# 1998 Priority Setting

for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft June 27, 1997 

# 1998 Priority Setting for

, Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft June 27, 1997

### FISCAL 1998 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The following data sheets are the proposed priorities for the fiscal year 1998, by the Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets, the proposed priorities, and the proposed schedules. These proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 1998. Final priorities will be based on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Written comments should be submitted by August 4, 1997, 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. 

## FISCAL 1998 PRIORITY SETTINGFOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The following data sheets are the proposed priorities for the fiscal year 1998, by the Department ofEnergy, Office ofCodes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets, the proposed priorities, and the proposed schedules. These proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 1998. Final priorities will be 

### based on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Written comments should be submitted by August 4, 1997, 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.

## Table of Contents

Product Rulemaking Priority Page Product Rulemaking Priority Page Clothes Dryers Standards Low 1 High Intensity Discharge Lamps Determination Low 23 Test Procedure Low 2 Test Procedure Low 24 Clothes Washers Standards High 3 Lamps Standards Low 25 Test Procedure High' 4 Test Procedure Low 26 Commercial A/C & H. P. Standards Low 5 Mobile Home Furnaces Standards Low 27 Test Procedure High 6 Test Procedure Low 28 Comm

. Furnaces & Boilers Standards Low 7 Plumbing Fixtures/ Fittings Standards Low 29 Test Procedure High 8 Test Procedure High' 30 Commercial Water Heating Standards Low 9 Pool Heaters (Gas) Standards Low 31 Test Procedure High 10 Test Procedure Low 32 Cooking Products Standards High' 11 Refrigerators Standards Low 33 Test Procedure High' 12 Test Procedure Low 34 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas Standards Low 13 Res. Central A/C and H. P. Standards Medium 35 Test Procedure Low 14 Test Procedure High 36 Dishwashers Standards Low 15 Res
. Furnaces and Boilers Standards Low 37 Test Procedure Medium 16 Test Procedure Low 38 Distribution Transformers Determination High 17 Residential Water Heaters Standards High 39 Test Procedure 2 18 Test Procedure High' 40 Electric Motors, 1- 200 HP Standards Low 19 Room Air Conditioners Standards High' 41 Test Procedure High' 20 Test Procedure Low 42 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Standards High 2`1 Small Electric Motors Determination Low 43 I Test Procedure Low 22 Test Procedure Low 44 Drops to Low Priority upon completion s Moves to High Priority if positive determination 

## Table of Contents

Product Rulemaking Priority Page Product Rulemaking Priority Page Clothes Dryers Standards Low 1 High Intensity Discharge Lamps Determination Low 23 TestProcedure Low 2 TestProcedure Low 24 Clothes Washers Standards High 3 Lamps Standards Low 25 TestProcedure Highl 4 TestProcedure Low 26 CommercialAlC & H. P. Standards Low 5 Mobile Home Furnaces Standards Low 27 Test Procedure High 6 TestProcedure Low 28 Comm. Furnaces & Boilers Standards Low 7 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Standards Low 29 TestProcedure High 8 Test Procedure Highl 30 CommercialWater Heating Standards Low 9 Pool Heaters (Gas) Standards Low 31 Test Procedure High 10 Test Procedure Low 32

, Cooking Products Standards Highl 11 Refrigerators Standards Low 33 Test Procedure High I 12 Test Procedure Low 34 DirectHeating Equipment, Gas Standards Low 13 Res. CentralAlC and H. P. Standards Medium 35 Test Procedure Low 14 Test Procedure High 36 Dishwashers Standards Low 15 Res. Furnaces and Boilers Standards Low 37 Test Procedure Medium 16 Test Procedure Low 38 Distribution Transformers Determination High 17 ResidentialWaterHeaters Standards High 39 Test Procedure _2 18 Test Procedure Highl 40 Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Standards Low 19 Room Air Conditioners Standards Highl 41 Test Procedure High I 20 Test Procedure Low 42 FluorescentLamp Ballasts Standards High 2'1 SmallElectric Motors Determination Low 43 TestProcedure Low 22 Test Procedure Low 44

1 Drops to Low Priority upon completion 2 Moves toHigh Priorityifpositive determination

### Summary of Priorities Standards and Determinations (D) High Priority Products Page No. Low Priority Products (con't) Page No. Clothes Washers 3 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 7 Cooking Products' 11 Commercial Water Heating 9 Distribution Transformers (D) 17 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas 13 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 21 Dishwashers 15 Residential Water Heaters 39 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP 19 Room Air Conditioners' 41 High Intensity Discharge Lamps (D) 23 Lamps 25 Medium Priority Products Page No. Mobile Home Furnaces 27 Residential Central A/C and Heat Pump 35 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 29 Pool Heaters, Gas 31 Low Priority Products Page No. Refrigerators 33 Clothes Dryers 1 Residential Furnaces and Boilers 37 Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps 5 Small Electric Motors (D) 43 

### Test Procedures High Priority Products Page No. Low Priority Products Page No. Clothes Washers' 4 Clothes Dryers 2 Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps 6 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas 14 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 8 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 22 Commercial Water Heating 10 High Intensity Discharge Lamps 24 Cooking Products' 12 Lamps 26 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP' 20 >?> Mobile Home Furnaces 28 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings' 30 Pool Heaters, Gas 32 Residential Central A/C and Heat Pump 36 Refrigerators 34 Residential Water Heaters' 40 Residential Furnaces and Boilers 38 Room Air Conditioners 42 Medium Priority Products Page No. Small Electric Motors 44 Dishwashers 16 Distribution Transformers2 18 ' Drops to Low Priority upon Completion 2 Moves-to High Priority if positive determination 

