65.56 34.98 135 0.052 2004 105.19 150 0.057 62.11 43.08 135 0.054 2005 109.78 150 0.059 58.84 50.94 135 0.057 2006 114.32 150 0.062 55.74 58.58 135 0.059 2007 118.82 150 0.064 52.81 66.01 135 0.061 2008 123.28 150 0.067 50.03 73.25 135 0.063 2009 127.69 150 0.069 47.40 80.29 135 0.065 2010 132.06 150 0.071 44.90 87.16 135 0.067 North America (U.S. and Canada) Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWhtyr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWhtyr) Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 67.01 150.00 0.036 150 0.036 1993 70.44 150.00 0.038 150 0.038 1994 73.14 150.00 0.039 150 0.039 1995 75.16 150.00 0.041 150 0.041 1996 76.56 150.00 0.041 150 0.041 1997 77.38 150.00 0.042 150 0.042 1998 77.67 150.00 0.042 150 0.042 1999 77.79 150.00 0.042 77.79 150 0.042 2000 77.76 150.00 0.042 71.81 5.95 135 0.042 2001 77.58 150.00 0.042 66.28 11.30 135 0.041 2002 77.28 150.00 0.042 61.18 16.09 135 0.041 2003 76.85 150.00 0.041 56.48 20.37 135 0.040 2004 76.31 150.00 0.041 52.13 24.17 135 0.040 2005 75.66 150.00 0.041 48.12 27.53 135 0.039 2006 74.92 150.00 0.040 44.42 30.49 135 0.039 2007 74.09 150.00 0.040 41.00 33.08 135 0.038 2008 73.18 150.00 0.040 37.85 35.32 135 0.038 2009 72.19 150.00 0.039 34.94 37.25 135 0.037 2010 71.13 150.00 0.038 32.25 38.88 135 0.036 A-7 t:llergy use aata ana calculauons lor microwave ovens: \uy geograpllic reglOll). West. Europe Stock lMllllons} Eners): Use Baseline**~kWh/yr}** Enersy Use I Total**~EJ}** Stock (Old} Stock**~New)** Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr)**Ener~y** Use II Total (EJ) 1992 46.34 150 0.025 150 1993 51.36 150 0.028 150 0.028 1994 56.37 150 0.030 150 0.030 1995 61.39 150 0.033 150 0.033 1996 66.41 150 0.036 150 0.036 1997 71.42 150 0.039 150 0.039 1998 76.44 150 0.041 150 0.041 1999 81.39 150 0.044 81.39 150 0.044 2000 86.27 150 0.047 n,11 9.16 135 0.046 2001 91.09 150 0.049 73.05 18.04 135 0.048 2002 95.84 150 0.052 69.20 26.64 135 0.050 2003 100.54 150 0.054 65.56 34.98 135 0.052 2004 105.19 150 0.057 62.11 43.08 135 0.054 2005 109.78 150 0.059 58.84 50.94 135 0.057 2006 114.32 150 0.062 55.74 58.58 135 0.059 2007 118.82 150 0.064 52.81 66.01 135 0.061 2008 123.28 150 0.067 50.03 73.25 135 0.063 2009 127.69 150 0.069 47.40 80.29 135 0.065 0.071 44.90 87.16 135 0.067

North America (U.S. and Canada) Stock {Millions} Eners): Use Baseline (kWh/yr) Eners): Use I Total {I;J} Stock {Old) Stock**~New)** Eneray Use Standards (kWh/yr} Eneray Use II Total (EJ) 1992 67.01 150.00 0.036 150 0.036 1993 70.44 150.00 0.038 150 0.038 1994 73.14 150.00 0.039 150 0.039 1995 75.16 150.00 0.041 150 0.041 1996 76.56 150.00 0.041 150 0.041**19~7** n,38 150.00 0.042 150 0.042 1998 n,67 150.00 0.042 150 0.042 1999

. n.79 150.00 0.042 n,79 150 0.042 2000 n,76 150.00 0.042 71.81 5.95 135 0.042' 2001 n.58 150.00 0.042 66.28 11.30 135 0.041 2002 n.28 150.00 0.042

