Department Energy

Washington, DC 20585

August 8, 1996

PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE

APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS

The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, recently announced the results of a comprehensive process improvement effort in which

the Department and many of our stakeholders examined issues surrounding the appliance

standards program.

An integral first step in the improved process is the prioritization of appliance rulemakings which

will allow us to use limited resources more effectively. On June 14, 1996, the Department held

the first prioritization public workshop to discuss the criteria to be used in planning and

prioritizing future rules. To assist in the development of the priorities, DOE developed draft

product data sheets and solicited comment from workshop participants. This information will be

used to determine a final set of priority products to be published in the Administration's

Regulatory Agenda in October, 1996. The Agenda will provide stakeholders with our plan and a

schedule for those actions during the next fiscal year.

I have enclosed a copy of the revised product data sheets to be used for priority setting and I want

to call your attention to how the Department defines its actions under a specific priority level. If a

product is high priority during the next fiscal year, the Department will use available resources to

complete certain actions such as holding workshops, developing and/or revising analyses and

publishing notices (Determinations, Advance Notices of Proposed Rules, Notices of Proposed

Rules and/or Final Rules). The Department does not plan to work on medium priority products

until Fiscal Year 1998 but might use limited resources to initiate the screening process on a

particular product. Low priority products will receive only the most minimal attention during the

next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

If you would like to provide additional comments on the Department's priorities and product data

sheets, please do so by September 9, 1996. Written comments should be sent to the U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn:

Sandy Beall, EE-43. If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Balducci at (202) 586-

8459 or Marc LaFrance at (202) 586-8423, facsimile (202) 586-4617 .

Sincerely,

Christine A. Ervin

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosure: Draft Product Data Sheets

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

August 8, 1996 

PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE 

APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, recently announced the results of a comprehensive process improvement effort in which 

the Department and many of our stakeholders examined issues surrounding the appliance 

standards program. 

An integral first step in the improved process is the prioritization of appliance rulemakings which 

will allow us to use limited resources more effectively. On June 14, 1996, the Department held 

the first prioritization public workshop to discuss the criteria to be used in planning and 

priOlitizing future rules. To assist in the development of the priorities. DOE developed draft 

product data sheets and solicited comment from workshop participants. This information will be 

used to determine a final set of priOlity products to be published in the Administration's 

Regulatory Agenda in October, 1996. The Agenda will provide stakeholders with our plan and a 

schedule for those actions during the next fiscal year. 

I have enclosed a copy of the revised product data sheets to be used for priority setting and I want 

to call your attention to how the Department defines its actions under a specific priority level. If a 

product is high priority during the next fiscal year, the Department will use available resources to 

complete certain actions such as holding workshops, developing and/or revising analyses and 

publishing notices (Determinations, Advance Notices of Proposed Rules, Notices of Proposed 

Rules and/or Final Rules). The Department does not plan to work on medium priority products 

until Fiscal Year 1998 but might use limited resources to initiate the screening process on a 

particular product. Low priority products will receive only the most minimal attention during the 

next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

If you would like to provide additional comments on the Department's priOlities and product data 

sheets, please do so by September 9, 1996. Written comments should be sent to the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: 

Sandy Beall. EE-43. If you have any questions. please contact Anthony Balducci at (202) 586-

8459 or Marc LaFrance at (202) 586-8423, facsimile (202) 586-4617 . 

Sincerely, 

QU).src~gUL~ Christine A. Elvin 

Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Enclosure: Draft Product Data Sheets 

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
PRODUCT DATA SHEETS FOB

STANDARDS RU EMAKING

PRIORITY SETTING

Table of Contents

AHAM Page No. NEMA Page No.

Clothes Dryers 1 Ballasts 13

Clothes Washers 2 1 - 200 HP Electric Motors 14

Dishwashers 3 Lamps 15

Refrigerators 4

Cooking Products 5 Determinations

Room Air Conditioners 6 Distribution Transformers 16

Small Electric Motors 17

ARI High Intensity Discharge Lamps 18

Residential Central A/C & H.P. 7

Other Products

GAMA Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 19

Residential Furnaces & Boilers 8 Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps 20

Residential Water Heaters 9 Commercial Water Heating 21

Pool Heaters (Gas) 10 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 22

Mobile Home Furnaces 11

Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) 12

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments.

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

PRODUCT DATA SHEETS FOR 

STANDARDS RULEMAKINGS 

PRIORITY SETTING 

Table of Contents 

AHAM Page No. NEMA Page No. 

Clothes Dryers 1 Ballasts 13 

Clothes Washers 2 1 - 200 HP Electric Motors 14 

Dishwashers 3 Lamps 15 

Refrigerators 4 

Cooking Products 5 Determinations 

Room Air Condi Lioners 6 Distribution Transformers 16 

Small Electric Motors 17 

ARI High Intensity Discharge Lamps 18 

Residential Central AIC & H.P. 7 

Other Products 

GAMA Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 19 

Residential Furnaces & Boilers 8 Commercial AIC and Heat Pumps 20 

Residential Water Heaters 9 Commercial Water Heating 21 

Pool Heaters (Gas) 10 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 22 

Mobile Home Furnaces 11 

Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) 12 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 
Product: Clothes Dryers - (Gas/Electric) Priority: Low

Rill.

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0 - 5.6 ] Specific examples below:

TOW

from Regulatory Action

Only: Recycle Heat Microwave Heat Pump Dryer

Cumulative (Quads) Electric 0.7 2.9 5.8

1993-2015

Recycle Heat Recycle Heat Recycle Heat

Gas 0.1 0 (0.2)

Potential Economic Heat pump and microwave design options are not established technologies

Benefits/Burdens: and would require total redesign and significant investments.

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: 5/14/96

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 11/14/94; Industry data received in 1995.

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

Process: would be required.

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of clothes washers.

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.

Stakeholder There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating

Recommendations as to clothes dryer standards should be given low priority.

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- At least three U.S. manufacturers are developing high efficient clothes

Driven or Voluntary washers which are likely to have improved moisture extraction.

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required Yes, reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation

Changes to Test of new product class for condensing dryers

Procedures:

Other Factors: Significant dryer savings potential will be considered in clothes washer

rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been

estimated to be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy

Level: savings are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on

white good manufacturers.

Based on 1990 TSD, 1993-2015 with 1991 imposed standard level subtracted.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 1

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

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

:".i;:;:;ii;~:i:i:i;l:li!iillj!~;I[;~:I:I!;I:!;);l:::ilit;lj Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0 - 5.6]1 Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Recycle Heat Microwave Heat Pump Dryer 

Cumulative (Quads) Electric 0.7 2.9 5.8 

1993-2015 

Recycle Heat Recycle Heat Recycle Heat 

Gas 0.1 0 (0.2) 

Potential Economic Heat pump and microwave design options are not established technologies 

Benefits/Burdens: and would require total redesign and significant investments. 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: 5/14/96 

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 11/14/94; Industry data received in 1995. 

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

Process: would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of clothes washers. 

Re~ulatory Actions: DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

Stakeholder There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating 

Recommendations as to clothes dryer standards should be given low priority. 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- At least three U.S. manufacturers are developing high efficient clothes 

Driven or Voluntary washers which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required Yes, reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation 

Changes to Test of new product class for condensing dryers 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Significant dryer savings potential will be considered in clothes washer 

rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been 

estimated to be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy 

Level: savings are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on 

white good manufacturers. 