### Summary ofPriorities Standards and Determinations (D) High Priority Products PageNo. Low PriorityProducts (con't) PageNo. Clothes Washers 3 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 7 Cooking Products! 11 Commercial WaterHeating 9 Distribution Transformers CD) 17 DirectHeating Equipment, Gas 13 FluorescentLamp Ballasts 21 Dishwashers 15 Residential WaterHeaters 39 Electric Motors, 1-200HP 19 Room Air Conditioners! 41 High IntensityDischargeLamps (D) 23 Lamps 25 Medium Priority Products PageNo. MobileHomeFurnaces 27 Residential Central AlC andHeat Pump 35 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 29 Pool Heaters, Gas 31 Low PriorityProducts PageNo. Refrigerators 33 Clothes Dryers 1 Residential Furnaces and Boilers 37 Commercial AlC and Heat 5 Small Electric Motors (D) 43 

### Test Procedures High Priority Products PageNo. PageNo•

.Clothes Washers! 4 

### 2 Commercial AlC and Heat P.umps 6 14 Commercial Furnaces 

### & Boilers 

### 8 FluorescentLamp Ballasts 

### 22 Commercial WaterHeating 10 High IntensityDischarge Lamps 24 Cooking Products! 12 26 Electric Motors, 1-200Hp! 20 

### 28 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings! 30 Pool Heaters, Gas 32 Residential Central AlC and Heat Pump 36 34 Residential Water Heaters! 40 Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

### 38 Room Air Conditioners 42 Medium Priority Products SmallElectric Motors 44 Dishwashers Distribution Transformers2 18 ! Drops to Low Priority upon Completion 2 Moves·to High Priority ifpositive determination

## Standards

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

Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential from Regulatory Action ; I energy savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues
FY 1997 Priority Not available Not available
Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation of new product class for condensing dryers DOE regulation of clothes washers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating clothes dryer standards should be given low priority. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. 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. Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.



### Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Clothes Dryers

- (GaslElectric) 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings TheDepartmenthas not conducted any recent analysis regarding**potenti~** from Regulatory Action; energy savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental Not available orEnergy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Reduced annual cycles needs to beconsidered. definitions and creation of Changes to Test newproduct class for condensing dryers Procedures Other RegulatoryActions DOE regulation ofclothes washers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for fulIline manufacturers. Recommendations by There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating Interested Parties clothes dryer standards should begiven lowpriority. Evidence ofMarket- Atleast threeU.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes Driven or Voluntary washers which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. EfficiencyImprovements Issues Significant dryer savings potential will beconsidered in clothes washer rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated to be 20 times morecost effective than thermal extraction. FY 1997 Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would belimited 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. OtherDOE standards will impose cumulativeburden on white good manufacturers.



## 1 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

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

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard
Low CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests and has asked DOE to consider revisions to the test procedure.

A new product class needs to be defined for condenser dryers. Currently there is one waiver in effect. The are numerous changes that are required prior to a standards rulemaking for clothes dryers. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders.



### 2 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Clothes Dryers

- (GaslElectric) Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard 

### Standard Priority ofStandard Low 

### International or Other CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests andhas asked DOE to consider 

### Coordinating Activities revisions to thetest procedure. 

### Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues A newproduct class needs to bedefined for condenser dryers. Currently there is one waiver in effect. The are numerous changes that are required prior to a standards rulemaking for clothes dryers. 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Considered to bea lowpriorityby stakeholders. 

### Level



### 2 

## Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Clothes Washers Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2002-2030

Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Total range considered: [ 0.6 - 11.5 ]' 

### Specific examples below: Iirv. Max tech. fill ctrl. & vert. axis Horz. axis Horz. axis In^rv. 

### 50% & 40% Horz. recirc. & recirc. & fill ctrl RMC RMC axis 

### 50% RMC 40% RMC 0.6 2.7 5.0 6.4 9.8 11.5
Potential benefits to consumers have not been quantified. High efficient 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. Test procedures need to be changed for standard. Final rule for test procedures expected 7/97. DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.
Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Star program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule ANOPR - 1/97 NOPR - 01/99 Final Rule - 12/99 Rationale for Priority Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy Level savings are large.

Based on rough estimates, complete analysis will be performed for the rulemaking. 

### 3 Draft - June 27, , 1997 Product: Clothes Washers 

### Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2002-2030

Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket· Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues FY 1997 Priority 

## Standards

Total range considered: [ 0.6

- 

### I1.S ]' Specific examples below: 

## ln1Jrv. Max tech. fill ctrl. & vert. axis HorZ. axis Horz. axis 

## ln1Jrv. SO% &40% Horz. recirc. & recirc. & fill ctrl RMC. RMC axis SO%RMC 40%RMC 0.6 2.7 

### S.O 6.4 

### 9.8 

### 11.S

Potential benefits to consumers have not been quantified. High efficient clothes washers require a new platfonn design and significant investment. Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenotbeen developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Testprocedures need to be changed for standard. Finalrulefor test procedures expected 7/97. DOEregulation ofclothes dryers. DOEregulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers.

