National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

Development of an 

Energy-Savings Calculation 

Methodology for Residential 

Miscellaneous Electric Loads 

Preprint 

R. Hendron and M. Eastment 

To be presented at the 2006 ACEEE Summer Study on 

Energy Efficiency in Buildings 

Pacific Grove, California 

August 13–18, 2006 

Conference Paper 

NREL/CP-550-39551 

August 2006 
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Development of an Energy-Savings Calculation Methodology for Residential 

Miscellaneous Electric Loads1

Robert Hendron and Mark Eastment, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

ABSTRACT 

To meet whole-house energy savings targets beyond 50% in residential buildings, new 

technologies and systems approaches must be developed to address miscellaneous electric loads 

(MELs). MELs are the small and diverse collection of energy-consuming devices found in 

homes, including what are commonly known as plug loads (televisions, stereos, microwaves), 

along with all hard-wired loads (doorbells, security systems, garage door openers) that do not fit 

into other major end-use categories (space conditioning, domestic hot water, ventilation, major 

appliances, and lighting). MELs present special challenges because their purchase and operation 

are largely under the control of the occupants. If no steps are taken to address MELs, they can 

constitute 40%-50% of the remaining source energy use in homes that achieve 60-70% wholehouse energy savings, and this percentage is likely to increase in the future as home electronics 

become even more sophisticated and their use becomes more widespread. Building America 

(BA), a U.S. Department of Energy research program that targets 50% energy savings in new 

homes by 2015 and 100% savings (zero net energy) by 2020, has begun to identify and develop 

advanced solutions that can significantly reduce MELs. 

As part of the ongoing efforts by Building America to create a consistent set of guidelines 

for the analysis of whole-house energy use, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

has disaggregated the MEL end-use category and developed a methodology to calculate energy 

savings for measures that have the potential to reduce these loads. This disaggregation includes 

electricity use for more than 100 individual MELs, active vs. low-power draw, hours in each 

operating mode, market penetration, correlation with house size and occupancy, and impacts on 

latent and sensible heat loads. The MEL Analysis Spreadsheet posted on the BA website 

(www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/pa_resources.html) documents this 

disaggregation and provides the framework for calculating energy savings for prototype houses 

with specific MEL improvements. 

Introduction 

Miscellaneous electric loads are composed of the diverse assortment of products, devices, 

and electrical equipment found in some combination in every household. MELs are usually 

either small end-uses found in a large percentage of homes (such as toasters, televisions, and 

coffee makers) or large end-uses that are only found in a small fraction of homes (such as well 

pumps, waterbed heaters, and aquariums). This variety makes it very difficult to find systemsbased solutions that can have a significant impact on the total energy use of MELs in a typical 

home, especially when one takes into account the role of the occupants in choosing and operating 

these devices. 

 

1

 This work has been authored by an employee or employees of the Midwest Research Institute under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains 

and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a 

non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or 

allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. 

1
Despite the challenges associated with reducing MELs, they represent a growing fraction 

of whole-house energy use in high-performance homes and, therefore, we must be careful not to 

overlook them. As an example, consider the McStain Discovery House in Colorado, which 

successfully achieved 54% whole-house energy savings compared to the Building America 

Research Benchmark (Hendron 2005). As shown in Figure 1, the fraction of total source energy 

use associated with MELs increased from 14% to 32%, while significant energy savings were 

achieved in the other end-use categories (space heating, space cooling, domestic hot water 

[DHW], lighting, and major appliances). It was necessary to reduce non-MEL energy use by 

65% in order to reach 54% whole-house savings, because no practical reduction in MELs could 

be attained for the Discovery House. Unless this load can be reduced in the future, large 

photovoltaic systems or other forms of site electricity generation will be the only alternative to 

achieve net zero energy homes. 