Based on 1990 TSD, 1993-2015 with 1991 imposed standard level subtracted. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 1 
Product: Clothes Washers Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 1.0 - 16.5 ]2 Specific examples below:

from Regulatory Action

Only: Imprv. Max tech.

Cumulative (Quads)

fill ctrl. vert. axis Horz. axis Horz. axis 1998-2030

Imprv. & 50% & 40% Horz. recirc. & recirc. &

fill ctrl RMC RMC axis 50% RMC 40% RMC

1.0 4.4 8.3 9.1 13.4 16.5

Potential Economic

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental

or Energy Security

Benefits:

Statutory Deadline:

DOE Resources Required

to Complete Rulemaking

Process:

Other Parallel Federal

Regulatory:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priority:

Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors:

Schedule:

Rationale for Priority

Level:

2

[ 1.2 - 13.7 1 NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%

1.2 3.7 5.0 6.4 11.3 13.7

Horizontal-axis clothes washers require a new platform design and significant

investment.

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission

benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal.

5/14/96

ANOPR - 11/14/94; DOE to complete engineering and consumer analyses which

may be used in the rulemaking, expect availability by late June/July 96.

Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process would be

required.

DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line

manufacturers.

Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Savers program.

Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S.

manufacturers are developing high efficient clothes washers.

New test procedure generally based on industry consensus, Appendix Jl is required.

Incorporates Modified Energy Factor (dryer energy consideration), reduced water

temperature, and reduced consumer energy usage habits. Final rule expected 10/96.

Unique market share situation and proprietary design issues.

Major differences of opinions among manufacturers.

Significant potential for water conservation.

Independent testing indicates that some high efficiency clothes washers provide

improved performance and less fabric wear.

Concern about consumer acceptance.

Some manufacturers are concerned about recovery of recent capital investments.

Screening Workshop - 11/96

Supplemental ANOPR - 4/97

Impact Workshop - 6/97

Potential energy and water savings are large. New standards rulemaking process

crafted to consider issues.

Based on draft engineering and consumer report expected to be made available June/July 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 2

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Clothes Washers Priority: High 

. ;~"t;;~~~~i]i~i!lill!i!lj!jji!i!i!jl:lijitjjj::ji!~i::;:ri::iii;;!:j:::i~!;i[ Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 1.0 - 16.5 ]2 Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Imprv. Max tech. Cumulative (Quads) 

1998-2030 fiII ctrl. vert. axis Horz. axis Horz. axis 

Imprv. & 50% &40% Horz. recirc. & recirc. & 

fill ctrl RMC RMC axis 50% RMC 40%RMC 

1.0 4.4 8.3 9.1 13.4 16.5 

Potential Economic [ 1.2 - 13.7 ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: 1.2 3.7 5.0 6.4 11.3 13.7 

Horizontal-axis clothes washers require a new platform design and significant 

investment. 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission 

Benefits: benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: 5/14/96 

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 11114/94; DOE to complete engineering and consumer analyses which 

to Complete Rulemaking may be used in the rulemaking, expect availability by late June/July 96. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process would be 

required. 

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line 

Regulatory: manufacturers. 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Savers program. 

Driven or Voluntary Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. 

Efficiency Improvements: manufacturers are developing high efficient clothes washers. 

Status of Required New test procedure generally based on industry consensus, Appendix J1 is required. 

Changes to Test Incorporates Modified Energy Factor (dryer energy consideration), reduced water 

Procedures: temperature, and reduced consumer energy usage habits. Final rule expected 10/96. 

Other Factors: Unique market share situation and proprietary design issues. 

Major differences of opinions among manufacturers. 

Significant potential for water conservation. 

Independent testing indicates that some high efficiency clothes washers provide 

improved performance and less fabric wear. 

Concern about consumer acceptance. 

Some manufacturers are concerned about recovery of recent capital investments. 

Schedule: Screening Workshop - 11/96 

Supplemental ANOPR - 4/97 

Impact Workshop - 6/97 

Rationale for Priority Potential energy and water savings are large. New standards rulemaking process 

Level: crafted to consider issues. 

2 Based on draft engineering and consumer report expected to be made available June/July 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 2 
Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.1 - 0.8 ]3

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Highest efficiency design options have pay backs which are greater than

Benefits/Burdens: twice the product life span.

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: 5/14/96

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 11/14/94; Informal negotiations were initiated in 1994/1995.

to Complete Rulemaking Preliminary engineering analysis completed.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should

Recommendations as to be given a low priority.

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for

Driven or Voluntary procurement initiative. At least two U.S. manufacturers are marketing

Efficiency Improvements: adaptive control dishwashers.

Status of Required Test procedures may require revision to properly reflect energy consumption

Changes to Test for new technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles

Procedures: needs to be considered.

Other Factors: Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing

of dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordable models

(contract housing).

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy

Level: savings are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on

white good manufacturers.

3

Based on preliminary engineering analysis and 1990 TSD for extrapolations.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 3

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low 

< J;:~~:~~~~f~~:~~~f~~~:i':i1;:i Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.1 - 0.8 ]3 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Highest efficiency design options have pay backs which are greater than 

Benefits/Burdens: twice the product life span. 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: 5/14/96 

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 11114/94; Informal negotiations were initiated in 1994/1995. 

to Complete Rulemaking Preliminary engineering analysis completed. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should 

Recommendations as to be given a low priority. 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for 

Driven or Voluntary procurement initiative. At least two U.S. manufacturers are marketing 

Efficiency Improvements: adaptive control dishwashers. 

Status of Required Test procedures may require revision to properly reflect energy consumption 

Changes to Test for new technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles 

Procedures: needs to be considered. 

Other Factors: Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing 

of dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordable models 

(contract housing). 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy 

Level: savings are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on 

white good manufacturers. 

3 Based on preliminary engineering analysis and 1990 TSD for extrapolations. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 3 
Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: High

M MM

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 5.0 - 12.6 i4 Specific examples below:

from Regulatory Action

Only: 2003 Alternative Joint Comments Highest Level.

Cumulative (Quads) Refrigerators 5.0 7.0 10.6

1998-2030 Freezers included above 0.5 2.0

Potential Economic [ TBD - 9.1 1 NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%.

Benefits/Burdens: Refrigerators not available 7.7 7.8

Freezers not available 0.5 1.3

Significant investment by manufacturers and questionable pass-through

costs to consumers.

Potential Environmental SO2 not available 1017 1720

or Energy Security NOx not available 1065 1635

Benefits: CO2 not available 540 914

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,.

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/95

DOE Resources Required NOPR 7/20/95 based in part on consensus proposal by informal negotiation

to Complete Rulemaking group.

Process: This rulemaking should only require limited resources.

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFCs in 2003.

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.

Stakeholder Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders.

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing

Driven or Voluntary Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity

Efficiency Improvements: of new high efficiency models are being marketed.

Status of Required No changes required for standards.

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: Delay in issuing final rule has changed conditions for some manufacturers

since signing agreement.

Schedule: Reopen comment period - 8/96

Final Rule - 10/96

Rationale for Priority Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy

Level: savings are large. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking.

