OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

ISAAC TURIEL JOHANNA KOLLAR AND JAMES MCMAHON

DRAFT REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY

APRIL 28,1995

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS 

ISAAC TURIEL JOHANNA KOLLAR AND JAMES MCMAHON 

DRAFT REPORT TO THE 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 
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 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 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 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 refiigerator 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 protoco~ or test procedure. Chapter 3 covers several kinds of performanCe 

specifications. These include: labeling, efficiency ~dards 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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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. 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 of this 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 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 

j. 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 

AustraiiaINew Zealand 

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 of these products (Wtlkenfeld, 1995). The Australian refiigerator/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 
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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 anei irons. For clothes 

washers and room air conditioners, the IEC and ISO test protocols have been somewhat modified 

2-2 
for 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 the

basis 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 the 

basis 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 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 

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 
Table 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 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 (TIS 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, 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 

Indoor Wetbulb Temp. 19 -- 12 

Outdoor Drybulb Temp. 35 7 2 

Outdoor Wetbulb Temp. 24 6 1 

2-4 
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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 similar to 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. 

United States 

The US. 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 US. 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 US. 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 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 

2-5 
Electrotechnique, 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Electrotechnique, 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 c9untries mostly use ISO 

or IEC protocols but some harmonization work is still needed. 

Under auspices of the 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 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 

220Vand 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; Europe~ 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/freezen 

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 ns protocol is used in Japan and Korea. The values in Table 2.5 are for three star 

refrigerator-freezers for the ISO and ns test protocols. 

2-6 
Table 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 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 of dishwashers 

and clothes washers. 

Table 2.6 .shows the wash temperature and usages for dishwashers. In the IEC test, incoming 

2-7 
water 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

water at 15cC 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 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 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 (!. 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 
credit 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 US. The US: energy efficiency metric is in capacity (ft3)lkWh. 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)* 

. US. 60 8.0 No+ No 

til 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 c~ 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 ~lothes 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 

protoco~ 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 timer activated ~ermination 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 IEC protoco~ the test load is proportional to drum size whereas in the North 

2-9 
American 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

American 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 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 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 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. 

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 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 a total 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 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 am~nded that procedure. 

2.4 Strategies to Introduce Comparability into Testing Protocols 

2-10 
The 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 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 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 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 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. 

2-11 
3. 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

'3. 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. 

Labeling 

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 e;ertain 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. ' 

Efficiency Standards 

Efficiency standards can be either mandatory or voluntary in nature. They can be in the form ~f 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 particuiar 

product and establishes standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified. ~ 

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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 Standard 
1990 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

1990 standard (solid line) was obtained through a consensus approach between manufacturers and 

environm~nta1 groups; the net result of that approach is to eliminate about half pf 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 offeripg 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 Labeis, Efficiency Standards, and Procurement Programs 

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 comnnssioned 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 (Wllkenfeltt 

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 
Table 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 3.1 Proposed Australian Refrigerator MEPS' 

Australian Class Description Maximum Energy 

Use (kWhlyr) 

( 

1 All Refrigerator 368 + 0.892AV 

2 Cyclic Defrost (1 dr) 300 + 0.728AV 

3 Cyclic Defrost (1dr)* 330 + 0.800AV 

4 Cyclic Defrost (2dr) 424 + 1.020A V 

5T&5B T -MlB-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. 

Class 5 units have an additional allowance of 120 kWh for a through-the-door ice dispenser wher.e 

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 
discussion 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

discussion 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 (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 of nominal load) 

The federal government has not acted on this recommendation. 

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

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 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 Wtlkenfeld report recommended that ~e 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 offoam insulation. The present thickness ranges from 25" to 32 mm. 

For tanks ofless than 80 liters) it was recommended that the heat loss limit be lowered to 70010 of 

the existing standard. Industry has requested a limit of 10(010) which would have a minor impact . 

since there are models with a heat loss of 110 to 120010 of the limit. 

Labeling 

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 
label 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 Resources

Canada (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, clothes

washers, 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 from

the 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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

Canada, the U. S., the Caribbean and Eas.tem Europe. 