Figure 1. MELs Are Becoming a Much More Important End-use in Energy-Efficient 

Homes Like the Discovery House in Loveland, Colorado 

Typical House in Denver

Space Heating

Space Cooling

DHW

Lighting

Major Appliances

MELs

Building America

(54% Whole House 

Savings)

32%

14%

NREL and other research organizations have completed some important preliminary 

studies to characterize the magnitude and nature of the most common MELs and to identify 

promising alternative technologies and methodologies to reduce these loads (Wenzel et al. 1997; 

Zogg & Alberino 1998; A.D. Little 1999; Rosen & Meier 1999a; Rosen & Meier 1999b; Ross & 

Meier 2000; Meier 2002, Nordman 2004). Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has 

conducted research on energy savings opportunities for several specific product types, especially 

in the categories of consumer electronics and home-office equipment. They have also done 

extensive work to quantify typical end-use loads for small appliances and plug loads and have 

conducted studies of standby losses and low-power modes in residential buildings as part of their 

efforts in support of ENERGY STAR and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The 

ENERGY STAR program is making important strides toward establishing criteria for many 

energy-efficient products, but these only scratch the surface of the total energy consumption 

associated with MELs, and these products are usually purchased at the discretion of the 

occupants. Comprehensive, systems-based approaches involving the builder and architect are 

2
necessary to ensure some degree of energy savings regardless of occupant purchasing decisions 

and usage patterns. 

A consistent approach for calculating annual energy savings, including systems 

interactions caused by sensible and latent loads, has been a missing component of MEL research 

in the past. Such an approach is essential if programs like BA are to achieve significant 

defensible savings in the MEL end-use category. To this end, NREL developed an MEL 

Analysis Spreadsheet in consultation with the BA industry team analysts. This spreadsheet is 

now available as an optional method for analyzing MEL, and is posted on the BA website 

(http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/docs/bench_mels_012406.xls). 

Methodology Development 

Past Treatment of MELs in the Benchmark 

The 2005 Building America Benchmark (Hendron 2005) and the Building America 

Performance Analysis Procedures (Hendron et al. 2004) form the framework for calculating 

whole-house source energy savings for Building America prototype houses. However, until 

2006, MELs have been treated in a fairly simplistic way, and no standard methodology existed to 

allow the analyst to calculate energy savings for MEL improvements. Site electricity use 

associated with MELs was defined as a simple function of finished floor area for both the 

Benchmark and the prototype using Equation 1. A multiplier was applied if the prototype was 

located in one of the four most populated states as defined in the 2001 Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (EIA 2001).2

 This 

multiplier was important because the magnitude of the electricity use for MELs in a particular 

state could have a significant effect on the size of the photovoltaic system necessary to achieve 

net zero energy. A multiplier of 1.0 was used for all states not listed in Table 1 because 

insufficient information was available about the magnitude of MELs in those states. The 

derivation of state multipliers will be described in more detail later in this paper. 

EMEL = 1.67 x FFA x FS (1) 

where 

EMEL = site electricity for MELs in the 2005 Benchmark (kWh/yr) 

FFA = finished floor area, including finished basements (ft2

) 

FS = state multiplier from Table 1. 

 

2

 It is important to note that the RECS analysis process uses a nonlinear regression technique to quantify 

each end-use, including MELs. Because of potential interactions between independent variables, for example 

between MELs and cooling energy, it is possible that systematic errors in the regression analysis can result in 

overestimation or underestimation of the MELs in a particular state. RECS also includes an independent variable 

driven by the number of household members and their ages. This catch-all variable represents electricity consuming 

products that cannot be quantified individually and equals about 48% of total MEL energy. Our assumption is that 

this variable includes only MELs, but it may also include errors in the estimation of other end-uses. 

3
Table 1. MEL Multipliers (FS) for Four Most Populous States 

State Multiplier (FS) 

New York 0.82 

California 0.77 

Florida 0.94 

Texas 1.11 

All other States and territories 1.00 

The MEL equation used in the Benchmark was developed for maximum consistency with 

the corresponding energy consumption in single-family homes according to the 2001 RECS, 

along with several other references (PG&E 1997; Wenzel et al. 1997; KEMA 2004). In Figure 

2, these references are compared to the MEL equation for California. 

Figure 2. 2005 Benchmark MELs for a Three-Bedroom House in California Compared 

to Other References 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

Finished Floor Area (ft2

)

Annual MEL Energy (kWh/yr)

Benchmark 2005

KEMA 2004 - Single Family

KEMA 2004 - Multi-Family

KEMA 2004 - Mobile

PG&E 1997 - Single Family

PG&E 1997 - Attached

PG&E 1997 - Multi-Family

PG&E 1997 - Mobile

EIA 2001

Wenzel 1997

Disaggregation of MEL end-uses 

 NREL and the BA teams decided to add more realism and accuracy to the analysis of 

MELs beginning in 2006. The first step necessary in the development of an MEL analysis 

methodology was to separate the MEL end-use category into individual products and equipment. 