4

Based on July 1995, TSD and April 1996 additional scenarios.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air ActAmendments. 4

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: High 

,I :;[:'~:l;i;~~::~~;!)l:,:::~~t:r:;~;~;:::;:::,: Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 5.0 - 12.6 ]4 Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 2003 AItl.<rnativl.< IQint CQmml.<nts Highl.<st Levl.<l. 

Cumulative (Quads) Refrigerators 5.0 7.0 10.6 

1998-2030 Freezers included above 0.5 2.0 

Potential Economic [TED - 9.1 ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%. 

Benefits/Burdens: Refrigerators not available 7.7 7.8 

Freezers not available 0.5 1.3 

Significant investment by manufacturers and questionable pass-through 

costs to consumers. 

Potential Environmental S02 not available 1017 1720 

or Energy Security NOx not available 1065 1635 

Benefits: CO2 not available 540 914 

Emission reductions in (kt) for SOo and NOx, and (Mt) for COo. 

Statutory Deadline: 111/95 

DOE Resources Required NOPR 7/20/95 based in part on consensus proposal by informal negotiation 

to Complete Rulemaking group. 

Process: This rulemaking should only require limited resources. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFCs in 2003. 

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

Stakeholder Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing 

Driven or Voluntary Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity 

Efficiencv Improvements: of new high efficiency models are being marketed. 

Status of Required No changes required for standards. 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Delay in issuing final rule has changed conditions for some manufacturers 

since signing agreement. 

Schedule: Reopen comment period - 8/96 

Final Rule - 10/96 

Rationale for Priority Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy 

Level: savings are large. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking. 

4 Based on July 1995, TSD and April 1996 additional scenarios, 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments, 4 
Product: Cooking Products - Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered:'

from Regulatory Action

Only: Ovens Cook Tops Microwave Ovens

Cumulative (Quads) [0.1 - 2.11 [ 0 - 0.51 [ 0 - 0.31

2000-2030

Potential Economic [ (6.2) - 0.11 [ (4.0) - 0.11 [ 0 - (4.7) ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%

Benefits/Burdens: Microwave design option is highly speculative.

Potential Environmental

or Energy Security SO2 [ 12 - 241 ] SO2 [0-671 SO2 [0-531

Benefits: NOx [ 11 - 239 ] NOx [ 0 - 651 NOx [0-48]

CO2 [ 6 - 133 ] CO2 [0-361 CO2 [0-251

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,.

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Draft technical report currently being reviewed.

to Complete Rulemaking This rulemaking should only require limited resources.

Process:

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder Stakeholders recommended this to be a high priority.

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required Reduction of annual energy consumption and incorporation of IEC 705 test

Changes to Test procedure. Final rule expected 10/96.

Procedures:

Other Factors: Use of ranges is declining in the U.S.. Pilotless designs may require additional

wiring for installation.

Schedule: Final Rule - 6/97

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are low to

Level: moderate. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking.

5 Based on DOE report, April 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 5

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Cooking Products - Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: High 

. i.::f!:jlt:;:~~]j;1i~ii!::~i::{jl::j:::t:i:i;:,!;(~~,:, Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered:s 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Ovens Cook Tops Microwave Ovens 

Cumulative (Quads) [0.1 - 2.1 ] [0 - 0.5] [0 - 0.3] 

2000-2030 

Potential Economic [ (6.2) - 0.1] [ (4.0) - 0.1 ] [ 0 - (4.7) ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: Microwave design option is highly speculative. 

Potential Environmental 

or Energy Security S02 [12-241] S02 [0 - 67] S02 [0 - 53] 

Benefits: NOx [ 11 - 239 ] NOx [0 - 65] NOx [0 - 48] 

CO2 [ 6 - 133] CO2 [0 - 36] CO2 [0 - 25] 

Emission reductions in (kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2, 

Statutory Deadline: 111/92 

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Draft technical report currently being reviewed. 

to Complete Rulemaking This rulemaking should only require limited resources. 

Process: 

Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder Stakeholders recommended this to be a high priority. 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required Reduction of annual energy consumption and incorporation of IEC 705 test 

Changes to Test procedure. Final rule expected 10/96. 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Use ofranges is declining in the U.S .. Pilotless designs may require additional 

wiring for installation. 

Schedule: Final Rule - 6/97 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are low to 

Level: moderate. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking. 

5 Based on DOE report, April 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 5 
Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: High

ti

7Potential gy Savings Total range considered: 0.4 1.0 ]6 Specific examples below:

ry Action

Only: Level 1 2 3 4 5

Cumulative (Quads)

2000-2030 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.7

Potential Economic [ (10.9) - 0.61 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7%

Benefits/Burdens: 0.4 0.5 0.6 (0.3) (10.9)

Certain standard levels could require costly chassis changes and eliminate

niche products.

Potential Environmental SO2 59 86 111 149 33

or Energy Security NOx 55 80 104 141 51

Benefits: CO2 30 44 57 79 51

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Draft technical report reviewed by stakeholders. Comment

to Complete Rulemaking period closed July 1, 1996.

Process: This rulemaking should only require limited resources.

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder Stakeholders recommended this to be a high priority.

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- DSM programs. Labeling program very effective.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required Not required for standards.

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: Demand for room air conditioner is mostly static.

Schedule: Final Rule - 1/97

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are

Level: moderate and based on incremental technology. Limited DOE resources

needed to complete rulemaking.

6

Based on DOE report, April 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air ActAmendments. 6

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: High 

;,l::;;:::~~~';~\~:~~i~;ii~;~~:i~~Jl;:~':,: Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.4 - 1.0 ]6 Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Level 1 2 3 4 5 

Cumulative (Quads) 

2000-2030 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.7 

Potential Economic [(10.9) - 0.6] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: 0.4 0.5 0.6 (0.3) (10.9) 

Certain standard levels could require costly chassis changes and eliminate 

niche products. 

Potential Environmental S02 59 86 111 149 33 

or Energy Security NOx 55 80 104 141 51 

Benefits: CO2 30 44 57 79 51 

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO? and NOx, and (Mt) for CO? 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92 

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Draft technical report reviewed by stakeholders. Comment 

to Complete Rulemaking period closed July 1, 1996. 

Process: This rulemaking should only require limited resources. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant. 

Re~latory Actions: 

Stakeholder Stakeholders recommended this to be a high priority. 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required Not required for standards. 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Demand for room air conditioner is mostly static. 

Schedule: Final Rule - 1/97 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are 

Level: moderate and based on incremental technology. Limited DOE resources 

needed to complete rulemaking. 

6 Based on DOE report, April 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 6 
Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: Medium

1 >.

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 2.0 - 13.11' Specific examples below:

from Regulatory Action

Only: 11 SEER 12 EER 14 SEER 16 EER 8

Cumulative (Quads) 2.0 4.0 8.2 13.1

1995-2030

Potential Economic [ (19.8) - 8.11 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7%

Benefits/Burdens: not avail. not avail. 8.1 (19.8)

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/94

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 9/8/93; Preliminary engineering analysis initiated.

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

Process: would be req uired.

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant.

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of furnaces.

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- Energy Star program recommending a 12 SEER.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required No changes required for standards.

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: ARI rejected the engineering analysis methodology.

Regional variation.

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. For example,

conducting a screening workshop for a standards rulemaking

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, but EPA regulation of HCFCs warrants

Level: caution on rulemaking, although in FY 97 preliminary work can be

performed.

