# #23.4

Technologies Unable to be Analyzed and Exempted Product Classes (Issue #6) n A number of product classes and technologies were excluded from the engineering analysis for one or more of the following reasons: • Data on consumer usage was unavailable, possibly indicating inapplicability of the test procedure. • Efficiency data was unavailable. • Available data suggests that the efficiency benefits of a technology are negligible.



## DOE invites comment on extending the analyses to these excluded technologies . DOE seeks input on energy efficiency data and potential limitations of existing test procedures. 20

# #23.4

Technologies Unable to be Analyzed (Issue #6)

9.90 

# "MIS " I'al F a* F Dishwashers None Dehumidifiers Built-in hygrometer/humidistat • Improved controls • Improved defrost measures • Improved flow -control devices • Low-standby- loss controls • Washable air filters 

### Cooking Products Thermostatically -controlled burners and insulation for gas cooktops • Electronic controls, low-standby - loss controls, induction, and insulation for electric cooktops • Radiant burners for gas ovens • Steam cooking for electric ovens • Cooking sensors , dual magnetrons, improved ceramic stirrers, lowstandby- loss controls, modified waveguides , or added insulation for microwave ovens 

### Commercial Clothes Washers Improved drum designs for horizontal-axis clothes washers 0 Low-standby- loss controls 91

# #23.4

Engineering Analysis Methods and Approach

Method AHAM Data Review of Past TSD Product Teardown Product Testing Manufacturer Interviews Dishwashers Efficiency-Level Approach Dehumidifiers Commercial

Clothes Washers Design -Option Approach Cooking Products



### 22

# #23.4 Efficiency- Level Approach n Cost-efficiency curves were supplied to DOE by AHAM. • Costs were provided on a shipment-weighted, industry-aggregated basis per efficiency level • Data were not provided for product classes and/or efficiency levels representing fewer than three manufacturers.

Direct material Direct labor Factory overhead Depreciation n Sales & marketing n Research & development n Building n Tooling/Equipment 

### n Manufacturer interviews were conducted to further understand variability in industry -supplied cost data. n Efficiency- level approach was supported by reverse-engineering from which additional cost -efficiency information was derived. 23

# Reverse-Engineering Methodology 

# #23.4

24

# #23.4 Design -Option Approach Develop Baseline 

## ng Analysis



## n Define baseline specifications for each product class n Implement design options one-by-one in order of shortest payback to longest payback Calculate Cost n 

### Increments and EF

### Generate CostEfficiency Curves/ 

## Determine the cumulative incremental cost of each design

option relative to the baseline and recalculate EF with design options in place n Generate cost-efficiency curves , which account for full production costs

25

# Dishwashers : Incremental Efficiency Levels

Efficiency Level Efficiency Level Source • • Baseline Current Federal Standard 0.62 0.46 1 Energy Star (prior to January 1, 2007) (scaled for compact) 0.78 0.58 2 CEE Tier 1 (2006) (scaled for compact) 0.84 0.62 3 Energy Star (January 1, 2007) 0.88 0.65 4 CEE Tier 2 (2006) (scaledfor compact) 0.92 0.68 5 Gap Fill 1.01 0.72 6 Gap Fill 1. 08 0.80 7 Maximum Available 1.74 1.11 

### 26

# Dishwashers : Cost-Efficiency Relationship

n AHAM provided incremental manufacturing cost data for standard dishwashers at efficiency levels up to and including EF = 0.72. n DOE validated this data with testing and reverse-engineering of several dishwasher platforms. n DOE's analysis showed reasonable agreement with industry-supplied data , even though only a limited number of platforms were analyzed. n Based on this validation, a cost-efficiency curve was generated for standard dishwashers up to the maximum available level.

27

# #23.4

........................ Dishwashers: Extending Analyses to the Compact Product Class (Issue #4) n DOE conducted full engineering analysis on standard -size dishwashers. n DOE scaled efficiency levels for compact dishwashers from standard-size dishwashers, using baseline from existing efficiency standard and max available from Energy Star database. n Fewer than 3 manufacturers produce compact-sized dishwashers, so cost data is unavailable for confidentiality reasons. 

## DOE invites comment on extending the analyses to compact dishwashers.

28

# #23.4

Dishwashers: Use of an Annual Energy Consumption Metric,

Incorporating Standby Power n The dishwasher test procedure includes a measurement of standby power, but standby is not included in the EF metric. n AHAM did not supply standby power data, but the LCC analysis accounts for standby power in the calculation of annual energy consumption. n DOE recommends that if standby power is determined to be a significant source of energy savings , that it be incorporated in an annual energy usage metric. n An annual energy usage metric would allow manufacturers flexibility in specifying features and design options. 