This disaggregation has been performed in various configurations by several researchers in the 

4
past (EIA 1993; Krigger & Dorsi 1994; EIA 1999; PG&E 1997; Sanchez & Meier 1997; Wenzel 

et al. 1997; Thorne & Suozzo 1998; Rosen & Meier 1999a; Rosen & Meier 1999b; CREEDAC 

2001; EIA 2001; Pinckard et al. 2003; KEMA 2004; Nordman 2004). NREL decided to take 

maximum advantage of these previous studies in the development of an MEL breakdown for use 

with the Benchmark. The study by Wenzel was the primary reference for values of Unit Energy 

Consumption (UEC), and the RECS studies from 2001, 1997, and 1993 (EIA 2001, 1999, 1993) 

were the principal sources of data on market penetration. Other studies were used to fill in the 

gaps, and more recent data took precedence over older and possibly out-dated information. 

Finally, an “Other” category was added to force the total built-up MEL energy use to match the 

current 2005 Benchmark MEL energy use for an average size 1920-ft2, three-bedroom house. 

The “Other” MEL category only constitutes 9.5 kWh/yr, or less that half of one percent of the 

total MEL end-use, which is a good indication that our disaggregated MELs are fairly 

comprehensive and realistic. 

 The resulting breakdown of 119 individual MELs is summarized in Table 2 for a typical 

1920-ft2, three-bedroom house. The categorization of loads is largely based on the taxonomoy 

developed by LBNL (Nordman and McWhinney 2006), with a few minor adaptations to meet the 

needs of BA. For programs like BA that focus on new residential construction, the highest 

priority items in the MEL category are likely to be those where the builder has some degree of 

control, such as hard-wired loads (certain standby losses, garbage disposals, doorbells, ceiling 

fans) and certain large appliances that could potentially be provided with a new house (freezers, 

second refrigerators, microwaves). An effort was made to capture the collection of MELs that 

were most common in the late 1990s time frame for consistency with the theoretical vintage of 

the Benchmark. The mix of MELs and associated energy consumption will evolve over time as 

new products enter the market and old ones become obsolete. 

Standby Versus Active Power 

 Electricity use for most MELs can occur at several different power levels. The three 

most common power levels are “active”, “ready”, and “standby”. Active mode occurs while the 

product is being used for its primary purpose. Ready status occurs while a product is turned on, 

but is not in use. Standby is defined as the lowest energy state of a product while remaining 

connected to a power supply (IEC 2005). For the sake of simplicity, we grouped “standby” and 

“ready” together as “low-power modes”. An MEL may also have other intermediate states (such 

as “idle” or “sleep”) that we have also included in the “low-power” category. If the lowest 

power level is the same as the active state for a certain product (a freezer, for example), then we 

don’t view the product as having any low-power modes. 

 A number of previous studies were of great value as we tried to quantify typical power 

consumption rates for each MEL in each mode of operation (Huber 1997; Thorne & Suozzo 

1998; Zogg & Alberino 1998; Rosen & Meier 1999a; Rosen & Meier 1999b; CREEDAC 2001; 

Roberson et al. 2002; Nordman 2004; Rainer et al. 2004). A few gaps were filled in by backcalculating the power levels necessary to produce the known average UEC (from Table 2) based 

on an estimated number of operating hours in each mode. Figure 3 shows the average household 

energy use for a few of the high-impact MELs in the Benchmark, along with the fractions 

attributable to low-power vs. active mode. It is noteworthy that many MELs are dominated by 

energy in low-power mode, and many consume electricity only in active mode. Our estimate of 

the overall fraction of MEL energy associated with low-power modes is approximately 24% for 

the Benchmark. 

