#23.4

Phase II: Develop Interview Guide

n A critical aspect of the MIA involves interviews with manufacturers. An

interview guide is sent to manufacturers in preparation for Phase Ill.

n Interview topics will include ...

• Engineering analysis

• Shipments model

• Cost structure and financial parameters

• Conversion costs (capital expenditures, tooling, R&D, testing)

• Impact of other regulations / cumulative burden

• Direct employment impacts

• Import / Export issues

Consolidation / competitive impacts

• Replacement parts or refurbishments

• Impact of the standard's effective date

• Other topics important to manufacturers

135

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Phase III: Manufacturer Interviews

n Expected timeframe

n Time and personnel commitment for manufacturers (industry-wide

GRIM, GRIM assumptions, subgroup analysis discussion)

n Confidentiality agreements

136

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Phase III: Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

n The subgroup analysis is a more focused version of the industrywide analysis.

• Work with subgroup representatives to tailor a GRIM incorporating unique

financial characteristics

• Consider and focus on issues of importance to the subgroup, including

employment, capacity utilization and cumulative burden

• Review draft findings with subgroup members during development

137

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

0

Revise

ANOPR

Analyses

Trial Manufacturer,' Utility Employment

Standard Impact Impact Impact

Levels Analysis Analysis Analysis 7

Environmenta

Assessment

Regulatory

Impact

Analysis

138

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

FrUtility Impact Analysis

n Purpose

• To investigate the effects on utilities from reduced energy sales and peak load

demand due to potential standards

n Method

• Uses national energy savings results

• Uses the Energy Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System

(NEMS) tailored for DOE's Building Technologies Program (NEMS-BT)

n Output

• Change in energy sales and price by region

Change in the mix of electricity generation

• Change in new capacity construction

139

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

0

Revise

ANOPR

Analyses

Trial Manufacturer Utility Employment

Standard Impact Impact Impact

Levels Analysis Analysis Analysis

^Environmenta

Assessment

#23.4

Regulatory

Impact

Analysis

140

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Employment Impact Analysis

n Purpose

• To report net jobs created or eliminated nationally as a consequence of new

energy efficiency standards

n Method

• Uses the ImSET tool, a spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy that focuses on

188 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building

energy use

• Changes in product and energy expenditures taken from the National Impact

Analysis

Estimates the national employment and income effects of energy saving

appliances

' Direct employment impacts taken from the Manufacturer Impact Analysis

n Output

• Change in employment by sector as a consequence of new standards

141

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

0

Trial Manufacturer Utility Employment

Standard Impact Impact Impact

Levels Analysis Analysis Analysis

Environmental

Assessment

#23.4

142

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Environmental Assessment

n Purpose

• To report environmental impacts as a consequence of new energy efficiency

standards, including changes in power plant emissions

n Method

• Energy savings results taken from the National Impact Analysis

• Energy Information Administration's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)

provides power-plant emissions

• `In-Building' emissions due to fossil-fuel fired appliances to be determined using

emission factors

• Wastewater discharge impacts due to water consuming appliances to be

determined using discharge factors

n Output

• Estimate of national emission reductions of SO2, NOX, mercury and C02

- Power plant SO2, NOX, and mercury are effectively capped through Congressional

legislation resulting in little to no emission reductions due to standards

- In-building SO2 and NOX still emitted by fossil-fuel fired appliances

• Estimate of wastewater discharge reductions

143

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
NOPR Analyses Flow Diagram

0

Revise

ANOPR

Analyses

Trial Manufacturer Utility Employment

Standard Impact Impact Impact

Levels Analysis Analysis Analysis

Environment

Assessment

#23.4

Regulatory

Impact

Analysis

144

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Regulatory Impact Analysis

n Purpose

• To investigate the national impacts due to non-regulatory alternatives compared

with mandatory energy efficiency standards

• The non-regulatory alternatives that may be considered:

- No new regulatory action; early replacement; prescriptive standards; consumer

tax credits; manufacturer tax credits; consumer rebates; voluntary efficiency

targets; bulk government procurement

n Method

• Modify NES spreadsheet model to consider non-regulatory scenarios

- Non-regulatory scenarios increase overall appliance efficiency and are modeled

by modifying the base case efficiency trend

- NPV calculated for non-regulatory alternatives in the same way as for the

adopted standard

n Each non-regulatory scenario will decrease national appliance operating costs

and increase appliance equipment prices

n Output

• National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of the non-regulatory

alternatives

145

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

INNNEWSHMM

Energy Conservation Standards for

Residential Dishwashers , Dehumidifiers , and Cooking Products

and Commercial Clothes Washers

ANOPR Public Meeting

Microwave Oven Supplementary Analysis

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

December 13, 2007

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Purpose

n Validate the approach of updating the 1996 TSD analysis

• Industry-supplied data still suggests no relationship between efficiency and output power

or cavity size.

• The supplementary analysis was designed to verify the potential impacts on efficiency of

specific design options and to validate cost-efficiency results.

n Examine the microwave oven test procedure for potential updating

• The DOE test procedure references a superseded IEC efficiency test procedure.

• There are differences between the current and superseded IEC test procedures that could

significantly impact efficiency measurements.

n Investigate standby power for a possible standard

• The supplementary analysis was intended to determine whether there is an opportunity to

reduce standby power consumption.

' Design options associated with changes in standby power would be identified.

• An IEC standby power test procedure exists which could be incorporated by reference

into the DOE test procedure.

147

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
Cost-Efficiency Validation

2

3

4

Test Procedure Evaluation

Standby Power

Conclusions

#23.4

148

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Cost-Efficiency Validation

n AHAM submitted efficiency data for 21 microwave ovens:

• Denoted by manufacturer-rated output power, cavity volume and the presence of a cooking sensor.

• The range of efficiencies is similar to the range of efficiencies from the 1996 TSD.

n DOE tested 32 off-the-shelf units with a range of output powers , cavity volumes, and

the following identifiable design options:

• Cooking sensor

• Display type

• Control interface type

• Magnetron control (i.e., inverter-based low power settings)

n DOE further compiled design options in their test sample via teardowns, including:

• Magnetron characteristics

• Power supply characteristics

• Motor types

• Waveguide design

149

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

AHAM and DOE measured efficiencies are very similar.

62% -

61% ^

60%

A AHAM Standard MOT

♦ AHAM Inverter Drive

n DOE Standard MOT

o DOE Inverter Drive

n

W

56%

A

A

A N.

A

O

M o

0 • 0

•

7

55%

54%

600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300

Rated Output Power (W) Legend: MOT = Microwave Oven Transformer

a

A 6

150

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
Measured output power is similar as well.

62%

61%

60% -

o AHAM Standard MOT

• AHAM Inverter Drive

n DOE Standard MOT

DOE Inverter Drive

w 59%

56% --.

55%

54%

n a

n

A

A p

A

0

•

•

#23.4

600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300

Measured Output Power (W)

Legend: MOT = Microwave Oven Transformer

151

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4
#23.4

Several ANOPR design options were not observed ...

n Added insulation - no MWO had any; nor would it likely have a measurable effect.

n Dual magnetrons - none of the MWOs had dual magnetrons.

n Eliminate or improve ceramic mode stirrer cover - only one unit in the sample

had a mode stirrer, and the cover was made of plastic.

n Reflective surfaces - all MWOs in the test sample utilized similar epoxy-coated

cold-rolled steel for their cavities.

.., or had little to no impact on cooking efficiency testing.

n Cooking sensors - while many of the units had cooking sensors, no benefit can be

captured by the existing efficiency test procedure. They also increase standby power.

n Improved fan efficiency - all MWOs used shaded pole motors (SPMs). Moving to a

brushless DC fan motor would save about 5.6kWh over life of an 800W-rated MWO.

n Low-standby-loss electronic controls - have no impact on the efficiency

measurement, but will be discussed later in the context of standby power consumption.

n Modified wave guide - 6 of the 32 waveguides were oriented horizontally instead of

vertically. No coatings were observed, nor did orientation have a consistent impact.

152

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 23.4