Consortium for EnergyEfficiency program with utilities. Energy Star program. Federal EnergyManagement Program for procurement initiative. At least threeU.S. manufacturers aremarketing high efficient clothes washers. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule ANOPR-1I97 NOPR

- 01/99 Final Rule

- 12/99 Rationale for Priority Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy Level savings are large.



# . Based onrough estimates, complete analysis will be performedfor therulemaking. 

## 3 Draft

- June 21, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Clothes Washers Priority : High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion J
Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation- by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard High The Department will work with CSA to help Canada implement a test procedure consistent with DOE's revised clothes washer test procedure.

Final Rule issued FY97 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: - Proposed Schedule Final Rule - 7/97 Rationale for Priority Level This test procedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final rule is published, it will become a low priority.



### 4 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Clothes Washers 

### Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in TestProcedure not needed to bechanged for standard Standard Priority ofStandard High International or Other TheDepartment will work with CSA to help Canadaimplement a test**Coordinatin~** Activities procedure consistent with DOE'srevised clothes washer testprocedure. Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Final Rule issued FY97 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: ' Proposed Schedule Final Rule

- 7/97 Rationale for Priority This testprocedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is Level Dublished. Once the final rule is published itwill become a low priority.



## 4 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority 

### 7.3 2

Not available. 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. DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code of Federal Regulation. EPA phaseout of HCFC refrigerants.

None known.
Dependent upon revision ASHRAE 90.1 standards. Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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 Standards set by EPACT and will be ameneded upon revision of ASHRAE 

### Level 90.1

2 Based on PNNL rough estimate, May 1996. 

### Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Commercial Air 

## Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings 7.3 2 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenot 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. Status ofRequired DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code ofFederal Changes to Test Regulation. Procedures Other RegulatoryActions EPAphaseout ofHCFC refrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues Dependent upon revision ASHRAE 90.1 standards. FY 1997 Priority Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority
.Standards set byEP ACT and will be ameneded upon revision ofASHRAE Level 90.1

2 Based onPNNLrough estimate, May 1996. 

## 5 Draft

- J 

## nne 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code of Federal Regulation.



### 6 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Air 

### Conditioners 

## & Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standards set byEPACT and will be arneneded upon revision ofASHRAE Standard 90.1 Priority ofStandard 

### Low International or Other Coordinatinl?; Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code ofFederal Level Regulation.



### 6 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 1997 Priority 1

Not available. 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. DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code of Federal Regulation. Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality).

None known.
Dependent upon revision ASHRAE 90.1 standards.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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 Standards set by EPACT and will be ameneded upon revision of ASHRAE 

### Level 90.1

3 Based on PNNL rough estimate, May 1996. 

### 7 Draft- June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Commercial Furnaces 

### and Boilers 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings 1 3 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 1995-2030 0 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenotbeen 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. Status ofRequired DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code ofFederal Changes to Test ,- Regulation. Procedures Other Ree:ulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues Dependent upon revision ASHRAE 90.1 standards. FY 

### 1997 Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan to activelypursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would be liinited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Standards setbyEPACT and will be ameneded upon revision ofASHRAE Level 90.1

3 Based on PNNLrough estimate, May 1996. 

### 7 Draft- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Standard Priority of International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 IOW



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code of Federal Regulation.



### 8 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in 

### Standards setby

### EPACT and will be 

### ameneded upon revision ofASHRAE Standard 90.1 

### Priority ofStandard 

### Low International or Other**Coordinatin~** 

### Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code ofFederal Level Regulation.



### 8 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Commercial Water Heating Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings [0.21 - 1.2] from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 1. Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Not available. 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. DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code of Federal Regulation.

None known.
Dependent upon revision ASHRAE 90.1 standards. Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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 Standards set by EPACT and will be ameneded upon revision of ASHRAE 

### Level 90.1

4 Based on PNNL preliminary findings report, April 1996. 

### 9 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Commercial WaterHeating 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings [0.21

- 1.2]4 

### from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 

### 1. Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenotbeen 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. Status ofRequired DOE needs to incorporate ARl and ASHRAE standard into Code ofFederal Changesto Test Regulation. Procedures Other**Re~latorv** 

### Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues Dependent upon revision ASHRAE 90.1 

### standards. FY 1997 Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

## • DOE does notplan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Workwould belimited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Standards setbyEPACT and will be ameneded upon revision ofASHRAE Level 90.1

4 Based on PNNL preliminary fmdings report, April 1996. 

### 9 

### Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Commercial Water Heating Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code of Federal Re ulation.



### 10 Draft - June 27, 1997 Product: Commercial Water Heating 

### Priority: High 

## Test Procedure

Relationship to Changes in 

### Standards setbyEPACT and will be 

### ameneded upon revision ofASHRAE Standard 90.1 

### Priority ofStandard 

### Low International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority DOE needs to incorporate ARI and ASHRAE standard into Code ofFederal Level Regulation.



### 10 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Cooking Products - Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority : High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Total ranges considered:' Ovens Cook Tops Microwave Ovens [0.1-2.1] [0-0.5] [0-0.3] [ (9.3) - 0.11 [ (4.0) - 0.11 [ 0 - (4.7) ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% Microwave design option is highly speculative. SO2 [9-247] SO2 [0-67] SO2 [0-53] NOx [ 11 - 239 ] NOx [ 0 - 65 ] NOx [0-481 CO2 [ 6-133] CO2 [0-36] CO2 [0-25] Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. Reduction of annual energy consumption and incorporation of IEC 705 test procedure. Final rule for test procedures expected 7/97. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.