5
Table 2. Default Miscellaneous Electric Loads for a 1920-ft2

, Three-Bedroom House 

Miscellaneous Electric 

Load 

Avg 

Units/ 

Hshld 

Energy/ 

Unit 

kWh/yr 

Energy/ 

Hshld 

kWh/yr 

Miscellaneous Electric Load 

Avg 

Units/ 

Hshld 

Energy/ 

Unit 

kWh/yr 

Energy/ 

Hshld 

kWh/yr 

Electronics Infrastructure 

Answering Machine 0.650 33.5 21.8 Baby Monitor 0.100 22.8 2.3 

Boombox / Portable Stereo 0.670 16.8 11.3 Carbon Monoxide Detector 0.260 17.5 4.6 

Cable Box 0.637 152.7 97.3 Doorbell 0.670 44.0 29.5 

Cell Phone Charger 0.450 77.4 34.8 Garage Door Opener 0.266 35.0 9.3 

Color TV (Fifth or More) 0.028 45.8 1.3 Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) 3.850 6.2 23.9 

Color TV (First) 0.986 215.5 212.5 Smoke Detectors 0.840 3.5 2.9 

Color TV (Fourth) 0.104 52.1 5.4 Sump Pump 0.099 40.0 3.9 

Color TV (Second) 0.669 112.7 75.4 Personal Care 

Color TV (Third) 0.296 66.7 19.7 Curling Iron 0.532 1.0 0.5 

Compact Stereo 0.460 112.3 51.6 Electric Shaver 0.470 12.8 6.0 

Component / Rack Stereo 0.730 153.0 111.7 Electric Toothbrush Charger 0.118 19.3 2.3 

Copy Machine 0.020 25.0 0.5 Hair Dryer 0.837 0.6 0.5 

Cordless Phone 0.601 23.2 13.9 Heat Lamp 0.010 13.0 0.1 

Desktop PC w/ Speakers 0.592 143.9 85.2 HVAC 

Dot Matrix Printer 0.030 115.0 3.5 Air Cleaner 0.217 65.7 14.2 

DSL/Cable Modem 0.200 17.6 3.5 Air Handler Standby Losses 0.800 67.2 53.8 

DVD Player 0.472 50.1 23.7 Fan (Ceiling) 1.400 50.0 70.0 

Equalizer 0.049 14.7 0.7 Fan (Portable) 0.946 11.3 10.7 

Fax Machine 0.030 326.3 9.8 Humidifier 0.150 100.0 15.0 

Home Security System 0.187 195.1 36.5 HVAC Controls 1.000 20.3 20.3 

Laptop PC (Plugged In) 0.152 47.0 7.1 Other 

PC Monitor 0.592 119.8 70.9 Auto Block Heater 0.019 250.0 4.8 

Power Speakers 0.296 24.4 7.2 Battery Charger 0.437 14.8 6.5 

Printer (Inkjet) 0.118 39.0 4.6 Extra Refrigerator 0.179 1100.0 196.9 

Printer (Laser) 0.049 92.5 4.5 Freezer 0.323 935.0 302.0 

Radio 0.493 9.1 4.5 Garbage Disposal 0.404 10.0 4.0 

Satellite Dish Box 0.202 131.7 26.6 Heat Tape 0.030 100.0 3.0 

Scanner 0.050 49.0 2.4 Instant Hot Water Dispenser 0.006 160.0 1.0 

Subwoofer 0.099 68.3 6.7 Kiln 0.020 50.0 1.0 

VCR (First) 0.876 71.3 62.5 Large Marine Aquarium (40-60 gal) 0.002 740.0 1.8 

VCR (Second) 0.320 68.9 22.1 Lawn Mower (Electric) 0.059 42.9 2.5 

VCR (Third or More) 0.072 68.6 4.9 Lg Freshwater Aquarium (40-60 gal) 0.024 340.0 8.1 

Video Gaming System 0.631 20.4 12.9 Md Freshwater Aquarium (20-40 gal) 0.024 180.0 4.3 