Standards 

During the last several years, the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, . and 

Ontario, established efficiency standards mat applied to products sold within their borders. On 

January 1, 1993, the energy Efficiency 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 products became law: refrigerators, freezers, clothes 

washers, 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 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 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. 

Citi"" 

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 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 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 kWblyr) when tested at an 

ambient temperature of27 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 
washer 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 

minimnm ~nergy efficiency standards for room air conditioners and for split system units. The 

standards require a coefficient of performance (COP) of2.20-2.32 for window units (depending 

on cooling capacity) and 2.30-2.44 for split system units (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 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 

~d Eastern European (CEE) countries (ECE, 1995). In some CEE countries, they are modi1Ying 

their standards systems in close relation to those of the EU as part of the preparatory process for 

entering as full members of the ED 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 20010 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 
In 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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

analysis of the European appliance marke~ for the Directorate General for Energy (DGXVTI) 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. 

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 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 XVll). 

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 10010 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 10010 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 (A V). 

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% ofall units 

available on the EC market. Long-term standards were based upon an engin~ study ofwhat 

was technically feasible and economically attractive. The results of that study were that energy 

savings of38 to 55% were possible relative to existing models. 

3-7 
Table 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-frost models, energy consumption is determined by testing

procedure EN 153. For no-frost appliances, 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 3.2: Recommended alternatives for short-term minimum efficiency standards 

for refrigerator/fre-ezers in European Union 

Code Category C max= Maximum 

FFC: Frozen Food Energy Consumption Allowed 

Compartment (kWhlyr~ 

100/0 . Standard 

R1 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-frost models, energy consumption is determined by testing 

procedure EN 153. For no-frost appliances, energy consumption is determined by testing 

procedure ISOIDP 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 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 study but· 

delays implementation unti12000. 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 of standards 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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 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) \Vill soon have a voluntary environmenta11abel for dishwashers and 

clothes washers. All models that meet the ED environmenta11abel requirements \Vill 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 IEC 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) \Vill 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 
also 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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. 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 industiy. 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 Conditiofters 

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 
,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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

· The target values for cooling COPs of air conditioners dedicated to cooling are shovm 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 2.20 

and 7kw 

Separate type of cooling capacity 4kw and 3.09 

less 

Separate type of cooling capacity between 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-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 of21 

inches and smaller, 10-12% for standard televisions with screens larger than 21 inches. 13-17% 

for wide screen televisions, and 18-25% for HDTVs. 

3-11 
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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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-screen television 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=target value for standard annual electricity use (kWhlyr) 

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 61.0 

video-deck 

Others 0 

B 

I :: ~deo deck 

3-12 
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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 management law, 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 

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 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 per month 

and adjusted volume (A V) is in liters. 

Table 3.6 Korean Standards and Target Equations 

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 xA V - 14.63 0.096xAV - 11.71 

AV>5oo liters 

AV = adjusted volume = refrigerator volume + 2.3 x Freezer Volume 

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Korea has esiablished efficiency targets for single package ('window) and split-system air 

conditioners. The efficiency metric is an EER, or energy efficiency rating, in kca1lh per Watt. The 

efficiency target ia 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 20010 reduction in 

the 1991 average BER Table 3.7 shows the Korean minimum BERs and EER targets. 

3-13 
Table 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.

Refrigerators/Freezers

Efficiency 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 3.7 Korean EER Standards for Air Conditioners . 

Product Type Minimum EER (kcallh W) Target EER (kcallhW) 

Single-package 2.35 2.8 

Split « 3550 kcallh) 2.47 3.1 

Split (> 3550 kcallh) 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 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 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 U.S. Mexico is in 

the process of developing other efficiency standards for incandescent lamps, well pumps, washing 

machines and televisions. 

Refrigerators/Freezers 

Efficiency 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 kWhlyr and the adjusted volume (A V) is in liters. The standard is 

effective April, 1995. In 1997, the maximum energy use limits for the first three product c~s 

3-14 
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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 

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 0.582A V + 367 , 

Top-Mount A-D with TTD Features 0.620AV +391 

Side-by-Side A-D with TID Features 0.575A V + 527 

TTD = through the door features like ice makers or cold water. 