None known.
Use of ranges is declining in the U.S.. Pilotless designs may require additional wiring for installation. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule , Final Rule - 9/97 Rationale for Priority 2. Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings Level are low to moderate. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking. This rulemaking will remain high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final rule is published, it will become a low priority.

5 Based on DOE report, April 1996. 

### 11 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Cooking Products

- Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered: 5 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Ovens CookTops Microwave Ovens 

### 2000-2030 [0.1

- 2.1 ] [0

- 0.5 ] [ 0 - 0.3 ] Potential Economic 

### [ (9.3)

- 0.1 ] [ (4.0)

- 0.1 ] [0

- (4.7) ] NPV, billions of 

### 1990$ @ 

### 7% BenefitslBurdens Microwave design option is highly speculative. Potential Environmental S02 

### [9

- 247] S02 

### [0

- 67] S02 

### [0

- 53] or Energy Security NOx [ 11

- 

### 239 ] NOx 

### [0

- 65] NOx 

### [0- 48] Benefits CO2 [ 

### 6 - 133] CO2 

### [0

- 36] CO2 

### [0

- 25]
. Emission reductions in (kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2 , Status ofRequired Reduction ofannual energy consumption and incorporation ofIEC 

### 705 test Changes to Test procedure. Final rule for testprocedures expected 

### 7/97. Procedures Other RegulatorvActions DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues Use ofranges is declining in theU.S
.. Pilotless designs may require additional wiring for installation. FY 1997 Priority High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
. Final Rule

- 

### 9/97 Rationale for Priority 

### 2. Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings Level are low to moderate. Limited DOEresources needed to complete rulemaking. This rulemaking will remain high priority until the final rule is published. Oncethe final rule is published, it will become a low priority.

5 Based on DOEreport, April 1996. 

### 11 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Cooking Products - Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard. Hig
'Incorporate the International Electrotechnical Commission standard 705 and amendment 2 for microwave oven testing. Changes made to lower annual energy consumption were incorporated in the revised test procedure to correspond to the standard. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule - 7/97 Rationale for Priority Level This test procedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is ublished. Once the final rule is published, it will become a low riorit .



### 12 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Cooking Products

- Ovens, Cook Tops, Microwave Ovens Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion

International or Other Activities

Issues**~**Incorporate the International Electrotechnical Commission**stand~d** 705 and amendment 2 for microwave oven Changes made to lower annual energy consumption were incorporated in the revised test 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule

- 

### 7/97 

### Rationale for Priority This test procedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is 

### Level published. Once the final rule is published itwill become a low priority.



## 12 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 'Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues FY 1997 Priority Total range considered: [ 0 - 0.1 ]6 Specific examples below:' 

### 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. Final rule published 5/12/97.
None known that will impact product.

None known.
Venting safety issue. Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition. Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.

6 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.

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

### 13 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: DirectHeating Equipment 

### (Gas) Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action;

.Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030

Potential Economic Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarketDriven or Voluntary 1m rovements Issues Total range considered: [ 0 - 0.1 ]6 Specific examples below:7 

### Previous, Piezo ignit. & Previous & Condens. & Piezo ignit. Derate 20% Induced Draft Modular. Oper. 1(64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) (78.0% AFUE) (87.0% AFUE) 0.1 0 (0.3) (1.0) [ (1.4)

- 0.1 ] 

## o NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 0.1 

# o o 

# o

Noneknown. (7) (6) (3) (140) (132) (72) (320 ) (301 ) (165 )

Venting safety issue. Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup concern with electronic


### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed SchedUle DOE does notplan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would belimited 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.

6 Based on DOEpreliminary analysis, June 1995. 7 Examples shownfor design options andAFUEarefor gravity wall heaters (27

- 46 kBtuIhr). 

### 13 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 5/12/97



### 14 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: DirectHeating Equipment 

### (Gas) Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in 

### Test Procedure not needed to be

### changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard 

### Low International or Other**Coordinatin~** 

### Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued 5/12/97 Rationale for Priority Level



## .

14 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential from Regulatory Action ; I energy savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 1997 Priority Not available. 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. Test procedures may require revision to properly reflect energy consumption for new technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles needs to be considered. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should be given allow priority. Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least two U.S. manufacturers are marketing adaptive control dishwashers. 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). Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.



### 15 Draft - June 27, 1997 

### Product: Dishwashers 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other**Re~ulatory** Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarketDriven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues

FY 1997 Priority 

## Standards

TheDepartmenthas not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product. Not available. Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenot been developed however,**estimat~** energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are rilinimal. Testprocedures may requirerevision to properlyreflect energy consumption for new technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles needs to be considered. DOEregulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Somemanufacturers believethat updating the dishwasher standard should be given a low priority. Energy Saversprogram. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. Atleast two U.S. manufacturers are marketing adaptive control dishwashers. Increased efficiency may impactproduct utility (e.g. mayrequirepre-rinsing ofdishes or cleaning offllters) or the availability ofaffordable models (contract housing). Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan to activelypursuerulemaking in the next two years: Work would belimited 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. OtherDOE standards will impose cumulativeburden on white good manufacturers.



### 15 Draft

- June 27, 1997
.

## Test Procedure

Product: Dishwashers Priority : Medium

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard
Low

ology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule TBD Rationale for Priority Level New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic.