Housewares Medium Marine Aquarium (20-40 gal) 0.002 615.0 1.5 

Blender 0.788 7.0 5.5 Pipe and Gutter Heaters 0.010 53.0 0.5 

Bottled Water 0.010 300.0 3.0 Shop Tools 0.130 26.4 3.4 

Broiler 0.010 80.0 0.8 Sm Freshwater Aquarium (5-20 gal) 0.024 105.0 2.5 

Can Opener 0.650 3.0 2.0 Small Marine Aquarium (5-20 gal) 0.002 245.0 0.6 

Clock 0.956 26.0 24.8 Surge Protector / Power Strip 0.360 3.9 1.4 

Clock Radio 1.260 14.9 18.8 Timer (Irrigation) 0.050 45.2 2.3 

Coffee Maker (Drip) 0.685 99.3 68.0 Timer (Lighting) 0.280 20.1 5.6 

Coffee Maker (Percolator) 0.167 65.0 10.9 Trash Compactor 0.010 50.0 0.5 

Deep Fryer 0.148 20.0 3.0 Water Bed 0.066 1068.0 70.5 

Electric Blanket 0.286 120.0 34.3 Fixed MELs

Electric Griddle 0.256 6.0 1.5 Coral Reef Aquarium (Electric) 0.001 4500.0 3.6 

Electric Grill 0.010 180.0 1.8 Dehumidifier (Electric) 0.092 972.4 89.5 

Electric Knife 0.374 1.0 0.4 Gas Fireplace 0.035 1760.0 60.9 

Espresso Machine 0.069 19.0 1.3 Gas Grill 0.029 879.0 25.5 

Food Slicer 0.414 1.0 0.4 Gas Lighting 0.005 557.0 2.9 

Hand Mixer 0.877 2.0 1.8 Hot Tub / Spa Heater (Electric) 0.056 1704.0 95.4 

Heating Pads 0.670 3.0 2.0 Hot Tub / Spa Heater (Gas) 0.038 2374.0 90.2 

Hot Plate 0.236 30.0 7.1 Hot Tub / Spa Pump (Electric) 0.094 460.0 43.2 

Iron 0.847 53.0 44.9 Other 1.000 9.5 9.5 

Microwave 0.933 135.1 126.1 Pool Heater (Electric) 0.004 2300.0 9.2 

Popcorn Popper 0.305 5.0 1.5 Pool Heater (Gas) 0.024 6506.0 158.7 

Slow Cooker / Crock Pot 0.581 16.0 9.3 Pool Pump (Electric) 0.066 2228.3 147.1 

Toaster 0.837 43.7 36.6 Well Pump (Electric) 0.129 400.0 51.6 

Toaster Oven 0.345 50.0 17.3 Totals 

Vacuum Cleaner (Cordless) 0.207 36.5 7.6 Total Electronics 1057 

Vacuum Cleaner (Upright) 0.946 31.0 29.3 Total Housewares and Other MELs 2149 

Waffle Iron 0.325 25.0 8.1 Total MELs 3206 

6
Figure 3. Low-Power and Active Energy per Household for the 20 Most Important MELs 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Air Handler Standby Losses

Gas Fireplace

First VCR

Coffee Maker (Drip)

Fan (Ceiling)

Water Bed

PC Monitor

Second Color TV

Desktop PC w/ Speakers

Dehumidifier (Electric)

Hot Tub / Spa Heater (Gas)

Hot Tub / Spa Heater (Electric)

Cable Box, DVR, or TIVO

Component / Rack Stereo

Microwave

Pool Pump (Electric)

Pool Heater (Gas)

Extra Fridge

First Color TV

Freezer

kWh/yr

Low-Power Mode

Active Mode

Hours Per Day in Each Operating Mode 

 Daily operating hours for each MEL, including average hours per day where the MEL is 

disconnected from any power supply, were estimated using most of the same references that 

were used to determine typical power levels in each mode of operation. However, much less 

information was available on this topic. Ultimately, about two-thirds of the values for hours per 

day in each mode were either derived based on known values of annual energy use and power 

consumption, or estimated based on the personal experience of the authors. 

 The MEL Analysis Spreadsheet does not allow the analyst to modify the hours of 

operation in each mode. To keep the spreadsheet manageable in the near-term, it was assumed 

that most MEL improvements would involve reductions to the power levels in each mode, not a 

change to the length of time the MEL spent in each mode. But there are certainly important 

exceptions, such as control systems that switch electronics into a “hard” off mode instead of 

7
standby mode, or “sleep” features that switch computers from active to low-power mode. The 

spreadsheet may also be used for existing homes where the actual operating hours for a given 

MEL may be quite different from the typical values. For these situations, the analyst must 

calculate “effective” power levels that account for the shift in the number of hours spent in each 

operating mode. The authors intend to allow operating hours to be changed in the next iteration 

of the spreadsheet. 