. 61.18 16.09 135 0.041 2003 76.85 150.00 0.041 56.48 20.37 135 0.040 2004 76.31 150.00 0.041 52.13 24.17 135 0.040 2005 75.66 150.00 0.041 48.12 27.53 135 0.039 2006 74.92 150.00 0.040 44.42 30.49 135 0.039 2007 74.09 150.60 0.040 41.00 33.08 135 0.038 2008 7a.18 150.00 0.040 37.85 35.32 135 0.038 2009 72.19 150.00 0.039 34.94 37.25 135 0.037 2010 71.13 150.00 0.038 32.25 38.B8 135 0.036 A

..7...01 u.,., uu•... u..u vuw wuuv^w wi ^^uv^Vrv ( 1VQ VYCIIJ. China (oy geograpnlc region)
Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kW Energy Use I Total (EJ Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kW Energy Use II Total (EJ 1992 11.61 150 0.006 150 0.006 1993 15.14 150 0.008 150 0.008 1994 18.68 150 0.010 150 0.010 1995 22.23 150 0.012 150 0.012 1996 25.79 150 0.014 150 0.014 1997 29.36 150 0.016 150 0.016 1998 31.96 150 0.017 150 0.017 1999 34.47 150 0.019 34.47 150 0.019 2000 36.91 150 0.020 32.17 4.74 135 0.020 2001 39.27 150 0.021 30.03 9.25 135 0.021 2002 41.57 150 0.022 28.03 13.55 135 0.022 2003 43.81 150 0.024 26.16 17.65 135 0.023 2004 45.99 150 0.025 24.41 21.58 135 0.024 2005 48.12 150 0.026 22.79 25.33 135 0.025 2006 50.20 150 0.027 21.27 28.93 135 0.026 2007 52.22 150 0.028 19.85 32.38 135 0.026 2008 54.21 150 0.029 18.53 35.68 135 0.027 2009 56.16 150 0.030 17.29 38.86 135 0.028 2010 58.06 150 0.031 16.14 41,92 135 0.029

, [ South East Asia Stock (Millions) Energy Use Baseline (kWh/yr) Energy Use I Total (EJ) Stock (Old) Stock (New) Energy Use Standards (kWh/yr) Energy Use II Total (EJ) 1992 24.58 150 0.013 150 0.013 1993 29.40 150 0.016 150 0.016 1994 33.97 150 0.018 150 0.018 1995 38.31 150 0.021 150 0.021 1996 42.44 150 0.023 150 0.023 1997 46.37 150 0.025 150 0.025 1998 50.10 150 0.027 150 0.027 1999 53.73 150 0.029 53.73 150 0.029 2000 57.25 150 0.031 50.15 7.10 135 0.031 2001 60.67 150 0.033 46.80 13.87 135 0.032 2002 64.00 150 0.035 43.68 20.32 135 0.033 2003 67.25 150 0.036 40.77 26.48 135 0.035 2004 70.42 150 0.038 38.05 32.37 135 0.036 2005 73.51 150 0.040 35.52 38.00 135 0.038 2006 76.54 150 0.041 33.15 43.39 135 0.039 2007 79.50 150 0.043 30.94, 48.56 135 0.040 '2008 82.40 150 0.044 28.88 53.53 . 135 0.042 2009 85.25 150 0.046 26.95 58.30 135 0.043 2010 88.04 150 0.048 25.15 62.89 135 0.044 A-8 _IIW'::J} "'
.... ""**~""'''t.Il** ....... W "",,,,,,',,,,,UIW\,VII,",, IVI .I"""VWVQYO**V"t;'I~. ~Dy**  geograpnlc region) China Stock (MIllions}**Ener~n~** Use Baseline ikWh/yr)**Ener~n:** Use I Total iEJ} StockiOld}**Stock~New~ Ener9~**  Use Standards**~kWh/yr)** Ener9Y Use II Total**~EJ}** 1992 11.61 150 0.006 150 0.006 1993 15.14 150 0.008 150 0.008 1994 18.68 150 0.010 150 0.010 1995 22.23 150 0.012 150 0.012 1996 25.79 150 0.014 150 0.014 1997 29.36 150 0.016 150 0.016 1998 31.96 150 0.017 150 0.017 1999 34.47 150 0.019 34.47 150 0.019 2000 36.91 150 0.020 32.17 4.74 135 0.020 2001 39.27 150 0.021 30.03 9.25 135 0.021 2002 41.57 150 0.022 28.03 13.55 135 0.022 2003 43.81 150 0.024 26.16 17.65 135 0.023 2004 45.99 150 0.025 24.41 21.58 135 0.024 2005 48.12 150 0.026 22.79 25.33 135 0.025 2006 50.20 150 0.027 21.27 28.93 135 0.026 2007 52.22 150 0.028 19.85 32.38 135 0.026 2008 54.21 150 0.029 18.53 35.68 135 0.027 2009 56.16 150 0.030 17.29 38.86 135 0.028 2010 58.06 150 0.031 16.14 41.92 135 0.029