7

8

Based on DOE analysis, January 5, 1995.

Represented SEER levels are approximate weighted average for various configurations of central a/c equipment. Potential

energy savings for 11 and 12 SEER models were extrapolated from REM analysis for 14 and 16 SEER levels.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 7

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Prionty: Medium 

7 

8 

r ::::;i::i::i:':;:;i;J:;!';::,:):(:)::::::::I::; 

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 2.0 - 13.1 r Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 11 SEER 12 SEER 14 SEER 16 SEER 8 

Cumulative (Quads) 2.0 4.0 8.2 13.1 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic [(19.8) - 8.1] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: not avail. not avail. 8.1 (19.8) 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/94 

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 9/8/93; Preliminary engineering analysis initiated. 

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

Process: would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant. 

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of furnaces. 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Energy Star program recommending a 12 SEER. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required No changes required for standards. 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: ARl rejected the engineering analysis methodology. 

Regional variation. 

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. For example, 

conductin,g a screenin,g workshop for a standards rulemaking 

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, but EPA regulation of HCFCs warrants 

Level: caution on rulemaking, although in FY 97 preliminary work can be 

performed. 

Based on DOE analysis, January 5,1995. 

Represented SEER levels are approximate weighted average for various configurations of central alc equipment. Potential 

energy savings for 11 and 12 SEER models were extrapolated from REM analysis for 14 and 16 SEER levels. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 7 
Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.6 - 10.2 ]9 Specific examples below:

from Regulatory Action

Only: Insul., 11D, imprv.

Cumulative (Quads)

fan motor, & two Previous & Gas

2000-2030 Gas stage oper. condensing absorption

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

III) & pulse Gas

Gas IID condensing absorption

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

0.6 3.7 10.2

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

more significant than other products.

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/94

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 9/8/93; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure

to Complete Rulemaking (proposed new energy descriptor). Reanalysis required.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality).

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of central air conditioning products. Consumer Product

Safety Commission possible regulation

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensing furnace/boiler program.

Driven or Voluntary ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994.

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required Incorporation of Waivers and revision of ANSI/ASHRAE standard 103-

Changes to Test 1993. Final rule expected 9/96

Procedures:

Other Factors: Venting safety issue. Regional analysis. Industry opposes Gas absorption

heat pump as a design option, suggest new product class

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Any

work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Higher standards levels

Level: requiring technologies, such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to

consumers. High standard levels may cause safety concerns due to venting

issues.

9

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

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 8

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low 

.,~JI:j:::~i!irJ~!f;!!:~;l!~!j!;i::]:!t~! Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0.6 - 10.2 ]9 Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Insul., lID, imprv. 

Cumulative (Quads) fan motor, & two Previous & Gas 

2000-2030 Gas stage oper. condensing absorption 

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

IID & pulse Gas 

Gas IID condensing absorption 

Boilers (81.8% AFUE) 1(90.4% AFUE) heat pump 

0.6 3.7 10.2 

Potential Economic Not available. 

BenefitsIBurdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

more significant than other products. 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/94 

DOE Resources Required ANOPR - 9/8/93; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure 

to Complete Rulemaking (proposed new energy descriptor). Reanalysis required. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

Regulatory Actions: DOE regulation of central air conditioning products. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission - possible regulation 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensing furnace/boiler program. 

Driven or Voluntary ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required Incorporation of Waivers and revision of ANSIIASHRAE standard 103-

Changes to Test 1993. Final rule expected 9/96 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Venting safety issue. Regional analysis. Industry opposes Gas absorption 

heat pump as a design option, suggest new product class 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Any 

work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Higher standards levels 

Level: requiring technologies, such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to 

consumers. High standard levels may cause safety concerns due to venting 

issues. 

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

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 8 
Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: Medium

Potential Energy Savings from Total ranges considered:

Regulatory Action Only: Gas & Oil: [ 0.4 - 16.5 ]5 Electric: [ 0.1 - 41.1 ]10

Cumulative (Quads) Specific examples below:

1996-2030 (Electric)

1999-2030 (Gas/Oil) Electric

R16 R25 Insul., Rd. Ht. imprv. imprv.

Insul. & flue baffle Leak, Ht. resist. & resist. &

Heat & IID w/ Conden- Traps & Add-on Integral

Gas Traps flue damp. sin Insul. Heat Pump Heat Pump

(imprv.

1" Foam resist.)

Insul. & 2" Foam Previous

Heat Insul. & & Mult.

Oil Traps Heat Traps, Flue

1.7 5.9 16.5 0.6 28.2 41.1

Potential Economic [ 0.7 - 26.0 ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%

Benefits/Burdens: 1.7 (1.6) (12.1) 1.0 40.2 38.2

Heat pump water heaters have increased initial cost, installation cost, and service cost.

Retrofit is difficult and there have been technical problems with some models, although may

be cost effective in some applications. Heat pump water heaters would require severe

changes to the water heater industry.

Potential Environmental or SO2 (14) (327) (2406) 132 4897 7093

Energy Security Benefits: NOx (12) (596) (2261) 107 4450 6365

CO2 (6) (634) (1238) 54 2372 3332

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. Electric based on 1993

analysis, and includes oil, gas and electric.

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92

DOE Resources Required to NOPR - 3/4/94; Reanalysis of fossil fuel water heaters completed, need to revise analysis to

Complete Rulemaking Process: include electric water heaters.

Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process would be required.

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Possible State and regional environmental

Regulatory Actions: regulation (e.g. air quality). Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Stakeholder Recommendations

as to Priorit :

Evidence of Market-Driven or Possible initiative with DOE and industry.

Voluntary Efficiency

Improvements:

Status of Required Changes to No changes required for standards.

Test Procedures:

Other Factors: Fuel switching. Venting safety issues. Lack of infrastructure for HP water heater.

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. For example, conducting screening

workshop for standards rulemaking.

Rationale for Priority Level: Higher standards levels requiring technologies, such as condensing gas water heaters and

electric heat pump water heaters would impact utility to consumers.

10 Based on DOE analysis June 29, 1995, for gas/oil water heaters and 1993 TSD for Eight Product NOPR for electric water

heaters. Low energy savings for improved resistance electric water heaters result from an aggressive market induced efficiency

assumption.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air ActAmendments. 9

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: Medium 

",," 

t,:t::::!::!:!i1Ii::1!:jJ,j!t~;;li:t:;i:::;::;;t:;;;:j:{;:,::j Potential Energy Savings from Total ranges considered: 

Regulatory Action Only: Gas & Oil: [0.4 - 16.5 ]5 Electric: [0.1 - 41.1 ] 10 

Cumulative (Quads) Specific examples below: 

1996-2030 (Electric) 

1999-2030 (Gas/Oil) Electric 

RI6 R25Insul., Rd. Ht. imprv. imprv. 

Insul. & flue baffle Leak, Ht. resist. & resist. & 

Heat & IID wI Con den- Traps & Add-on Integral 

Gas Traps flue damp. sing Insul. Heat Pump Heat Pump 

I" Foam 

(imprv. 

resist.) 

Insul. & 2" Foam Previous 

Heat Insul. & & Mult. 

Oil Traps Heat Traps Flue 

1.7 5.9 16.5 0.6 28.2 41.1 

Potential Economic [0.7 - 26.0 ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: 1.7 (1.6) (12.1) 1.0 40.2 38.2 

Heat pump water heaters have increased initial cost, installation cost, and service cost. 