AD= auto defrost 

AV = adjusted volume 

Room Air Conditioners 

for A V > 90 liters 

for A V < 90 liters 

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 minimnm 

efficiencies are expressed as a COP (WIW) 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 
Table 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 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 13 99 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 p.roduce .very efficient 

3-16 
refrigerator-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.

Over the 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

refrigerator-freezers. Other products that have been procured through this method are washing 

~hines 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 potentialbuyers rather than a formal, open procurement as in Sweden. -

-. 

Over the 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 (lEA, 

1994). At this time, there is no truly international procurement taking place. 

lblssian 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 th~ 

present time, 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% 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 (FI'C), 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 (mcluding 

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, ip 

3-17 
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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 can vary 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. 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 cooktopslovens. 

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 C02 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-l8 
use; 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

use; 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 

Refiigerators, Refiigerator-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 detennjnjng 

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; 

S. The impact of any lessening of competition; 

6. The need for national energy conservation; and 

7. Other factors that DOE considers relevant. 

3-19 
If 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 simple

payback 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 '

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

If DOE finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product compl)ri.ng '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 econonucally justified. This is equivalent. to a simple 

payback period ofless 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 descnOed. 

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 (Harris, 1994). The US government is the largest· 

single purchaser in the world for many energy-using products; they can have a large impact on 

increasing the energy e6iciency of consumer products and conimercial equipment. This new effort 

is just underway in the US. . . 

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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 Defrost Refr . 

& Refr-frz 

Partial A-D Refr-frz 

Top-Mount A-D Refr-frz 

Top-Mount A-D with TTD 

Side-Mount A-D Refr-ftz 

Side-Mount A-D with TTD 

Bottom-Mount A-D Refr-frz 

Upright Manual Freezer 

Upright A-D Freezer 

Chest Freezer 

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 

3-21 
AV = 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

A V = 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 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 Standard Dryer (> 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 

3-22 
power 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

power 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 rulemaldng 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 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 

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 (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 

3-23 
Table 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 3.14 MiD.imum Efficiency Standards for Central Air 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 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 f:he 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.OO05V , 

Gas Instantaneous 0.62 - O.OOOSV 

Oil 0.59 - O.OOOSV 

Electric 0.93 - 0.OO035V 

v = rated storage volume in liters 

3-24 
Space 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Space 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 :furnaces. 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 ~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 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 o~ 

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 kWhlkg and the US uses cubic ftlkWh), 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 g~erally 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 
example, 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

example, if clothes washers are used more oft~n 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 ~e 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 

characterlstics 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 ~d in 

3-26 
Denmark 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Denmark 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 ifthe'efficiency descriptors were in the 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 might be 

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 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 IEC and North American test protocols 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 energy use ~ kWh/cycle is obtained by averaging two measurements, one with power dry 

and one without power dry activated. This would tend to increase eriergy use by a small amount 

in the North American test relative to the European (lEC) 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 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 order to harmonize efficiency standards) the North 

American models would have to be redesigned to reduce water consumption by about 25-40%. 

This would present a significant challenge to US manufacturers and could impact consumer utility 

of this product. For example, an internal heater may be relJuired which could increase the cycle 

time and a filter that is mamJally 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 
Table 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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+ 

3-28 
Chapter 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Chapter 4 Overview of Product Attributes 

Introduction 

This chapter contains a qualitative description of product 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 lEA countries. The objective is to discuss how similarities and differences in product· 

charactetJstics 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 US., 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 

US., auto-defrost is more common than in the other countries. Through'-the-door features, such 

as ice or water 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 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 
have 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

have 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 Whirlpoo~ 

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 Wmdow Units 

Wmdow 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 
Mexico 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Mexico 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 themajority 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 ~nd 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 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 

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 
protocol or performance standard harmonization.

4-4

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

protocol or performance standard harmonization. 