\ SouthEast Asia Stock**~Mllilons} Ener9~**  Use Baseline**~kWh/yr)** Ener£!y Use I Total**~EJ)** StockiOld}**Stock{New~ Ener£!~**  Use Standards**(kWh/yr~** Ener£!y Use." Total {EJ} 1992 24.58 150 0.013 150 0.013 1993 29.40 150 0.016 150 0.D16 1994 33.97 150 0.018 150 0.018 1995 38.31 150 0.021 150 0.021 1996 42.44 150 0.023 150 0.023 1997 46.37 150 0.025 150 0.025 1'998 50.10 150 0.027 150 0.027 1999 53.73 150 0.029 53.73 150 0.029 2000 57.25 150 0.031 50.15 7.10 135 0.031 2001 60.67 150 0.033 46.80 13.87 135 0.032 2002 64.00 150 0.035 43.68 20.32 135 0.033 2003 67.25 150 0.036 40.77 26.48 135 0.035 2004 70.42 150 0.038 38.05 32.37 135 0.036 2005 73.51 150 0.040 35.52 38.00 135 0.038 2006 76.54 150 0.041 33.15 4;3.39 135 0.039 2007 79.50 '150 0.043 30.94

. 48.56 135 0.040 '2008 82.40 150 0.044 28.88 53.53 135 0.042 2009 85.25 150 0.046 26.95 58.30 135 0.043 2010 88.04 150 0.048 25.15 62.89 135 0.044 

### A-aREFERENCES CONSULTED

Boardman, 1994. B. Boardman , et. al., DECADE (Domestic Equipment and Carbon Dioxide Emissions), University of Oxford Environmental Change Unit, March 1995. Figueroa, 1993. M. Figueroa and J. Sathaye. "Household Energy Use in Urban Venezuela: Implications from Surveys in Maracaibo, Valencia, Merida, and Barcelona-Puerto La Cruz," Lawrence Berkeley Report LBL-33199, April 1993.
Friedmann, 1995. R. Friedmann, personal communication, and "Electricity in Mexican Homes: Potential and Accomplishments to Date," Energy & Resources Group, University of California-Berkeley, April 1995. Jannuzzi, 1991. G. Jannuzzi and L. Schipper, "The Structure of Electricity Demand in the Brazilian Household Sector," Energy Policy, November 1991. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. 1995. Technical Support Document for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers. Chapter 5: National Energy and Economic Impacts. Liu, 1993. F. Liu, "Energy Use and Conservation in China's Residential and Commercial Sectors: Patterns, Problems, and Prospects," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-33867, July 1993. Meyers, 1993. S. Meyers, L. Schipper and B. Lebot, "Domestic Refrigeration Appliances in Poland: Potential for Improving Energy Efficiency," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-34101. Meyers, 1990. S. Meyers, et.al. "Energy Efficiency and Household Electric Appliances in Developing and Newly Industrialized Countries," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-29678, December 1990. Nadel, 1995. S. Nadel, personal communication, and "The Chinese Appliance Market: Current Status, Future Directions," Beijing Energy Efficiency Center, April 1995. Sathaye, 1991. J. Sathaye and S. Tyler, "Transitions in Household Energy Use in Urban China, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Hong Kong," Annual Review of Energy'and Environment, 16:295-335, 1991.
Wilkenfeld, 1993

. G. Wilkenfeld and Associations Pty Ltd, "Benefits and Costs of Implementing Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia," Final Report, Sydney, Australia, April 1993.

