## Depa

# rtm

# ent E 

# nergy 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 

## Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

### August 8, 1996



## PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS

The Department ofEnergy (DOE or the Department), Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, recently announced the results ofa comprehensive process improvement effort in which the Department and many ofour stakeholders examined issues surrounding the appliance standards program.

An integral first step in the improved process is the prioritization ofappliance 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 ofthe priorities. DOE developed draft product data sheets and solicited comment from workshop participants. This information will be used to determine a final set ofpriOlity 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 ofProposed 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.

Ifyou 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 ofEnergy, 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. 

# PRODUCT DATA SHEETS FOR

STANDARDS RULEMAKINGS PRIORITY SETTING

Table ofContents

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 

### CondiLioners 6 Distribution Transformers 16 Small Electric Motors 

### 17 ARI 

### High Intensity DischargeLamps 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 offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean Air Act Amendments.

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

# Rill. 

# TOW

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0 - 5.6 ] 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. 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 

### 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,
or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Statutory Deadline: 5/14/96 DOE Resources Required ANOPR

- 11/14/94; Industry datareceived in 1995. to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public review process Process: would berequired. Other Parallel Federal DOE regulation ofclothes washers.**Re~ulatory** Actions: DOE regulation ofwhite 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 ofMarket- 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 ofRequired Yes, reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation Changes to Test ofnewproduct 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 lowpriorityproduct. Potential energy Level: savings are low. OtherDOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white good manufacturers.

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


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission Benefits: benefits that are likely to bepossible. 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 DOEregulation ofclothes dryers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line Regulatory: manufacturers. Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Savers program. Driven or Voluntary Federal Energy Management Programfor procurement initiative. At least three U.S. EfficiencyImprovements: manufacturers are developing high efficient clothes washers. Status ofRequired New test procedure generallybased on industry consensus, Appendix

### J1 is required. Changes to Test Incorporates Modified EnergyFactor (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 ofopinions among manufacturers. Significantpotential for water conservation. Independent testing indicates that somehigh efficiency clothes washers provide improvedperformance and less fabric wear. Concern about consumer acceptance. Some manufacturers are concerned about recovery ofrecent capital investments. Schedule: Screening Workshop

- 11/96 Supplemental ANOPR

- 4/97 ImpactWorkshop

- 

### 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 offfrom 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 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. 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 ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Regulatory Actions: Stakeholder Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should Recommendations as to be given a lowpriority. Priority: Evidence ofMarket- 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 ofRequired Testprocedures may require revision to properlyreflect 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 ofdishes or cleaning offilters) 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 lowpriority 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 1990TSD for extrapolations.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have beenrounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect onS02 emissions due tothe national cap establishedbythe Clean AirAct 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 Act Amendments. 4 

## 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.<stLevl.<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 ofHCFCs in 2003. Regulatory Actions: 

### DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Stakeholder 

### Generally considered to be ahigh priority by stakeholders. Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- 

### SuperEfficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New YorkHousing Driven or Voluntary 

### Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity Efficiencv Improvements: 

### ofnew high efficiency models are being marketed. Status ofRequired 

### 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 commentperiod

- 8/96 Final Rule

- 10/96 Rationale for Priority 

### Generally considered to be ahigh 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 offfrom analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions duetothe national cap establishedbythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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 ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Regulatory Actions: Stakeholder Stakeholders recommended this to be ahigh priority. Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements: Status ofRequired Reduction ofannual energy consumption and incorporation ofIEC 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 DOEresources needed to complete rulemaking.

5 Based on DOEreport, April 1996.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct Amendments. 

### 5

### Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: High

ti

7 Potential 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 Act Amendments. 6 

## 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 closedJuly 1, 1996. Process: This rulemaking should only require limited resources. Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout ofHCFC-22 refrigerant.**Re~latory** Actions: Stakeholder Stakeholders recommended this to be ahigh priority. Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements: Status ofRequired 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 DOEresources needed to complete rulemaking.

6 Based on DOEreport, April 1996.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirActAmendments. 

## 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 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout ofHCFC-22 refrigerant. RegulatoryActions: DOE regulation offurnaces. Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- Energy Star program recommending a 12 SEER. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired No changes required for standards. Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: ARlrejected the engineering analysis methodology. Regional variation. Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking. For example, conductin,g a screenin,g workshop for a standards rulemaking Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, but EPA regulation ofHCFCs warrants Level: caution on rulemaking, although in FY 97 preliminary work can be performed.