4-4 
Chapter 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Chapter 5: Criteria for Identification of Products ~menable to International 

.JIarmonization 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, Ute 

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 cha:pter 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 

Refiigerators, refiigerator-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 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 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.. 

Refiigerators 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 easierto 

promulgate international standards because manufacturers are already experienced with using 

5-1 
more 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

more than one test protocol and techno!ogy 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 ~greement 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 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 or tumble dryers across countries. They can he 

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. Th~ main. 

5-2 
parameter 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 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 of the three possible ISO rating points. The characteristics of the 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 of capacity. 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 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 kWhlyr). 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 ~an also be very climate . 

dependent. 

5.6 Conclusions 
In 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 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 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 tenn targets for hannonization . 

Table 5.2 Summary of Products 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 of test protocols and labeling. Once test 

protocols are hannonized, the more difficult task of hannonization 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 
government 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).

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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). 

5-5 
Chapter 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Chapter 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. W ~ focus on IEA 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 = 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 of household appliances were conducted in the early 1990s to provide a basis for efficiency 

standards. (Wilkenfeld, 1993) The study inclqded 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 impleIrented in 1996 (after a 2-3 year notice period). The impacts by year 2007 are projected 

6-1 
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 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, internal

water 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 PI 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 PI 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, clowes washers,. dishwashers, 

electric ranges, electric water heaters, fluorescent lamp ballasts, 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, 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 

1991, SA VB was begun. In 1990, the EC intended to stabilize C02 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 frrst reports analyzing energy standards for domestic appliances. Five 

6-2 
products - 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 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 Darush 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 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, 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 Corrunission (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 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 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 stanc;fards for refrigerators. 

freezers, and room and central air conditioners, effective in two tiers, in 1977 and in 1978n9. The 

6-3 
refrigerator 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

refrigerator 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 ~ling 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. 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 of US national standards were prospective, conducted as part of the DepartIIient 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), simpl~ payback period, consumer life cycle cost, fulancial 

impact on a prototypical manufacturer (several indicators, including shipments, revenues, net income, 

and return on equity), national energy and economic impacts, impacts on electric u~ties (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 

64 
to 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

to include significant energy and economic savings. For electricity, an estimated 88 TWHIa 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 

TWHIa, with alxmt 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 vruue 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 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 6.2. US primary energy savings from appliance standards 

Standard EJ (primary) saved in 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/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 "Refrigeratorifreezer 

consensus standard for '98", which was derived from press releases. 

1 Excluding HV AC. 

2 Estimate based 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Table 6.3. Benefits, Costs and Net Present Value (NPV): 

-~ational Economic Impact of US Appliance Standards 

(Values in billion $1990 discounted @ 7% real) 

Standard NPV Benefit 

Forecast to 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 

Forecast to 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: 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 

''Refrigeratorifreezer consensus standard for '98", which was derived from press releases. 

3 As proposed in March 1994 for room air conditioners, water heaters, 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 Product Proposed 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 or banked] 

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 1 537.4 1039.3 

Fmissions:fuctors for this table were taken from estimates published originally as part of the 1991 National Energy Strategy 

(NBS) and cited in the December 1992 Analysis of Federal Policy Options for Improving Lighting Energy Efficiency (LBI.-

31469, pp.811-8/4). And in the November 1993 TSD covering the 8 product proposed rules (DOFlEE-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 
• 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

. 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 percf?nt of households owning 

the product, times unit energy consumption. Where the number of households w~ not readily 

available, the population was divided by a constant number of persons per h.ousehold from recent data 

to obtain number of households. Recent sales trends were (1xtrapolated. 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, 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 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 w.orld 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. 

Product 

Refrigerators 

Cl.othes Washers 

Microwave Ovens 

Table 6.5 Site Energy UseEJ (1018 joules) for Year 2010 

Base Case Energy Use, 2010 

1.51 

0.42 

0.19 

6-9 

Standards Case Energy Use, 2010 

1.26 

0.31 

0.18 
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, 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).

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 of data.) 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 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 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 of about 0.01 Ella are projected in 2010 (See Figure 6.3). 