### 16 Draft m June 27, 1997 Product: Dishwashers 

### Priority: Medium

Relationship 

### to Changes in 

### Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinatin2Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## Test Procedure

Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard Low

New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic. 

### proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule TBD 

### Rationale for Priority New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic. 

### Level



## 16 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards Determination

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 1997 Priority [4.2-13.7]8

Not available. 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. Need to develop a test procedure before rule.

None known.
EPA Energy Star program for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's TP1 and the National Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy efficient electrical products. Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-1. Energy savings questioned by NEMA. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Notice of Determination - 7/97 Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, although industry believes it may be Level overstated. Determination required by EPACT. If positive determination is made, product will become a high priori!j standards.

8 Based on ORNL determination analysis, April 1996. 

### 17 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Determination Product: Distribution Transfonners 

### Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings [4.2-13.7]8 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions have notbeen developed however, or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits emissiqn benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Need to develop a test procedurebeforerule. Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None known. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- EPAEnergy Starprogram for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's 1P**Drive~** or Voluntary 1 and theNational Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy Efficiency Improvements efficient electrical products. Issues Most efficient designs includeproprietary technology. NEMArecommends adoption ofvoluntary standards as specified in 1P-l. Energy savings questioned byNEMA. FY 1997Priority High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Notice ofDetermination

- 

### 7/97 Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are large, although industry believes 

### itmaybe Level overstated. Determination required byEPACT. Ifpositive determination is made, product will become a high priority for standards.

8 Based on ORNL determination analysis, April 1996. 

### 17 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority : Low - Moves to High Priority if positive determination

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure need to be changed for standard. High

Dependant on determination 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Dependant on determination Rationale for Priority Level The test procedure will become a high priority if a positive determination is made.



### 18 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Distribution Transfonners 

### Priority: Low

- Moves to High Priority if

### positive determination



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Dependant on determination 

### Rationale for Priority Thetest procedure will beCome a high priority ifa positive determination is 

### Level made.



### 18 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDr * iven or Voluntary Efciency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Not Available.

Not Available. Not Available.
NEMA MG-1987 was amended 12/7/93. DOE proposing to adopt 1993 version. Final rule for test procedures expected Fall 1997. None known that will impact product.
ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities. Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ Some system efficiencies are regulated by DOE (e.g. HVAC) where motors are components of such systems. Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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 .



### 19 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Electric Motors, 

### I - 200 HP Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Not Available. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not Available. BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental Not Available. or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired NEMA MG-1987 was amended 

### 12nt93. DOEproposing to adopt 1993 Changes 

### to Test version. Final rule for test procedures expected Fall 1997. Procedures Other Regulatory Actions' None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortiumfor EnergyEfficiency" program with utilities. Dr,iven or Voluntary Motor Challenge. MotorMaster+ EfficiencyImprovements Issues Some system efficiencies ,are regulatedbyDOE (e.g. HV AC) wheremotors are components ofsuch systems. FY 

### 1997 Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would belimited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntaryprograms. Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy Level savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1999 (2000).



### 19 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Electric Motors, 1 200 HP Priority: High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard
Low



### Proposed'Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Proposed Rule Issued - 11/27/97 Final Rule - Fall 1997 Rationale for Priority Considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. This test procedure will Level remain a high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final rule is ublished it will become a low riorit .



### 20 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP 

### Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedureneeded to 

### be changed for standard 

### Standard Priority ofStandard 

### Low Internationalor Other**Coordinatin~** 

### Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed·Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Proposed RuleIssued

- 

### 11/27/97 Final Rule

- Fall 1997



### .Rationale for Priority Considered to

### be a high priorityby stakeholders. This test procedure will 

### Level remain a high priority until the final rule is published. Oncethe final ruleis Dublished itwill become a lowpriority.



### 20 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Total range considered: [ 0.4 - 5.3 ]9 Specific examples below:

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

FY 1997 Priority 

### Cathode Cutout Electronic Electronic Cathode / Electronic Rapid Start / Rapid Start / Cutout Rapid Start Instant Start Instant Start 0.4-2.7 1.4-5.1 1.5-5.3 1.7-5.5 [ 0.3 - 5.81 NPV, billions of 1994$ @ 7% 

### 0.3-1.6 2.2-5.6 2.5-5.7 2.5-5.8

Testing of electronic ballast may require revision to test procedure.

None.
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. Standards, for electronic ballasts, could adversely affect remaining U.S. manufacturers more than those overseas. NEMA believes that DOE should remove itself from promulgating standards for products that are components of larger systems. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Impact Workshop - NOPR - Final Rule - Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are moderate. Engineering analysis completed with Level strong endorsement from industry.

Based on DOE workshop, March 1997. 

### 21 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [OA
- 

### 5.3 ]9 

### Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Cathode Cutou Electronic Electronic 2000-2030 

### Cathode 

### I Electronic Rapid Startl Rapid Start 

### I Cutout Rapid Start Instant Start Instant Start 0.4-2.7 1.4-5.1 1.5-5.3 1.7-5.5 Potential Economic [0.3

- 5.8] NPV, billions of 1994$ @ 

### 7% BenefitslBurdens 0.3

- 1.6 2.2- 5.6 2.5

- 5.7 2.5

- 5.8 Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Testing ofelectronic ballast may require revision to test procedure. Changes to Test Procedures Other**Re~ulatory** 

### Actions None. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- EPA Green Lights and Energy Starbuildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's Driven or Voluntary Federal Relighting Initiative (FEMP), NEMA'sEnergyEfficient EfficiencyImprovements Procurement Collaborative, and some utility DSM programs. Issues 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. FY 1997 Priority High 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule ImpactWorkshop

-NOPRFinal RuleRationale for Priority Potential energy savings are moderate. Engineering analysis completed with Level strong endorsement from industrY.