Retrofit is difficult and there have been technical problems with some models, although may 

be cost effective in some applications. Heat pump water heaters would require severe 

changes to the water heater industry. 

Potential Environmental or S02 (14) (327) (2406) 132 4897 7093 

Energy Security Benefits: NOx (12) (596) (2261) 107 4450 6365 

CO2 (6) (634) (1238) 54 2372 3332 

Emission reductions in (kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2, Electric based on 1993 

analysis, and includes oil, gas and electric. 

Statutory Deadline: 111/92 

DOE Resources Required to NOPR - 3/4/94; Reanalysis of fossil fuel water heaters completed, need to revise analysis to 

Complete Rulemaking Process: include electric water heaters. 

Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Possible State and regional environmental 

Regulatory Actions: regulation (e.g. air quality). Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Stakeholder Recommendations 

as to Priority: 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Possible initiati ve with DOE and industry. 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements: 

Status of Required Changes to No changes required for standards. 

Test Procedures: 

Other Factors: Fuel switching. Venting safety issues. Lack of infrastructure for HP water heater. 

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. For example, conducting screening 

workshop for standards rulemaking. 

Rationale for Priority Level: Higher standards levels requiring technologies, such as condensing gas water heaters and 

electric heat pump water heaters would impact utility to consumers. 

10 Based on DOE analysis June 29, 1995, for gas/oil water heaters and 1993 TSD for Eight Product NOPR for electric water 

heaters. Low energy savings for improved resistance electric water heaters result from an aggressive market induced efficiency 

assumption. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 9 
Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.2 - 0.9 Specific examples below:

from Regulatory Action

Only: IID, (78% Er) Non-cond. Limit, (82.2% ET) Condensing, (90.8% ET)

Cumulative (Quads) 0.2 0.4 0.7

2000-2030

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

Benefits/Burdens: 0.2 0.2 (0.6)

Potential Environmental SO2 0 0 0

or Energy Security NOx 42 42 42

Benefits: CO2 11 18 35

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO and NOx, and (Mt) for C0,

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure (proposed

to Complete Rulemaking new energy descriptor). Reanalysis required.

Process: Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required Incorporation of Waivers and calculation of annual energy consumption

Changes to Test based on an average number of operating hours. Incorporation of updated

Procedures: ANSI standard Z21.56-1991. Final rule expected 9/96.

Other Factors:

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy

Level: savings are low.

11

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air ActAmendments. 10

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low 

.·.<.;:}:jjt::::::::ii)j,l~;l:f::!i;::!::;!.i;j·::!!:·:::! Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.2 - 0.9]11 Specific examples below: 

from Regnlatory Action 

Only: lID, (78% Er) Non-cond. Limit, (82.2% Er) Condensing, (90.8% Er) 

Cumulative (Quads) 0.2 004 0.7 

2000-2030 

Potential Economic [(104) - 0.2] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: 0.2 0.2 (0.6) 

Potential Environmental S02 0 0 0 

or Energy Security NOx 42 42 42 

Benefits: CO2 11 18 35 

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO? and NOx, and (Mt) for CO? 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92 

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure (proposed 

to Complete Rulemaking new energy descriptor). Reanalysis required. 

Process: Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency improvements: 

Status of Required Incorporation of Waivers and calculation of annual energy consumption 

Changes to Test based on an average number of operating hours. Incorporation of updated 

Procedures: ANSI standard Z21.56-1991. Final rule expected 9/96. 

Other Factors: 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy 

Level: savings are low. 

11 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 10 
Product: Mobile Home Furnaces

Potential Energy Savings from

Regulatory Action Only:

Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030

Potential Economic

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental or

Energy Security Benefits:

Statutory Deadline:

DOE Resources Required to

Complete Rulemaking Process:

Other Parallel Federal

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder Recommendations

as to Priority:

Evidence of Market-Driven or

Voluntary Efficiency

Improvements:

Status of Required Changes to

Test Procedures:

Other Factors:

Schedule:

Rationale for Priority Level:

12

Priority: Low

Total range considered: [ 0.1 - 0.6 12 Specific examples below:

Imprv. fan

Imprv. fan motor & burner

motor box damper Condensing (91.7

Gas 76.6% AFUE) (79.6 AFUE) AFUE)

Imprv, fan motor,

ht. exchgr.,

Imprv. fan Imprv. fan condens. & full

motor motor modulation

Oil (82.1 % AFUE) 82.1 % AFUE (93.7% AFUE)

0.1 0.1 0.5

[ (0.8) - 0.11 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7%

0.1 0.1 (0.2)

SO2 16 17 4

NOx 15 16 4

CO2 9 9 2

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2.

1/1/92

NOPR - 3/4/94; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure (proposed new energy

descriptor). Reanalysis required.

Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process would be

required.

None known that will impact product.

None known.

Incorporation of Waivers, revision of ANSI/ASHRAE standard 103-1993, and

calculation of annual energy consumption based on an average number of operating

hours. Final rule expected 9/96.

Venting safety issue. Fuel switching.

Limited space for installation.

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be

limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs.

Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Manufacturers recommend packaging

mobile home furnaces with residential furnaces. Higher standards levels requiring

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

standard levels may cause safety concerns due to venting issues.

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 11

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Mobile Home Fumaces Priority: Low 

!i':Jg.~i~}ti~::Rrtq~~~~;;5~tlii;!;!;~.!~!;i1~:i;!:!;1;!;:1:I:;~~;::i:jI::;i;i!;i;!i1:::i;:!j:i;;1~!i::::~Ji:!::~!ij:;:i:::::1:l:f.;j;:~:i:::;i;::1:;:~:j;~i;:;:I~mt.~:i:i:\;:: .. I:;~:l::i~~:;~~t~~t~~~~~::f~~i1i~~~:;~~r;~:~~~:~~~~~::,:~~:~.~ ~:j:~:;:~~~::;. :;~~;f :j~;::;l 

Potential Energy Savings from Total range considered: [ 0.1 - 0.6]12 Specific examples below: 

Regulatory Action Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030 

Imprv. fan 

Imprv. fan motor & burner 

motor box damper Condensing (91.7 

Gas 1(76.6% AFUE) 1(79.6 AFUE) AFUE) 

Imprv. fan motor, 

ht. exchgr., 

Imprv. fan Imprv. fan condens. & full 

motor motor modulation 

Oil (82.1 % AFUE) (82.1 % AFUE) (93.7% AFUE) 

0.1 0.1 0.5 

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

Benefits/Burdens: 0.1 0.1 (0.2) 

Potential Environmental or S02 16 17 4 

Energy Security Benefits: NOx 15 16 4 

CO2 9 9 2 

Emission reductions in (kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2 , 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92 

DOE Resources Required to NOPR - 3/4/94; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure (proposed new energy 

Complete Rulemaking Process: descriptor). Reanalysis required. 

Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process would be 

required. 

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder Recommendations 

as to Priority: 

Evidence of Market-Driven or None known. 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements: 

Status of Required Changes to Incorporation of Waivers, revision of ANSI/ASHRAE standard 103-1993, and 

Test Procedures: calculation of annual energy consumption based on an average number of operating 

hours. Final rule expected 9/96. 