6-10 
1998-

1969

2000 -

2001

2002 -

2003 -

2004

2005 -

2006 -

2007

2008 -

2009

2010

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

co 

0) 0) 

,... 

Figure 6.1 Total Energy Use of Refrigerators (1992-2010) 

co 

0) 0) 

,... 

0) 00) 

0) 

,... 

,... co 

8 

C\I 

Year 

e-11 

-+-Baseline Case 

I 

- Standards Case 

'0) o 

,... 
1996

1997

1998 - -

1999

2000 -

In

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Figure 6.2 Total Energy Use of Clothes Washers (1992 - 2010) 

-+-Baseline Case 

- Standards 

co !;; co 0) 0 ,... C\I (I') -.:t II) co " co 8 0 

0) 0) 0) 0 8' 8 8 0 0 ,.... 

0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 

,... ..... .... ,.... C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I 

Year 

6-12 
1995

1996

1997-

1998 --

1999 -

2000-1-

2001

2002

2003 -

2004 -

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

to

CD

0)

-i0

03m

cD

tQ0N3V00A0

03

lDN

toOsO

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Figure 6.3 Total Energy ·Consumption of Microwaves (1992-2010) 

-+-Baseline Case 

---Standards Case 

U) <0 ...... co 0) ..- '" C') U). <0 ...... co 0) 0 

) 0) 0) 0) 0) 8 0 0 0 o· 8 0 ,... 

m 0) m 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

.. .,.. ,.. ..- ..- '" C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I (\J Year 
APPENDIX A

Energy Use Data and Calculations

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

APPENDIX A 

Energy Use Data and Calculations 
Energy 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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-1 
Energy 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Energy use data and calculations 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-2 
Energy 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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-4 
tnergy 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

energy use aata ana calculauons lor clomes wasners: \uy \;jt;U\;j1 <l1J111\" I t;\;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·5 
G 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17 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-6 
energyuseuata 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 

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

ovens: \uy geograpllic reg lOll). 

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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17 _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-a 
REFERENCES 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

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

REFERENCESCQNSULTED 

Boardman,1994. B. Boardman, et. al., DECADE (Domestic Equil?ment and Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions), University of Oxford Environmental Change Unit, March 1995. 

Figueroa, 199,3. 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 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

"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. 

~. 

A-to 
REFERENCES

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 of Performance 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

REFERENCES 

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. I, Jan 1995. 

CFR, 1995. Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 430, Federal Register, January I, 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 70S, 1988. International Standard, Methods for measuring the performance of microwave 

ovens for household and similar purposes, Internatioruu Electrotechnical Commission, 1988. 

IEC 1121, 1991. International Standard, Method for measuring the performance of tumble dryers 

for household use, International Electrotechnical Commission, 1991. 

ISOIDIS 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. 

Wtlkenfeld, 1995. Personal communication with George Wtlkenfeld, Sydney, Austriilia, February» 

1995. 

Chapter 3 Survey of Performance Specifications 

·ECE, 1995. Report of Committee on Energy, Ad hoc Meeting of Experts 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

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 Ru1es, 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 Regu1ations,.Natural 

Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA 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. 

lEA, 1994. Market-Pu11 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. 

Nade~ 1995. S. Nade~ The Chinese Appliance Market: Current Status, Future Directions, Draft 

Report to be presented at IntematioDal 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 of Implementing Minimum Energy 

Performance Standards for Household Electrical Appliances in Australia, Sydney Australia, July, 

1993. 
Chapter 4 Overview of Product 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

Chapter 4 Overview of Product Attributes 

Appliance Manufacturer, 1994. World Washer, p W-55, Appliance Manufacturer, May 1994. 

Chapter 5 Criteria for Identification of Products Amenable to Inte.rnational Harmonization , 

I. Turiel, I McMahon and B. Lebot, Global Residential Appliance Standard,s, 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 Ie 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, 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 par une 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 of the Consequences of Energy 

Consumption Standards for the Market Supply of Domestic 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.

 CE-RM-87-102 COMMENT 17

u.s. Department of Energy, 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 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 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 . 

. -'