A-9 REFERENCESCQNSULTED
Boardman,1994. B. Boardman, et. al., DECADE (Domestic Equil?ment and Carbon Dioxide Emissions), University ofOxford Environmental Change Unit, March 1995. Figueroa, 199,3. M. Figueroa and J. Sathaye. "HouseholdEnergy Use in Urban Venezuela: Implications from Surveys in Maracaibo, Valencia, Merida, and Barcelona-PuertoLa Cruz," Lawrence Berkeley Report LBL-33199, April 1993. Friedmann,1995. R. Friedmann, personal communication, and "Electricity In Mexican Homes: Potential and Accomplishments to Date," Energy & Resources Group, University of California-Berkeley, April 1995. Jannuzzi, 1991. G. Jannuzzi and L. Schipper, "The Structure ofElectricity Demand in the Brazilian Household Sector," Energy Policy, November 1991. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. 1995. Technical Support Document for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers. Chapter 5: National Energy and EconomicImpacts. Liu, 1993. F. Liu, "Energy Use and Conservation in China's Residential and Commercial Sectors: Patterns, Problems, and Prospects," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-33867, July 1993. ' Meyers,1993. S. Meyers, L. Schipper and B. Lebot, "Domestic Refrigeration Appliances in Poland: Potential for Improving Energy Efficiency," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-34101. Meyers, 1990. S. Meyers, et.al. "Energy Efficiency and Household Electric Appliances in Developing and Newly Industrialized Countries," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-29678, December 1990., Nadel, 1995. S. Nadel, personal communication, and "The Chinese Appliance Market: Current Status, Future Directions," BeijingEnergy Efficiency Center, April 1995. Sathaye, 1991. J. Sathaye and S. Tyler, ''Transitions in HouseholdEnergy UseinUrban China, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Hong Kong," Annual Review ofEnergy'and Environment, 16:295-335, 1991. Wilkenfeld, 1993. G. Wilkenfeld and Associations Pty Ltd, "Benefits and Costs ofImplementing MinimumEnergy Performance Standards for HouseholdElectrical Appliance!!! in Australia," Final Report, Sydney, Australia, April 1993.

A-9"Portrait of the European Appliance Industry," Appliance, July 1992.

Euromonitor PLC and Euromonitor International Inc, 1994. "The World Market for White Goods," London. Group for Efficient Appliances, 1992. P: Buhl-Pedersen, et al. Study for the Commission of the European Communities on Energy Efficiency Standards for Domestic Refrigeration Appliances, Working Group 106, July 1992. "Portrait ofthe European Appliance Industry," Appliance, July 1992. Euromonitor PLC and Euromonitor International Inc, 1994. "The World Market for White Goods," London. Group for Efficient Appliances, 1992. P:Buhl-Pedersen, et al. Study for the Commission ofthe European Communities on Energy Efficiency Standards for Domestic Refrigeration Appliances, Working Group 106, July 1992.**~.** A-toREFERENCES

Chapter 1 Introduction Appliance, 1994. Major Appliance Demand Growing Fastest in Developing Countries, Appliance Magazine, June 1994, p21. Chapter 2 Survey of Testing Protocols Bansal, 1"995. P. Bansal and I. McGill, Analysis of Household Refrigerators for Different Testing Standards, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 101, Pt. 1, Jan 1995. CFR, 1995. Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter IT, Part 430, Federal Register, January 1, 1995. Harrington, 1994. L. Harrington, Comparison of Household Refrigerator Efficiency Stnadards in the USA with those Proposed for Australia and Europe, presented at ACEEE Summer Study, Asilomar, CA, August, 1994.IEC 456, 1994. International Standard, Electric clothes washing machines for household useMethods for measuring the performance, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1994. IEC 436, 1981. International Standard, Methods for measuring the performance of electric dishwashers, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1981. IEC 705, 1988. International Standard, Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for household and similar purposes, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1988. IEC 1121, 1991. International Standard, Method for measuring the performance of tumble dryers for household use, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1991. ISO/DIS 8187.3-1988 Performance of household refrigerating appliances- Refrigerators-freezers ISO 7371-1985 Performance of household refrigerating appliances- Refrigerators with or without low temperature compartment. ISO 5151, 1994. International Standard, Non-ducted air conditioners and heat pumps - Testing and rating for performance, International Standards Organization, 1994. Wilkenfeld, 1995. Personal communication with George Wilkenfeld, Sydney, Australia, February, 1995. 