Other Factors: Venting safety issue. Fuel switching. 

Limited space for installation. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be 

limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Level: Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Manufacturers recommend packaging 

mobile home furnaces with residential furnaces. Higher standards levels requiring 

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

standard levels may cause safety concerns due to venting issues. 

12 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 11 
Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas)

Potential Energy Savings

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1998-2030

Potential Economic

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental

or Energy Security

Benefits:

Statutory Deadline:

DOE Resources Required

to Complete Rulemaking

Process:

Other Parallel Federal

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priority:

Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors:

Schedule:

Rationale for Priority

Level:

13

14

Priority: Low

Previous,

Piezo ignit. & Previous & Condens. &

Piezo ignit. Derate 20 % Induced Draft Modulat. Oper.

(64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) (78.0% AFUE) (87.0% AFUE)

0.1 0 (0.3) (1.0)

[ (1.4) - 0.11 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7%

0 0.1 (0.6) (1.4)

SO2 0 (7) (140) (320)

NOx 0 (6) (132) (301)

CO2 0 (3) (72) (165)

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2.

1/1/92

NOPR - 3/4/94; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure (proposed

new energy descriptor). Reanalysis required.

Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process

would be required.

None known that will impact product.

None known.

Incorporation of Waivers and calculation of annual energy consumption

based on an average number of operating hours. Final rule expected 9/96.

Venting safety issue. Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup

heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

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

savings are low.

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.

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

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 12

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low 

f(::~~;~$:~t~!~;m;~;::~:!'::::;~ ~!;,:;:::;i::i:~i:l:if;,:;::!i;::;>:;~;;ij~i..::,:::;l:j:·~::!;;!·::!:!::;{I;:;:il!li;::t:!~l;I.I~fi.:;;:::l:;.!:li: ::;':=:' {·::;:~j:::jl':i::i;;iij~'~!i:ji:jl:i:::~;,l;;;:;:i::::::i::,;: Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0 - 0.1]13 Specific examples below: 14 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Previous, Cumulative (Quads) 

1998-2030 Piezo ignit. & Previous & Condens. & 

Piezo ignit. Derate 20% Induced Draft Modulat. Oper. 

(64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) (78.0% AFUE) (87.0% AFUE) 

0.1 0 (0.3) (1.0) 

Potential Economic [(1.4) - 0.1] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: 0 0.1 (0.6) (1.4) 

Potential Environmental S02 0 (7) (140) (320 ) 

or Energy Security NOx 0 (6) (132) (301 ) 

Benefits: CO2 0 (3) (72) (165 ) 

Emission reductions in (kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92 

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Prior analysis based on proposed test procedure (proposed 

to Complete Rulemaking new energy descriptor). Reanalysis required. 

Process: Resources to support analysis, new NOPR, and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required Incorporation of Waivers and calculation of annual energy consumption 

Changes to Test based on an average number of operating hours. Final rule expected 9/96. 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Venting safety issue. Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup 

heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy 

Level: savings are low. 

13 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

14 Examples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27 - 46 kBtulhr). 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on 802 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 12 
Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Potential Energy Savings

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

2000-2030

Potential Environmental

or Energy Security

Benefits:

Statutory Deadline:

DOE Resources Required

to Complete Rulemaking

Process:

Other Parallel Federal

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priority:

Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors:

15

Priority: High

Total range considered: [ 1.8 - 3.4 ] 15 Specific examples below:

[ 1.8

SO2

NOx

CO2

Cathode Cutout Electronic Electronic

Cathode / Electronic Rapid Start / Rapid Start /

Cutout Rapid Start Instant Start Instant Start

1.8 2.9 3.3 3.4

- 3.4 1 NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%

1.8 4.1 3.9 3.8

338 547 622 646

307 498 568 590

157 258 293 305

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2.

1/1/92

NOPR - 3/4/94; Draft technical report distributed for review and workshop

held June 20, 1996.

Resources to support revised analysis, manufacturer impacts, new NOPR,

and public review process would be required.

None known that will impact product.

Industry accepted notion that ballasts would be considered as an early

candidate for process improvement; however the industry did not advocate

that it is willing to be the trial case.

EPA Green Lights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's

Federal Relighting Initiative (FEMP), NEMA's Energy Efficient

Procurement Collaborative, and some utility DSM programs.

Testing of electronic ballast may require revision to test procedure.

of larger systems.

remove itself from promulgating standards for products that are components

manufacturers more than those overseas. NEMA believes that DOE should

Standards, for electronic ballasts, could adversely affect remaining U.S.

Impact Workshop - 12/96

NOPR - 9/97

Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are

moderate. Engineering analysis completed with strong endorsement from

industry.

Based on DOE report, February 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 13

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: High 

fr.:~/t~~~~t'I~~I~'~~l;~'1:1,:~~!jii~i:!'~ii;~ii!ii~i;!~~~i:;I;:,1!ljijij):{i:1?:,J,:!1'~llli:jij~ijltll~riti,~;::j;~:jtJn' '1;';:~~:,;,J~~jl;itl]~~,:i;ij;';':~i;;;';::;;! Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 1.8 - 3.4 F5 Specific examples below: 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: Cathode Cutout Electronic Electronic 

Cumulative (Quads) Cathode / Electronic Rapid Start / Rapid Start / 

2000-2030 Cutout Rapid Start Instant Start Instant Start 

1.8 2.9 3.3 3.4 

Potential Economic [ 1.8 - 3.4] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

Benefits/Burdens: 1.8 4.1 3.9 3.8 

Potential Environmental S02 338 547 622 646 

or Energy Security NOx 307 498 568 590 

Benefits: CO2 157 258 293 305 

Emission reductions in (kt) for SO? and NOx, and (Mt) for CO? 

Statutory Deadline: 1/1/92 

DOE Resources Required NOPR - 3/4/94; Draft technical report distributed for review and workshop 

to Complete Rulemaking held June 20, 1996. 

Process: Resources to support revised analysis, manufacturer impacts, new NOPR, 

and public review process would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder Industry accepted notion that ballasts would be considered as an early 

Recommendations as to candidate for process improvement; however the industry did not advocate 

Priority: that it is willing to be the trial case. 

Evidence of Market- EPA Green Lights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's 

Driven or Voluntary Federal Relighting Initiative (FEMP), NEMA's Energy Efficient 

Efficiency Improvements: Procurement Collaborative, and some utility DSM programs. 

Status of Required Testing of electronic ballast may require revision to test procedure. 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Standards, for electronic ballasts, could adversely affect remaining U.S. 

manufacturers more than those overseas. NEMA believes that DOE should 

remove itself from promulgating standards for products that are components 

of larger systems. 

Schedule: Impact Workshop - 12/96 

NOPR - 9/97 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are 

Level: moderate. Engineering analysis completed with strong endorsement from 

industry. 

15 Based on DOE report, February 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 13 
Product: 1 - 200 HP Electric Motors Priority: Low

p .

Potential Energy Savings Not Available.

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

Potential Economic Not Available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Not Available.

or Energy Security

Benefits:

Statutory Deadline: 1999 (2000)

DOE Resources Required DOE NOPR for implementing existing test procedures, labeling and

to Complete Rulemaking certification, anticipated Aug. 1996.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder Low

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities.