## DOE invites comment on the specification of annual energy usage as the metric for dishwasher standards, rather than a prescriptive standard for standby power alone. 29

# #23.4

Dehumidifiers: Consolidation of Product Classes for Analysis n A subset of the product classes defined by EPACT 2005 was analyzed, based on industry-supplied data.

25.00 Pints/Day or Less 

### C 25.01 - 35.00 Pints/Day 

### p 35.01 - 45.00 Pints/Day 45.01 - 54.00 Pints/Day 

### N 54.01 - 74.99 Pints/Day 75.00 Pints/Day or More 

### N 

### ombine roduct c o data supplied o data supplied 

## oduct Classes Analyzed 0 - 35.00 Pints/Day 35.01 - 45.00 Pints/Day 54.01 - 74.99 Pints/Day



### 30

# #23.4

Dehumidifiers : Incremental Efficiency Levels

Efficiency Level Efficiency Level Source 35. 0 1-45. 00 54. 0 1-74. 99 pints/day pints/day Current Federal Standard Baseline (effective 2007) 1.20 1.30 1.50 1 Gap Fill 1.25 1.35 1.55 2 Default 2012 Standard

(EPACT 2005) 1.30 1.40 1.60 3 Gap Fill 1.35 1.45 1.65 4 Gap Fill 1.40 1.50 1.70 5 Maximum Available 1.45 1.74 1.80



### 31

# #23.4 Dehumidifiers: Cost- Efficiency Relationship n AHAM provided incremental manufacturing cost data for the three product classes analyzed. n DOE validated this data with reverse -engineering, with units chosen to span the range of efficiencies within each product class. n DOE's analysis showed reasonable agreement with industry-supplied data. n Based on this validation , cost-efficiency curves were generated for the three product classes.

32

# #23.4

Cooking Products : Implementation of the Design Option Approach n Previous rulemaking ( 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products) identified incremental efficiencies and manufacturing costs associated with each design option. n For this analysis, DOE assumed , with stakeholder concurrence , that for each design option that passed the screening analysis: • The incremental efficiency remained the same as in the 1996 TSD. • The incremental manufacturing cost from 1996 TSD (in 1990 $) must be scaled by the Producer Price Index (PPI) for the appropriate appliance category:



### Category Electric Cooking Products Gas Cooking Products 

### PPI 2006/PPI 1990 93.7% 93.9% 

### 33

# #23.4

Cooking Products : Cooktop Incremental Efficiency Levels

Efficiency Level Baseline 0.156 0.737 0.742 1 0.399 0.769 0.753 2 0.420



### 34

# #23.4

Cooking Products: Oven Incremental Efficiency Levels

'ergy Factor 11111111111111111 Gas, Gas, Self- Electric, Electric, standard ci^ Self- Microwave Baseline 0.0298 0.054 0 . 1066 0.1099 0.557 1 0.0536 0.0625 0.1113 0.1102 0.586 2 0.0566 0 . 0627 0.1163 0.1123 0.588 3 0.0572 0 . 0632 0.1181 0.597 4 0.0593 0.1206 0.602 5 0.0596 0.1209 6 0.0600 la 0.0583 

### 35

# #23.4

Cooking Products: AHAM Microwave Oven Efficiency

Data Submittal 63.0 62.0 61.0 60.0

57.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 54.0 1 600.0 700 . 0 800.0 900.0 1000.0 1100 . 0 1200 .0 13C 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 Measured Output Power (W) Cavity Volume (cubic feet) 

### n The data failed to demonstrate any correlation between efficiency and characteristic microwave oven parameters , including output power or cavity volume. •

•

• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ • 60.0 - 59.0 . i 58.0 w • 57.0 63.0 .___.__._-.__._ _ 62.0 61.0 -



### n These data and the updated cost-efficiency analysis from the 1996 TSD were validated through additional microwave oven testing conducted by DOE. 36

# #23.4

Microwave Oven Design Options (Issue #5) n Microwave oven design options and efficiency levels analyzed were derived from those in the 1996 TSD. n DOE received stakeholder comments that, unlike for other cooking products, microwave oven technology has changed significantly since the previous rulemaking. n DOE believes that most design options implemented since the previous rulemaking are intended to enhance consumer utility rather than improve energy efficiency. 

## DOE invites comment on microwave oven design options that impact annual energy consumption, including those that are not currently measured by the test procedure. 37

# #23.4

Cooking Products: AHAM Microwave Oven Standby

Power Data Submittal n Measurements were made with a starting clock setting of 12:00. n Data demonstrate a wide range of values. n MWOs with cooking sensors tend to consume higher standby power. 7
q • No Sensor q Sensor 5 -I 4 3 2 0

1 - - 0 600.0 700 . 0 800 . 0 900 . 0 1000.0 1100 . 0 1200.0 1300.0 Measured Output Power (W) 

### 38