### Chapter 3 Survey ofPerformance Specifications ECE, 1995. Report of Committee on Energy, Ad hoc Meeting of Experts on Energy Efficiency, Standards and Labels, Miilan, December 1, 1994, January 16, 1995. REFERENCES Chapter 1 Introduction 

### Appliance, 1994. Major Appliance Demand Growing Fastest in Developing Countries, Appliance Magazine, June 1994, p21. Chapter2 Survey ofTestingProtocols 

### Bansal, 1"995. P. Bansal and I. 

### McGill, Analysis ofHousehold Refrigerators for Different Testing Standards, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 101, Pt. 

### I, Jan 1995. CFR, 1995. Code ofFederal Regulations, Chapter II, 

### Part 430, Federal Register, January I, 1995. Harrington, 1994. L. 

### Harrington, Comparison ofHousehold RefrigeratorEfficiency Stnadards in 

### the USA with those Proposed for Australia and Europe, presented at ACEEE Summer Study, Asilomar, CA, August, 1994. IEC 456, 1994. International Standard, Electric clothes washing machines for household useMethods for measuring the performance, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1994. IEC 436, 1981. International Standard, Methods for measuring the performance ofelectric dishwashers, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1981. IEC 70S, 1988. International Standard, Methods for measuring the performance ofmicrowave ovens for household and similarpurposes, Internatioruu Electrotechnical Commission, 1988. IEC 1121, 1991. International Standard, Method for measuring the performance oftumble dryers for household use, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1991. ISOIDIS 8187.3-1988 Performance ofhousehold refrigerating appliances- Refrigerators-freezers ISO 7371-1985 Performance ofhousehold refrigerating appliances- Refrigerators with orwithout lowtemperature compartment. ISO 5151, 1994. International Standard, Non-ducted air conditioners and heat pumps - Testing and rating for performance, International Standards Organization, 1994. Wtlkenfeld, 1995. Personal communicationwith George Wtlkenfeld, Sydney, 

### Austriilia, February» 1995. 

### Chapter3 Survey ofPerformance Specifications ·ECE, 1995. Report ofCommittee onEnergy, Ad hoc Meeting ofExperts on Energy**Efficiency~** 

### Standards and Labels,:Milan, December I, 1994, 

### J8!llWY 16, 1995.EPACT, 1992. US Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, October 24, 1992.

Federal Register, 1994. Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 43, DOE Proposed Rules, pp 10464- 10532, March 4, 1994. GEA, 1994. Group for Energy Efficient Appliances.(GEA, Study of Efficient Washing Machines, Dishwashers and Driers, Interim Report, Published by Danish Energy Agency , July, 1994.
Green Seal, 1993

. Proposed Environmental Standards for Major Household Appliances, Green Seal, Washington, DC 20037, March 9, 1993.
Guide, 1995

. John Cockburn, Guide to Canada's Energy Efficiency Regulations, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OE4, Canada, March 6, 1995. Harris, 1994

. J.P. Harris et al., Energy Efficient Government Procurement : Federal Perspectives, presented at WEEC Congress, Atlanta, December, 1994. IEA, 1994. Market-Pull Activities and Co-operative Procurement of Innovative Technologies, Paris, France, December, 1994. Joint, 1994

. Joint Comments of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, NRDC, ACEEE, New York State Energy Office, California Energy Commission, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison relating to energy conservation standards for refrigerator/freezers, November 15, 1994. Nadel, 1995

. S. Nadel, The Chinese Appliance Market: Current Status , Future Directions, Draft Report to be presented at International Appliance Technical Conference, Illinois State University, May, 1995. NAECA, 1987

. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 , Public Law 100-12, March 17, 1987.
Turiel, 1993

. I. Turiel, J. McMahon, and B. Lebot, Global Residential Appliance Standards, presented at ECEEE Conference, Denmark, LBL Report 33772, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Building 90

-4000, Berkeley, CA 94720, June, 1993.
Wilkenfeld, 1993

. G. Wilkenfeld, Benefits and Costs of Implementing Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia, Sydney Australia, July, 1993. 