9 Based on DOE workshop, March 1997. 

## 21 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard High



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



### 22 Draft - June 27, 1997 Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

### Priority: Low 

## Test Procedure

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard 

### Standard Priority ofStandard High 

### Internationalor Other**Coordinatin~** 

### Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



### 22 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards Determination

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

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

FY 1997 Priority 

### [0.11-0.22]10

Not Available. 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. IES and ANSI procedures are in place. Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply.
Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps. 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).



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Determination - Rationale for Priority Level Determination required by EPACT.

10 Based on DOE rough estimate, May 1996. 

### 23 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Determination Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) 

### Lamp Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings 

### [0.11-0.22]10 from Regulatory Action; 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. Status ofRequired IES and ANSI procedures are in place. Changes to Test Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. Procedures Other RegulatoryActions EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket· Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure Driven or Voluntary sodium lamps. EfficiencyImprovements Issues Concern about non-equitable impact ofpossible elimination ofmercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination ofmercury vapor lamps will require fixture replacement). FY 1997 Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Determination

- Rationale for Priority Determinationrequired byEPACT. Level

10 Based on DOErough estimate, May 1996. 

### 23 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

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

Relationship to Changes in I Test Procedure need to be changed for standard Standard Priority of Standard I Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues


### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Dependant on determination



### 24 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) 

### Lamp 

### Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure need to bechanged for standard Standard Priority ofStandard 

### Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Dependant on determination Rationale for Priority Level



### 24 '-



### Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Not Available. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens. Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions

Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Not Available. Not Available.
IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued 5/29/97 Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA is considering responses to a NOPR regarding a "conditional" exclusion from the hazardous waste designation or an inclusion of lamps into the Universal Waste Rule.
EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility DSM programs, FEMP. Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more difficult.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.



### 25 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards, Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Not Available. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not Available. BenefitslBurdens
. Potential Environmental Not Available. or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired IES and ANSIprocedures are in place, DOE testprocedureFinal Rule Changes to Test issued 5/29/97 Procedures Other Regu.atoryActions Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, butEPA is considering responses to a NOPRregarding a "conditional" exclusion from the hazardous waste designation or an inclusion oflamps into the Universal WasteRule. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and someutility Driven or Voluntary DSM programs, FEMP. EfficiencyImprovements Issues Because lamps arecomponents ofsystems, establishment ofstandards is more difficult. FY 1997Priority Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Workwouldbelimited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntaryprograms. 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 lamDs.



## 25 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard
Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 5/29/97



### 26 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent 

### Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in 

### Test Procedure not needed to be

### changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard 

### Low Internationalor Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued 5/29/97 

### Rationale for Priority Level



## 26 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Total range considered: [ 0.1 - 0.6 ] " 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) so, 16 

### 17 4 NOx 15 16 4 CO2 9 9 2 Emission reductions in (kt) for SO 2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO, Final rule issued 5/12/97.
None known that will impact product.

None known.
Venting safety issue. Fuel switching. Limited space for installation. Low



### oe 

### Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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 to moderate. Manufacturers recommend Level 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.

11 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

### 27 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Mobile Home Furnaces

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030

Potential Economic BenefitsfBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Total range considered: [ 

### 0.1

- 0.6 ]11


### Imprv.fan motor Gas 76.6% ARJE

Oil 

### Imprv. fan motor

82.1%ARJE 

### 0.1 motor 82.1%ARJE 

### 0.1 Specific examples below:



### Imprv. fan motor, ht. exchgr., condens. & 

### full modulation 93.7%ARJE 

### 0.5 [ (0.8)

- 0.1] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 

### 0.1 0.1 S02 

### 16 NOx 15 CO2 9 Emission reductions in Final rule issued 

### 5/12/97.

Noneknown. 17 

### 16 9 4 4 2



### ProDosed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to activelypursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would belimited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are low to moderate
..Manufacturers recommend Level packaging mobilehomefurnaces with residential furnaces. Higher standards levels requiring technologies, such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers. Other standard levels may cause safety concerns dueto venting issues.

11 Based on DOEpreliminary analysis, June 1995. 

### 27 Draft

- 

### June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard
Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued 5/12/97.



### 28 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low 

## Test Procedure

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard 

### Standard Priority ofStandard Low 

### International or Other Coordinatine:Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final rule issued 5/12/97. 

### Rationale for Priority Level



## 28 Draft

- 

## June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential from Regulatory Action ; energy savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 1997 Priority Not available. Not available.

None.

None known.
As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be carefully considered.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.



### 29 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Plumbing FixtureslFittings 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings TheDepartmenthas not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential from Regulatory Action; energy savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental Not available. or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- None known. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues 

### As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be carefully considered. FY 1997Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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 Dependentupon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI 

### Level Al12.18.1 and ASME/ANSI

### Al12.19.6.



### 29 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties. Statutory Deadline Issues Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Proposed Rule issued - Final Rule - Fall 1997 Rationale for Priority This test procedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is Level ublished. Once the final rule is ublished it will become a low riorit .