Driven or Voluntary Motor Challenge. Motor Master+

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required NEMA MG1-1987 was amended 12/7/93. DOE proposing to adopt 1993

Changes to Test version.

Procedures:

Other Factors: Some system efficiencies are regulated by DOE (e.g. HVAC) where motors

are components of such systems.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy

Level: savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1999 (2000).

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air ActAmendments. 14

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: 1 - 200 HP Electric Motors Priority: Low 

.:.·:: .. :~~;:~~:t'I~!'~~~I:j;·i:;;;ji:j,:liii;:~;;]:li::i::i;i:.:;:::j:iji.~:;:i:::.:j:iji;t,iii~i:;:::;}:;i·:::::::I:i;';:!;!I!:;:;;;i:;:::;!!~m!:~:;::';::-i:;j;:::::::::: l.·::::'::;:~~.) :%;;;~r:;:;:::: ::i(:;::.::.::::;.): 

Potential Energy Savings Not Available. 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

Potential Economic Not Available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Not Available. 

or Energy Security 

Benefits: 

Statutory Deadline: 1999 (2000) 

DOE Resources Required DOE NOPR for implementing existing test procedures, labeling and 

to Complete Rulemaking certification, anticipated Aug. 1996. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal None known that will impact product. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder Low 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities. 

Driven or Voluntary Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required NEMA MGl-1987 was amended 12/7/93. DOE proposing to adopt 1993 

Changes to Test version. 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Some system efficiencies are regulated by DOE (e.g. HVAC) where motors 

are components of such systems. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy 

Level: savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1999 (2000). 

D RAFf - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 14 
Product: Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps Priority: Low

111112

w

i

- -:^^-

MI N

,W

Potential Energy Savings Not Available.

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

Potential Economic Not Available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Not Available.

or Energy Security

Benefits:

Statutory Deadline: 8' Fluorescent Lamps, 2' & 4' Fluorescent Lamps, and Incandescent

Reflector Lamps 1997 (2002); General Service Incandescent and

Fluorescent Lamps 1999.

DOE Resources Required Workshop held March 5 for test procedure issues.

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

Process: would be required.

Other Parallel Federal Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA is considering

Regulatory Actions: responses to a NOPR regarding a "conditional" exclusion from the

hazardous waste designation or an inclusion of lamps into the Universal

Waste Rule.

Stakeholder Low.

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility

Driven or Voluntary DSM programs, FEMP.

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule is in

Changes to Test internal review.

Procedures: Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling.

Other Factors: Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is

more difficult.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy

Level: savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for

amending current lamp standards and 1999 for adding additional general

service fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the CleanAir Act Amendments. 15

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps Priority: Low 

: r!;i!:1:i~lr%1!!!~r;!;~f~f~it,:'iiii;::';1; Potential Energy Savings Not Available. 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cnmnlative (Quads) 

Potential Economic Not Available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Not Available. 

or Energy Security 

Benefits: 

Statutory Deadline: 8' Fluorescent Lamps, 2' & 4' Fluorescent Lamps, and Incandescent 

Reflector Lamps 1997 (2002); General Service Incandescent and 

Fluorescent Lamps 1999. 

DOE Resources Required Workshop held March 5 for test procedure issues. 

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

Process: would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA is considering 

Regulatory Actions: responses to a NOPR regarding a "conditional" exclusion from the 

hazardous waste designation or an inclusion of lamps into the Universal 

Waste Rule. 

Stakeholder Low. 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility 

Driven or Voluntary DSM programs, FEMP. 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule is in 

Changes to Test internal review. 

Procedures: Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. 

Other Factors: Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is 

more difficult. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy 

Level: savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for 

amending current lamp standards and 1999 for adding additional general 

service fluorescent and incandescent lamps. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 15 
® s

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments.

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Determinations 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 
Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High

. srr^n ^ ^ A ^ E a

Potential Energy Savings [4.2-13.7]16

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: EPACT requires DOE to determine if standards will achieve significant

energy savings.

DOE Resources Required Oak Ridge completed peer review of determination analysis report.

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

Process: would be required.

Other Parallel Federal None known.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder NEMA recommends a low priority due to industry's voluntary program.

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- Energy Star program for liquid emersion transformers.

Driven or Voluntary ACEEE stated that there is evidence that in certain types of transformers

Efficiency Improvements: energy efficiency has decreased in recent years.

Status of Required Need to develop a test procedure before rule (TP-1).

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: Most efficient designs include proprietary technology.

NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-1.

Energy savings questioned by NEMA.

Schedule: Workshop - 2nd quarter FY97

Notice of Determination - 3rd quarter FY97

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, although industry believes it may be

Level: overstated. Determination required by EPACT.

16 Based on ORNL determination analysis, April 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 16

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High 

;::,;,,::~~~~r,~'t:lrn;~i~i:i~:Ji:;'I::\!i;;::r:i::lil!.;~i;j::i~i;,i;i;ij~;:r,!;;:iill;:!ii;:i!!::;I::;:~;tl~li!li;!i;~i~;!;:i.~t;n~l:)<:;:::i;i;{:i;;" " ;!i::~i,;i;!1ij~~]lj:;i<f;;;;~;I:;'; Potential Energy Savings [4.2_13.7]16 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: EPACT requires DOE to determine if standards will achieve significant 

energy savings. 

DOE Resources Required Oak Ridge completed peer review of determination analysis report. 

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

Process: would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal None known. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder NEMA recommends a low priority due to industry's voluntary program. 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Energy Star program for liquid emersion transformers. 

Driven or Voluntary ACEEE stated that there is evidence that in certain types of transformers 

Efficiency Improvements: energy efficiency has decreased in recent years. 

Status of Required Need to develop a test procedure before rule (TP-l). 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. 

NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-l. 

Energy savings questioned by NEMA. 

Schedule: Workshop - 2nd quarter FY97 

Notice of Determination - 3rd quarter FY97 

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, although industry believes it may be 

Level: overstated. Determination required by EPACT. 

16 Based on ORNL determination analysis, April 1996, 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments, 16 
Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Medium

Potential Energy Savings [0.8-4.5]"

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: EPACT requires DOE to determine if standards will achieve significant

energy savings.

DOE Resources Required DOE conducted a technical study of small motors. Draft will be distributed

to Complete Rulemaking for comment August 1996.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) are

Regulatory Actions: exempt.

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review.

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: None.

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. For example,

conducting a screening workshop for a standards rulemaking.

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are moderate. Determination required by EPACT.

Level:

17

Based on draft DOE report, May 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 17

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Medium 

j}]i~l!'~~I~;l:j:I!;ijlillljii!;I:lij:;!jl::i;!li;ll:j Potential Energy Savings [0.8-4.5]17 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: EPACT requires DOE to determine if standards will achieve significant 

energy savings. 

DOE Resources Required DOE conducted a technical study of small motors. Draft will be distributed 

to Complete Rulemaking for comment August 1996. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) are 

Re~latory Actions: exempt. 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: None. 

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. For example, 

conductin o a screening workshop for a standards rulemaking. 

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are moderate. Determination required by EPACT. 

Level: 

17 Based on draft DOE report, May 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 17 
Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings [0.11-0.22]1$

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not Available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: EPACT requires DOE to determine if standards will achieve significant

energy savings.

DOE Resources Required HID lamp report and analysis anticipated by September 1996.