Based on DOE analysis, January 5,1995.
Represented SEERlevels are approximate weighted average for various configurations ofcentral alc equipment. Potential energy savings for 11 and 12 SEER models were extrapolated from REM analysis for 14 and 16 SEERlevels.


### DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have beenrounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirActAmendments. 

### 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 

## 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) heatpump 

### IID & pulse Gas Gas 

### IID condensing absorption Boilers 

### (81.8% AFUE) 1(90.4% AFUE) heatpump 

### 0.6 

### 3.7 10.2
Potential Economic Not available. BenefitsIBurdens: Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however,
or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). RegulatoryActions: DOEregulation ofcentral air conditioning products. Consumer Product Safety Commission

- possible regulation Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- 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 ofRequired Incorporation ofWaivers and revision ofANSIIASHRAE 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 pursuerulemaking 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 DOErough estimate for gas only, May 1996.


### DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due tothe national cap established bythe 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 Act Amendments. 9 

## 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 Conden- 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 Heatpump waterheaters 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. Heatpump water heaters wouldrequire severe changes to the waterheater 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 offossil fuel water heaters completed, need to revise analysis to Complete Rulemaking Process: include electric water heaters. Resources to support analysis, newNOPR, and public review process would berequired. Other Parallel Federal EPAphaseout ofHCFCs 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 ofMarket-Driven or Possible initiative with DOE and industry. VoluntaryEfficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired Changes to No changes required for standards. Test Procedures: Other Factors: Fuel switching. Venting safety issues. Lack ofinfrastructure for HP waterheater. Schedule: DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking. 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 onDOE analysis June 29, 1995, for gas/oil water heaters and 1993 TSD for EightProduct NOPR for electric water heaters. Low energy savings for improved resistance electric waterheaters result from an aggressive market induced efficiency assumption.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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 Act Amendments. 10 

## 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal None known that will impactproduct. RegulatoryActions: Stakeholder Recommendations 

### as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency improvements: Status ofRequired Incorporation ofWaivers and calculation ofannual energy consumption Changes to Test based on an average number of operating hours. Incorporation ofupdated Procedures: ANSI standardZ21.56-1991. 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 priorityproduct. Potential energy Level: savings are low.

11 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.


### DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe 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 

## 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 impactproduct. RegulatoryActions: Stakeholder Recommendations
as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket-Driven or None known. Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired Changes to Incorporation ofWaivers, revision ofANSI/ASHRAE standard 103-1993, and Test Procedures: calculation of annual energy consumption based on an average number ofoperating 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 ofvoluntary 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 offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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. RegulatoryActions: Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired Incorporation ofWaivers and calculation ofannual energy consumption Changes to Test based on an average number ofoperating 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 lowpriority product. Potential energy Level: savings are low.

13 Based on DOEpreliminary analysis, June 1995.

14 Examples shownfor design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27

- 46 kBtulhr).


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on 802 emissions due to the national cap establishedbythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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 

## F 5 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 heldJune 20, 1996. Process: Resources to support revised analysis, manufacturer impacts, new NOPR, and public review process would be required. OtherParallel 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 bethe trial case. Evidence ofMarket- EPA Green Lights and Energy Starbuildings, 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 ofRequired Testing ofelectronic ballast may require revision to test procedure. Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: Standards, for electronicballasts, could adversely affect remaining U.S. manufacturers more than those overseas. NEMA believes that DOE should
remove itselffrom promulgating standards for products that are components oflarger 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 DOEreport, February 1996.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due tothe national cap establishedbythe Clean AirAct 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 Act Amendments. 14 

## 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 DOENOPR for implementing existing test procedures, labeling and 

### to Complete Rulemaking certification, anticipated Aug. 1996. 

### Process: Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and public reviewprocess would be required. 

### Other Parallel Federal None known that will impactproduct. 

### Regulatory Actions: Stakeholder Low 

### Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortiumfor Energy Efficiency"program with utilities. 