Correlation with Floor Area and Number of Bedrooms 

The energy used by most MELs tends to be a function of both the size of the house and 

the number of occupants. For BA analysis, the number of bedrooms is used as a surrogate for 

number of occupants, which cannot be predicted with much accuracy for a new house. We 

expect that some MELs are primarily driven by house size, such as vacuum cleaners, smoke 

detectors, and ground-fault circuit interrupters (GFCIs). Others are driven mainly by the number 

of occupants, such as microwave ovens, coffee makers, and irons. There are also a few MELs 

that typically use about the same amount of energy in every home regardless of size and 

occupancy, such as carbon-monoxide detectors, doorbells, and irrigation timers. These 

relationships were assumed to take the form shown in Equation 2 and were developed for the 

Benchmark based on engineering judgment supplemented by RECS data whenever there were 

explicit drivers of MEL energy documented in the regression results. The resulting relationship 

between total Benchmark MEL energy, house size, number of bedrooms, and geographic 

location is described by Equation 3. The characteristics of the house tend to be significant, but 

not particularly strong, drivers of MEL energy use. This trend is fairly consistent with the results 

of recent RECS studies (EIA 1999; EIA 2001). 

EMEL = C1 + C2 x FFA + C3 x Nbr (2) 

where 

EMEL = site electricity for an individual MEL in the Benchmark (kWh/yr) 

FFA = finished floor area in the Prototype, including finished basement (ft2

) 

Nbr = number of bedrooms in the Prototype 

C1 = constant base load associated with the MEL 

C2 = multiplier for floor area 

C3 = multiplier for number of bedrooms. 

EMEL, total = (1625 + 0.418 x FFA + 259 x Nbr) x FS (3) 

where 

EMEL, total = total site electricity for all MELs in the Benchmark (kWh/yr) 

FS = state multiplier from Table 1. 

Sensible and Latent Loads 

The internal load contributions from MELs are very important from a whole-house 

perspective because of their influence on space-conditioning energy use. Because these internal 

heat gains have not been studied extensively, NREL used engineering judgment to estimate the 

fraction of energy used by each MEL that is converted to either a sensible or latent internal load. 

A few end-uses are nearly always located outdoors and do not affect the internal loads, such as 

garage door openers, shop tools, and pool heaters. But most MELs deposit nearly all of their 

8
energy use as a sensible load on the house. Certain MELs can contribute to the latent load as 

well, including aquaria, cooking devices, gas appliances, and heaters used for interior spas and 

hot tubs. Internal loads associated with cooking are particularly difficult to quantify because 

much of the energy deposited in the food is ingested by the occupants and is already accounted 

for as part of the occupant sensible and latent heat gains (Hendron 2004). Overall, we estimate 

that 66% of MEL energy is converted to sensible heat gain, and 2% is converted to latent heat 

gain. 

State Multipliers 

Multipliers for the four most populous states were estimated based on the final electric 

end-use regression equations developed for the 2001 RECS (EIA 2001). These multipliers are 

applied to the total MEL end-use consumption for both the prototype and Benchmark. 

Approximately 50 variables were found by EIA to be statistically significant for predicting 

MELs, but only 11 were deemed by the authors as appropriate adjustments to the MEL energy in 

the Benchmark. These variables represent external factors that are most likely associated with 

climatic differences, tax and code policies, and other variables that would tend to affect the same 

occupants in the same house differently in different states. The excluded variables represent 

either physical attributes of a prototype house that are known (such as year of construction and 

floor area) or physical or financial attributes of the occupants (such as age of homeowner or 

household income) that cannot be predicted for an individual house based on statewide averages. 

The final state multipliers were calculated by substituting national average values for the 

excluded variables, while using state averages for those variables that remained. The 

contributions from each of the remaining 11 variables toward the state-to-state differences in 

Benchmark MEL energy use are shown in Figure 4. 