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

Process: would be required.

Other Parallel Federal EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure

Driven or Voluntary sodium lamps.

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required IES and ANSI procedures are in place.

Changes to Test Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling.

Procedures:

Other Factors: Concern about non-equitable impact of possible elimination of mercury

vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists).

High first cost impact (elimination of mercury vapor lamps will require

fixture replacement).

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are low. Determination required by EPACT.

Level:

1 8

Based on DOE rough estimate, May 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 18

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

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

;>::"l~a~~~;~~r:~I,~j;!~:!I'i;;;::;!:ii;;::::;:;:};I;i:ij:::i~::::1i::::;;I:Ii;1::jil!):!::::::i::;",!,:ii:iij!;!:ii;j;lj:1!~I.:!!:!)::,:;:::.);:;::;:;:i::i l.::~.;::::iii;::::i'~iii!::ij:::;:;::::::!,:,,:;i::;::i:! Potential Energy Savings [0.11-0.22]18 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not Available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: EPACT requires DOE to determine if standards will achieve significant 

energy savings. 

DOE Resources Required HID lamp report and analysis anticipated by September 1996. 

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

Process: would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure 

Driven or Voluntary sodium lamps. 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required IES and ANSI procedures are in place. 

Changes to Test Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Concern about non-equitable impact of possible elimination of mercury 

vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). 

High first cost impact (elimination of mercury vapor lamps will require 

fixture replacement). 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are low. Determination required by EPACT. 

Level: 

18 Based on DOE rough estimate, May 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments, 18 
Other Products

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments.

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Other Products 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 
Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: Low

MEN

Potential Energy Savings 1 19

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1.

DOE Resources Required PNL preliminary draft report was circulated to HVAC and water heating

to Complete Rulemaking trade associations for review. April 1996.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality).

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: Venting safety issues. Manufacturers recommend adoption of revised

ASHRAE 90.1 standards.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1.

Level:

19 Based on PNL rough estimate, May 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 19

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: Low 

(:-:':::~~!~~!~:l~1~r;~I~i~:'i;;:;i;:li;i:~fi:;!:J~~iJI~f;r~;;I;;;;;1:!j:j;::!j1i::il:;:;;;::;J?j:!i:i:I!:jii:1;?::ll!II~!m~i:;},!:;;~}::;;:: ... ;:.:::·;::::;ti:i:;;i:!;:::::;:::::::l;:i:~t:::r;;:::i:·::;: 

, ".:;.::.;J::.):::.:;:;KIt:::J};:;:;::;:,.;:i:..l 

Potential Energy Savings 1 19 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1. 

DOE Resources Required PNL preliminary draft report was circulated to HV AC and water heating 

to Complete Rulemaking trade associations for review. April 1996. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

Re~latory Actions: 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Venting safety issues. Manufacturers recommend adoption of revised 

ASHRAE 90.1 standards. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1. 

Level: 

19 Based on PNL rough estimate, May 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 19 
Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: Low

Y:.

Potential Energy Savings 7.3 20

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1.

DOE Resources Required PNL preliminary draft report was circulated to HVAC and water heating

to Complete Rulemaking trade associations for review. April 1996.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFC refrigerants.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: Manufacturers recommend adoption of revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1.

Level:

20 Based on PNL rough estimate, May 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 20

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: Low 

'!'~::;~i:!1:1:!:;i11i!illilili!:;i!lij,ll:!;l!1::::!i Potential Energy Savings 7.3 20 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not available. 

BenefitslBurdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1. 

DOE Resources Required PNL preliminary draft report was circulated to HV AC and water heating 

to Complete Rulemaking trade associations for review. April 1996. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFC refrigerants. 

Re~ulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Manufacturers recommend adoption of revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1. 

Level: 

20 Based on PNL rough estimate, May 1996, 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments, 20 
Product: Commercial Water Heating Priority: Low

.. , ...._,: .: ;

^

Potential Energy Savings [0.21 - 1.2121

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are

minimal.

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1.

DOE Resources Required PNL preliminary draft report was circulated to HVAC and water heating

to Complete Rulemaking trade associations for review. April 1996.

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

would be required.

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFCs for insulation (2003).

Regulatory Actions: Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality).

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: Venting safety issues. Manufacturers recommend adoption of revised

ASHRAE 90.1 standards.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1.

Level:

21

Based on PNL preliminary findings report, April 1996.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses . Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the CleanAir Act Amendments. 21

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Commercial Water Heating Priority: Low 

l:::~;:,.;;IJ.~~;'~i~'!~lfi:!\!!j!;:i:i! ;.;;;:i:;:;:::1i.::~1j~f;J·j:;:;.i:i:!t15!!!iljj!li:iii;i:i~ti.t;:;~i.(;.<:::j:ii;i~::!i:i!;:;i;:(:i;./Ir;~[::::d~:.~i··. '.1 :.::';:i::!I:i·~::!;:i!i~I:.j;~ii;!1ii::::::;;:.i!::ii: Potential Energy Savings [0.21 - 1.2]21 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are 

minimal. 

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1. 

DOE Resources Required PNL preliminary draft report was circulated to HV AC and water heating 

to Complete Rulemaking trade associations for review. April 1996. 

Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout of HCFCs for insulation (2003). 

Regulatory Actions: Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: Venting safety issues. Manufacturers recommend adoption of revised 

ASHRAE 90.1 standards. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1. 

Level: 

21 Based on PNL preliminary findings report, April 1996. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 21 
Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Not available.

from Regulatory Action

Only:

Cumulative (Quads)

1995-2030

Potential Economic Not available.

Benefits/Burdens:

Potential Environmental Not available.

or Energy Security

Benefits:

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI

Al 12.18.1 and ASME/ANSI A112.19.6.

DOE Resources Required Public meeting held on Feb. 28, 1996 to resolve test procedure issues.

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process

Process: would be required.

Other Parallel Federal None.

Regulatory Actions:

Stakeholder

Recommendations as to

Priorit :

Evidence of Market- None known.

Driven or Voluntary

Efficiency Improvements:

Status of Required

Changes to Test

Procedures:

Other Factors: As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be

carefully considered.

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years.

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of

voluntary programs.

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI

Level: Al 12.18.1 and ASME/ANSI Al 12.19.6.

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on SO2

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 22

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 0E

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low 

ltJ:!:1;1~,11~i~~~~i::~:ij;,~:;~~!ii Potential Energy Savings Not available. 

from Regulatory Action 

Only: 

Cumulative (Quads) 

1995-2030 

Potential Economic Not available. 

Benefits/Burdens: 

Potential Environmental Not available. 

or Energy Security 

Benefits: 

Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ ANSI 

A112.18.1 and ASME/ANSI A112.19.6. 

DOE Resources Required Public meeting held on Feb. 28, 1996 to resolve test procedure issues. 

to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process 

Process: would be required. 

Other Parallel Federal None. 

Regulatory Actions: 

Stakeholder 

Recommendations as to 

Priority: 

Evidence of Market- None known. 

Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements: 

Status of Required 

Changes to Test 

Procedures: 

Other Factors: As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be 

carefully considered. 

Schedule: DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. 

Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of 

voluntary programs. 

Rationale for Priority Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI 

Level: A112.18.1 and ASME/ANSI A112.19.6. 

DRAFT - 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded off from analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 

emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 22