### 30 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Plumbing FixturesIFittings Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in 

### Standard Priority ofStandard Low 

### International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties. Statutory Deadline IsSues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Proposed Rule issued

- Final Rule

- Fall 1997 

### Rationale for Priority This testprocedure willremain a high priority until the final rule is 

### Level llublished. Once the final rule is published it will become a lowpriority.



## 30 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Total range considered: [ 0.2 - 0.9 ]12 Specific examples below: IID, (78% E,.) Non-cond. Limit, (82.2% E.) Condensing, (90.8%E,) 0.2 0.4 0.7 Potential Economic [ (1.4) - 0.2 1 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/Burdens 0.2 0.2 Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority 

### (0.6) SO2 0 0 0 NOx 42 42 42 CO2 11 18 35 Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Final rule issued 5/12/97.
None known that will impact product.

None known.

Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.

12 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

### 31 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

## Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changesto Test Procedures Other**Re~ulatory** Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarketDriven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues FY 

### 1997Priority 

## Standards

Total range considered: [ 0.2

- 0.9 ]12 Specific examples below: TID, (78%

## Er) Non-cond. Limit, (82.2% 

### Er) Condensing, (90.8% 

### Er) 0.2 0.4 0.7 [ (1.4)

- 0.2] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% 0.2 0.2 (0.6) S02 0 0 0 NOx 42 42 42 CO2 11 18 35 Emission reductions in (kt) for SOo and NOx, and (Mt) for COo. Final rule issued 5/12/97.



### . None known that will impactproduct.

None known.

Low 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would belimited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriorityproduct. Potential energy Level savin!!s are low.

12 Based on DOEpreliminary analysis, June 1995. 

## 31 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority I Level Final rule issued 5/12/97.



### 32 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

## Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in 

### Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## Test Procedure

Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. Low



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final rule issued 5/12/97. 

### Rationale for Priority Level



## 32 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

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

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens

Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority Total range considered: [ 5.0 - 12.6113 Specific examples below: 2003 Alternative Joint Comments Highest Level Refrigerators 5.0 7.0 10.6 Freezers included above 0.5 2.0 [ TBD - 9.1 1 NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7%. 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. SO2 not available 1017 1720 NOx not available 1065 1635 CO2 not available 540 914 Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. No changes required for standards.
EPA phaseout of insulation HCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers.
Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity of new high efficiency models are being marketed. Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997 High. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule - 4/28/97 Rationale for Priority Level Rule issued.

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

### 33 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorlFreezers, 

## & Freezers 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 5.0

- 12.6 ]13 

### Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2003**Al~math:~** 

### Joint Cornmentf!**Higb~t** 

### l&veI. 

### 1998-2030 Refrigerators 5.0 7.0 10.6 Freezers included above 0.5 2.0 Potential Economic [TBD -9.1 ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 

### 7%. BenefitslBurdens 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 S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2 , Status ofRequired No changes required for standards. Changes to Test Procedures OtherRegulatoryActions EPA phaseout ofinsulation HCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New YorkHousing Driven or Voluntary Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantity EfficiencyImprovements ofnew high efficiency models are being marketed. Issues Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997 FY 

### 1997 Priority High. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule

- 4/28/97 

### Rationale for Priority Rule issued. Level

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

### 33 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

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

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard, except for vented refrigerator. Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule for vented refrigerator - 8/97



### 34 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorlFreezers, & Freezers 

### Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to bechanged for standard, except for vented 

### Standard refrigerator. 

### Priority ofStandard 

### Low Internationalor Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final rulefor vented refrigerator

- 

### 8/97 

### Rationale for Priority Level



### 34 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

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

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 14 Total range considered: [ 2.0 - 13.1 1 Specific examples below: Cumulative (Quads) 111SEER 12 SEER 14 SEES LEER '5 1995

-2030 2.0 4.0 8.2 13.1 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority [ (19.8) - 8 .1 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% not avail
. not avail
. 8.1 (19.8) 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. Changes required for standards.
EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant. DOE regulation of furnaces.
Energy Star program recommending a 12 SEER.
ARI rejected the engineering analysis methodology. Regional variation. Medium 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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.

14
15 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. 

### 35 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Residential Central 

### Air Conditioners 

## & HeatPumps 

### Priority: Medium

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 2.0

- 13.1 ] 14 

### Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 11**~EER** 

### 12 SEER HSEER 16 SEER 15 

### 1995-2030 2.0 4.0 8.2 13.1 Potential Economic [ (19.8)

- 8.1 ] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 

### 7% BenefitslBurdens not avail. not avail. 8.1 (19.8) Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenotbeen developed however, or Energy Security estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative Benefits emission benefits that are likely to be**possibl~.** 

### Expected·oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes required for standards. Changes to 

### Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions
. EPA phaseout ofHCFC-22 refrigerant. DOEregulation offurnaces. Recommendations by
. Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- Energy Starprogram recommending a 12 SEER. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues ARIrejected the engineering analysis methodology. Regional variation. FY 1997 Priority Medium 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking. For example, conducting a screening workshop for a standards rulemaking Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings arelarge, butEPA regulation ofHCFCs warrants Level

14 15 

### caution on rulemaking, although in FY 97 preliminary work can be performed.

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

## 35 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Residential Central. Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard

Many changes to accommodate new technology. 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Workshop - 8/97 NOPR - 10/97 Rationale for Priority Work is almost complete for draft of new test procedure. Level