Figure 4. Contributors to Geographic Variations in Benchmark MELs 

28.1%

23.6%

14.5%

11.5%

7.5%

3.1%

2.5%

2.2%

1.3%

0.7%

0.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Freezer Presence and

Type (+)

Electricity Price (+)

West South Central (+)

California (-)

Extra Refrigerator 

Presence and Type (+)

Aquarium (+)

# Color TVs (+)

Use Frequency of 

Coffee Maker (+)

Northw est (+)

East South Central (+)

Dehumidifier (+)

% of State to State Variation Explained

RECS Regression Variable

(+) Positive correlation w ith MEL energy

(-) Negative correlation w ith MEL energy

9
Calculating MEL Savings for a Prototype 

 When calculating energy savings for a particular package of MELs in a prototype house, 

the Benchmark must include the same individual MELs that exist in the prototype, with the 

remainder of the MEL budget lumped into a fixed "Unspecified MEL" category based on 

national average units per household for both the prototype and Benchmark. For example, if the 

prototype has four ceiling fans and a home-security system, the Benchmark would have the same 

number, not 1.4 ceiling fans and 19% of a home-security system. This approach ensures that 

energy savings is based on the efficiency of MELs, not their presence or absence in a particular 

house. The MEL Analysis Spreadsheet developed by the authors automates this process. 

Conclusions and Next Steps 

This paper summarized the development of a consistent methodology for calculating the 

energy savings associated with efficiency improvements in the Miscellaneous Electric Loads 

end-use category for residential buildings. The most relevant existing studies by other research 

organizations were used to the greatest extent possible to ensure accuracy and completeness. 

Details of the methodology are more thoroughly documented in an analysis spreadsheet posted 

on the BA website (www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/pa_resources.html). 

Although this analysis approach was developed with the needs of BA in mind, it may serve as a 

useful technique for other energy efficiency programs that target MELs in residential buildings. 

The accuracy and realism of the MEL methodology described in this paper may be 

significantly enhanced by NREL in future years. Research activities will be dictated by BA 

program requirements and may include the following: 

• Treat hours of operation as a variable in the MEL Analysis Spreadsheet 

• Fully define the remaining large end-uses in the Benchmark that are currently in 

the “Fixed MELs” category, such as pool heaters and pumps, hot tubs, well 

pumps, and gas fireplaces 

• Separate dehumidification from the MEL category and treat it as part of space 

conditioning, if needed to maintain comfortable indoor humidity levels 

• Identify the detailed energy drivers for MELs, such as TV screen size, computer 

monitor type (LCD vs. CRT), and freezer capacity 

• Eliminate the state multipliers and develop a more sophisticated approach to the 

treatment of geographic location and climate 

• Quantify the seasonal variation of operating hours for certain MELs, such as 

ceiling fans, coffee makers, and electric blankets 

• Develop hourly profiles for individual MELs. 

Acknowledgments 

 The authors thank the analysts representing the seven Building America teams for their 

ideas and recommendations during the course of developing this methodology. In addition, we 

thank Ren Anderson, Craig Christensen, Paul Torcellini, Nancy Wells, and others in the NREL 

Buildings Group for their peer reviews of this work throughout the process. We also express our 

appreciation to Ed Pollock and George James of the U.S. Department of Energy for providing 

the necessary leadership and financial support for this research activity through the Building 

America program. 

10
References 

Arthur D. Little. 1999. Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial 

Sectors with High-Efficiency Electric Motors. Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur D. Little. 

CREEDAC. 2001. Standby Power Consumption in the Canadian Residential Sector.

CREEDAC-2001-03-01. Halifax, NS, Canada: CREEDAC. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2001. 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

Final Regression Results. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 1993. 1993 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 1999. A Look at Residential Energy Consumption in 

1997. DOE-EIA 0632. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

Hendron, Robert. 2005. Building America Research Benchmark Definition, Updated December 

29, 2004. NREL Report No. 37529. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Hendron, Robert, Ren Anderson, Ron Judkoff, Craig Christensen, Mark Eastment, Paul Norton, 

Paul Reeves, and Ed Hancock. 2004. Building America Performance Analysis Procedures, 

Rev. 1. NREL/TP-550-35567. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Huber, Wolfgang. 1997. Standby Power Consumption in U.S. Residences. LBNL-41107. 

Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2005. Household Electrical Appliances – 

Measurement of standby power. IEC 62301:2005. Geneva, Switzerland. 

KEMA Xenergy. 2004. California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study. Prepared 

for the California Energy Commission. Arnhem, Netherlands: KEMA Xenergy. 