### EPACT, 1992. US Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, October 24, 1992. Federal Register, 1994. FederalRegister, Volume 59, No. 43, DOE Proposed Ru1es, pp 10464- 10532, March 4, 1994. GEA, 1994. Group for Energy Efficient Appliances.(GEA, Study ofEfficientWashing Machines, Dishwashers and Driers, InterimReport, Publishedby Danish Energy AgenCy, July, 1994. Green Seal, 1993. Proposed Environmental Standards for Major Household Appliances, Green Seal, Washington, DC 20037, March 9, 1993. Guide, 1995. John Cockburn, Guide to Canada's Energy Efficiency Regu1ations,.Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIAOE4, Canada, March 6, 1995. Harris, 1994. J.P. Harris et al., EnergyEfficient Government Procurement: Federal Perspectives, presented atWEEC Congress, Atlanta, December, 1994. lEA, 

### 1994. Market-Pu11 Activities and Co-operative Procurement ofInnovative Technologies, Paris, France, December, 1994. Joint, 1994. Joint Comments oftheAssociation ofHome Appliance Manufacturers, NRDC, ACEEE, New York State Energy Office, CaliforniaEnergy Commission, Pacific Gas & 

### Electric, 

### and Southern CaliforniaEdison relating to energy conservation standards for refrigerator/freezers, November 15, 1994.**Nade~** 

### 1995. S.**Nade~** 

### The Chinese Appliance Market: Current Status, FutureDirections, Draft Report tobe presented atIntematioDal Appliance Technical Conference, Dlinois State University, 

### May, 1995. NAECA, 1987. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-12, March 17,1987. Turiel, 1993. I. 

### Turiel, J. 

### McMahon, and B. 

### Lebot, Global Residential Appliance Standards, presented at ECEEE Conference, Denmark, LBL Report 33772, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Building 90-4000, Berkeley, CA 94720, June, 1993. Wllkenfeld, 1993. G. Wilkenfeld, Benefits and Costs ofImplementing Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia, Sydney Australia, July, 1993.Chapter 4 Overview ofProduct Attributes

Appliance Manufacturer, 1994. World Washer, p W-55, Appliance Manufacturer, May 1994. Chapter 5 Criteria for Identification of Products Amenable to International Harmonization 1. Turiel, J. McMahon and B. Lebot, Global Residential Appliance Standards, presented at the ECEEE Conference, Denmark, LBL-33772, June, 1993.
Chapter 6: Survey of Benefits and Costs of Prior Performance Specifications ADEME and IEA, 1992. "Proceedings, International Energy Conference on Use of Efficiency Standards in Energy Policy, June 4-5, 1992." AFME - CEC DGXVII, 1991. "Etude sur le reglementation des performances energetiques des appareils electomenagers," (October). California Energy Commission, 1983. "California's Appliance Standards: An Historical Review, Analysis, and Recommendations," Staff Report P400-83-020, July. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1994. Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, in Canada Gazette Part 1. (March 19, pp. 1715-1726) Group for Efficient Appliances (Authors: P. Buhl-Pedersen, B. Lebot, P. Michel, C. Nascimento, V. Ostergaard, A. Szabo, R. Trines, and S. Van der Sluis), 1993. "Study on Energy Efficiency Standards for Domestic Refrigeration Appliances." (March). Group for Efficient Appliances, 1994. "Study of Efficient Washing Machines, Dishwashers, and Driers, Interim Report . (July) B. Lebot, A. Szabo, and H. Despretz, 1991.. "Gisement des Economies d'Energie du Parc Europeen des Appareils Electromenagers obtenues par une Reglementation des Performances Energetiques." (July) McMahon, J.E., 1991. "Energy Labels in the United States," Consumer Policy Review 1, pp. 87- 92 (April) Preben Buhl Pedersen, 1992. "Engineering Analysis Concerning Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators and Freezers in Denmark." dk-TEKNIK (February) P.E.J. Vermeulen and R.J.M.J. Weijers, "Calculation of the Consequences of Energy Consumption Standards for the Market Supply of Domestic Refrigerators and Freezers." TNP Report 91-042, February, 1991. Chapter4 Overview ofProduct Attributes Appliance Manufacturer, 1994. World Washer, p W-55, Appliance Manufacturer, May 1994. Chapter 5 Criteria for Identification ofProducts Amenable to Inte.rnational Harmonization , I. Turiel, I McMahon and B. Lebot, Global Residential Appliance Standard,s, presented atthe ECEEE Conference, Denmark, LBL-33772, June, 1993.
Chapter 6: Survey ofBenefits and Costs ofPriorPerformance Specifications
ADEME and IEA, 1992. "Proceedings, International Energy Conference onUse ofEfficiency Standards in Energy Policy, June 4-5, 1992." AFME