### Driven or Voluntary Motor Challenge. MotorMaster+ 

### Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired NEMAMGl-1987 was amended 12/7/93. DOEproposing to adopt 1993 

### Changes to Test version. 

### Procedures: Other Factors: Some system efficiencies are regulated by DOE (e.g. HVAC) where motors
are components ofsuch 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 lowpriorityproduct. Potential energy 

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



### DRAFf

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have beenrounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean Air ActAmendments. 

## 14

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


## 111112

w
M N W - -:^^- i

, 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: 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 Clean Air Act Amendments. 15 

## 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' FluorescentLamps, 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA is considering RegulatoryActions: responses to a NOPR regarding a "conditional" exclusion from the hazardous waste designation or an inclusion oflamps into the Universal Waste Rule. Stakeholder Low. Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility Driven or Voluntary DSM programs, FEMP. Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired 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 beenrounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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. 

# Determinations

DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due tothe national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,
or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal.

Statutory Deadline: EPACTrequires DOE to determine ifstandards will achieve significant energy savings. DOE Resources Required Oak Ridge completed peerreview ofdetermination analysis report. 

### to Complete Rulemaking Resources to support a full rulemaking analysis and publicreview process Process: would berequired. Other Parallel Federal None known. Regulatory Actions: Stakeholder NEMA recommends a lowpriority due to industry's voluntary program. Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- Energy Star program for liquid emersion transformers. Driven or Voluntary ACEEE stated that there is evidence that in certain types oftransformers Efficiency Improvements: energy efficiency has decreased in recent years. Status ofRequired Need to develop a test procedure before rule (TP-l). Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. NEMArecommends adoption ofvoluntary standards as specified in TP-l. Energy savings questioned by NEMA. Schedule: Workshop

- 2nd quarter FY97 Notice ofDetermination

- 3rd quarter FY97 Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, although industry believes it may be Level: overstated. Determination required byEPACT.

16 Based on ORNL determination analysis, April 1996,


### DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have beenrounded offfrom analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due tothe national cap establishedbythe Clean AirActAmendments, 

### 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 

### 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,
or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal.
Statutory Deadline: EPACTrequires DOE to determine ifstandards will achieve significant energy savings. DOE Resources Required DOE conducted a technical study ofsmall 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 ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: None.

Schedule: DOE plans to initiate workin support ofrulemaking. 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 offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean AirAct 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:

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 SO2 emissions due to the national cap established by the Clean Air Act Amendments. 18 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal.
Statutory Deadline: EPACTrequires DOE to determine ifstandards 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. RegulatoryActions: Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure Driven or Voluntary sodium lamps. Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired 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 ofpossible elimination ofmercury vapor lamps (e.g. significantregional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination ofmercury 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 DOErough estimate, May 1996.


### DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions dueto the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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. 

# Other Products

DRAFT
- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have beenrounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,
or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal.
Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision ofASHRAE 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 ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: Venting safety issues. Manufacturers recommend adoption ofrevised 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 ofASHRAE 90.1. Level:

19 Based onPNL rough estimate, May 1996.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirActAmendments. 

### 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 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision ofASHRAE 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 ofHCFC refrigerants.**Re~ulatory** Actions: Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: Manufacturers recommend adoption ofrevised 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 ofASHRAE 90.1. Level:

20 Based onPNL rough estimate, May 1996,


### DRAFT

- 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses, Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct 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 Clean Air Act Amendments. 21 

## 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 ofemission reductions have not been developed however,

or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits: emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal.
Statutory Deadline: Dependent upon revision ofASHRAE 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal EPA phaseout ofHCFCs for insulation (2003). RegulatoryActions: Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Stakeholder Recommendations 

### as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements: Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures: Other Factors: Venting safety issues. Manufacturers recommend adoption ofrevised 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 ofASHRAE 90.1. Level:

21 Based on PNLpreliminaryfindings report, April 1996.


### DRAFT

- 

### 8/8/96 Note: All numbers have been rounded offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap establishedbythe Clean AirAct 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 

## 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 berequired. Other Parallel Federal None. RegulatoryActions: Stakeholder Recommendations as to Priority: Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements: Status ofRequired 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 offfrom analyses. Proposed standards would have little direct effect on S02 emissions due to the national cap established bythe Clean AirAct Amendments. 

## 22