Krigger, John, and Chris Dorsi. 1994. Residential Energy: Cost Savings and Comfort for 

Existing Buildings. Helena, Mont.: Saturn Resource Management. 

Meier, Alan. 2002. Research Recommendations to Achieve Energy Savings for Electronic 

Equipment Operating in Low Power Modes. LBNL-51546. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Nordman, Bruce. 2004. Developing and Testing Low Power Mode Measurement Methods. 

California Energy Commission Report P500-04-057-A1. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Nordman, Bruce, and Marla McWhinney. 2006. Electronics Come of Age: A Taxonomy for 

Miscellaneous and Low Power Products. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in 

Buildings. Washington, D.C.: ACEEE. 

11
PG&E. 1997. Residential Energy Survey Report. San Francisco, Calif.: Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company. 

Pinckard, Margaret, Richard Brown, James Lutz, Evan Mills, Mithra Moezzi, and Celina 

Atkinson. 2003. Documentation of Calculation Methodology and Input Data for the Home 

Energy Saver Web Site. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Rainer, Leo, Jennifer Thorne Amann, Craig Hershberg, Alan Meier, and Bruce Nordman. 2004. 

What's on the TV: Trends in U.S. Set-Top Box Energy Use, Design, and Regulation. IEA 

Paper. Paris, France: International Energy Agency. 

Roberson, Judy, Gregory Homan, Akshay Mahajan, Burce Nordman, Carrie Webber, Richard 

Brown, Marla McWhinney, and Jonathan Koomey. 2002. Energy Use and Power Levels in 

New Monitors and Personal Computers. LBNL-48581. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory. 

Rosen, Karen, and Alan Meier. 1999a. Energy Use of Home Audio Products in the U.S. LBNL43468. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Rosen, Karen, and Alan Meier. 1999b. Energy Use of Televisions and Videocassette Recorders 

in the U.S. LBNL-42393. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Ross, J. P. and Alan Meier. 2000. “Whole-House Measurements of Standby Power 

Consumption.” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Energy Efficiency 

in Household Appliances. Naples, Italy: Association of Italian Energy Economics (Rome). 

Also published as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-45967. 

Sanchez, Marla, and Alan Meier. 1997. “The Rage for Aquaria.” In Home Energy Magazine, 

Sep/Oct 1997. Berkeley, Calif: Home Energy Magazine. 

Thorne, Jennifer, and Margaret Suozzo. 1998. Leaking Electricity: Standby and Off-Mode Power 

Consumption in Consumer Electronics and Household Appliances, Washington, D.C.: 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Wenzel, Tim, Jonathan Koomey, Gregory Rosenquist, Marla Sanchez, and James Hanford. 1997. 

Energy Data Sourcebook for the U.S. Residential Sector. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Zogg, Robert, and Deborah Alberino. 1998. Electricity Consumption by Small End Uses in 

Residential Buildings. Cambridge, Mass.: Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

12
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

August 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Development of an Energy-Savings Calculation Methodology for 

Residential Miscellaneous Electric Loads: Preprint 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-550-39551 

5e. TASK NUMBER

BET6.8004 

6. AUTHOR(S)

R. Hendron and M. Eastment 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/CP-550-39551 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

In order to meet whole-house energy savings targets beyond 50% in residential buildings, it will be essential that new 

technologies and systems approaches be developed to address miscellaneous electric loads (MELs). These MELs 

are comprised of the small and diverse collection of energy-consuming devices found in homes, including what are 

commonly known as plug loads (televisions, stereos, microwaves), along with all hard-wired loads that do not fit into 

other major end-use categories (doorbells, security systems, garage door openers). MELs present special 

challenges because their purchase and operation are largely under the control of the occupants. If no steps are 

taken to address MELs, they can constitute 40-50% of the remaining source energy use in homes that achieve 60-

70% whole-house energy savings, and this percentage is likely to increase in the future as home electronics become 

even more sophisticated and their use becomes more widespread. Building America (BA), a U.S. Department of 

Energy research program that targets 50% energy savings by 2015 and 90% savings by 2025, has begun to identify 

and develop advanced solutions that can reduce MELs. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Building America; U.S. Department of Energy; whole-house energy savings; residential buildings; miscellaneous 

electric loads; MEL; energy-consuming appliances; end-use category 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18