- CEC DGXVII, 1991. "Etude sur Ie reglementation des performances energetiques des appareils electomenagers," (October). California Energy Commission, 1983. "California's Appliance Standards: An Historical Review, Analysis, and Recommendations," StaffReport P400-83-020, July. Department ofEnergy, Mines and Resources, 1994. Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, in Canada Gazette Part 1. (March 19, pp. 1715-1726) Group for Efficient Appliances (Authors: P. Buhl-Pedersen, B. Lebot, P. Michel, C. Nascimento,

,V. Ostergaard, A. Szabo, R. Trines, and S. Van der Sluis), 1993. "Study onEnergyEfficiency

Standards for Domestic Refrigeration Appliances." (March). Group for Efficient Appliances, 1994. "Study ofEfficient Washing Machines,**Di~hwash~rs,** and Driers, Interim Report." (July)
B. Lebot, A. Szabo, and H. Despretz, 1991

.. "Gisement des Economies d'Energie du Parco Europeen des Appareils Electromenagers obtenues parune Reglementation des Performances Energetiques." (July) McMahon, IE., 1991. "Energy Labels in the United States," Consumer Policy Review 1, pp. 87- 92 (April) Preben Buhl Pedersen, 1992. "Engineering Analysis Concerning Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators and Freezers in Denmark." dk-TEKNIK (February) 

### P.E.I. Vermeulen and RI.M.J. Weijers, "Calculation ofthe Consequences ofEnergy Consumption Standards for the Market Supply ofDomestic Refrigerators and Freezers." TNP Report 91-042, February, 1991.U.S. Department of Energy, 1993. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards

for Consumer Products: Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, Mobile Home Furnaces, Pool Heaters, Ranges and Ovens, Room Air Conditioners, Televisions, and Fluorescent Light Ballasts (DOE/EE-0009), November. U. S. Department of Energy, 1990. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and Clothes Dryers," (DOE/CE-0299P), December. U. S. Department of Energy, 1989. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators and Furnaces," (DOE/CE-0277), November. U. S. Department of Energy, 1980. Technical Support Document No. 4: Economic Analysis: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators and Refrigerator/Freezers, Freezers, Clothes Dryers, Water Heaters, Room Air Conditioners, Home Heating Equipment, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Central Air Conditioners and Furnaces," (DOE/CS-0169), June. 

## u.s. Department ofEnergy, 1993. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Water Heaters, Direct Heating.Equipment, Mobile Home Fwnaces, Pool Heaters, Ranges and Ovens, Room Air Conditioners, Televisions, and Fluorescent Light Ballasts (DOEIEE-0009), November. U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1990. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and Clothes Dryers," (DOE/CE-0299P), December. U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1989. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators and Furnaces," (DOE/CE-0277), November. U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1980. Technical Support Document No.4: Economic Analysis: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators and RefrigeratorlFreezers, Freezers, Clothes Dryers, Water Heaters, Room Air Conditioners, Home Heating Equipment, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Central Air Conditioners and Furnaces," (DOE/CS-0169), June

.

.

## -'