### 36 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Central 

### Air Conditioners 

### & Heat Pumps 

## Priority: High

Relationship to Changes in TestProcedureneeds to be changed for standard 

### Standard Priority ofStandard Medium 

### Internationalor Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Many changes to accommodate new technology. 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: ProposedSchedule Workshop

- 

### 8/97 NOPR-: 

### 10/97 

### Rationale for Priority Workis almost completefor draft ofnew testprocedure. 

### Level



### 36 Draft

- June 27, 1997

### Standards

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Total range considered: [ 0.6 - 10.2



### Gas Furnaces Insul., IID, imprv.

fan motor, & two stage oper. (81.8% AFUE) Gas Boilers
Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions
Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priority 

### III) (81.8% AFUE) 0.6 Not available. 16 Specific examples below: 

### Previous & condensing (92% AFUE) III) & pulse condensing (90.4% AFUE) 

### 3.7 Gas

absorption heat pump Gas absorption heat pump 10.2
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 more significant than other products. Final rule issued 5/12/97
Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). DOE regulation of central air conditioning products. Consumer Product Safety Commission - possible regulation
Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensing furnace/boiler program. ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. Venting safety issue. Regional analysis. Industry opposes Gas absorption heat pump as a design option, suggest new product class Low 

### Pr oe Schedule

1 n Rationale Proposed 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.

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

### 37 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Residential Furnaces & 

### Boilers Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0.6

- 10.2 ]16 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Insul., TID, imprv. Cumulative (Quads) 

### fan motor, 

### & two Previous 

### & 

### Gas 2000-2030 

### Gas stageoper. condensing absorption Furnaces (81.8% AFUE) 1(92%AFUE) heatpump lID 

### & pulse 

### Gas Gas TID condensing absorption Boilers (81.8% AFUE) 1(90.4% AFUE) heatpump 

### 0.6 

## 3.7 10.2 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens

, Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions havenot 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. Status ofRequired Final rule issued 5/12/97 Changes to Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). DOE regulation ofcentral air conditioning products. Consumer Product Safety Cortunission

- possible regulation Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- Energy Starprogram. Wisconsin state condensing furnacelboiler program. Driven or Voluntary ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. EfficiencyImprovements Issues Venting safety issue. Regional analysis. Industry opposes Gas absorption heat pump as a design option, suggest new product class FY 

### 1997 Priority Low 

### ProDosed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in thenext two years. Any work would belimited 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.

16 Based on OOErough estimatefor gas only, May 1996. 

## 37 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard
Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued 5/12/97



### 38 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Furnaces & 

## Boilers Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be

### changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard Low 

### International or Other**Coordinatin~** 

### Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final rule issued 5/12/97 Rationale for Priority Level



## 38 Draft

- June 27, 1997

### Standards

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

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1996-2030 (Electric) 1999

-2030 (Gas/Oil) Total ranges considered: Gas & Oil: [0.4-16.5]5 Specific examples below:
R16 R25 Insul., Insul. & flue baffle

### Heat & III) w/ CondenGas Traps flue damp. sing 1" Foam Insul . & 2" Foam Heat Insul. & 

### Previous

& Mult. Oil Tra s I Heat Traps I Flue 

### 1.7 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits
Status of Required Changes to Test, Procedures Other Regulatory Actions
Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priori 

### 5.9 16.5 Electric: [ 0.1 - 41.1 ] 17
Electric Rd. Ht. imprv. Leak, Ht. resist. & Traps & Add-on Insul . Heat Pump (imprv. resist.)



### 0.6 1 28.2 [ 0.7 - 26.0 1 NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% 1.7 (1.6) (12.1) 0.8 

### 39.6 imprv. resist. & Integral Heat Pump



### 41.1 38.0 SO2 (14) (327) (2406) 132 4897 7093 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. Changes required for standards. Final rule for test procedures expected Summer 1997. EPA phaseout of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Consumer Product Safety Commission requirement for vapor ignition issue.

Fuel switching. Venting safety issues. Lack of infrastructure for HP water heater. Diverse range of hot water usage among households. High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule NOPR - 06/98 

### Final Rule - 12/98 Rationale for Priority Level

17 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. 

### 39 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Residential WaterHeaters

- 

### Gas, Oil & 

### Electric 

### Priority: High

Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered: from Regulatory Action; Gas & Oil: [0.4

- 16.5 ]5 

### Electric: [0.1

- 41.1 ]17 

### Cumulative (Quads) Specific examples below: 1996-2030 (Electric)

. Electric 1999-2030 (Gas/Oil) !R16 R25 Insul., Rd. Ht. imprv. imprv. Insul. & flue baffle Leak, Ht. resist. & resist. & Heat &IIDw/ Conden- Traps & Add-on Integral Gas Traps flue damp. sing Insul. HeatPump HeatPump I"Poam (imprv. resist.) Insul. & 2"Poam Previous Heat Insul. & & Mult. Oil Traps HeatTraps Flue 1.7 5.9 16.5 0.6 28.2 41.1 Potential Economic [ 0.7

- 26.0 ] NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 

### 7% BenefitslBurdens 1.7 (1.6) (12.1) 0.8 39.6 38.0 Potential Environmental S02 (14) (327) (2406) 132 4897 7093 orEnergy Security NOx (12) (596) (2261) 107 4450 6365 Benefits 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. Status ofRequired Changes required for standards. Final rule for test procedures expected Changes to Test. Summer 1997. Procedures Other RegulatoryActions EPA phaseout ofHCFCs for insulation (2003). P9ssible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air qUality). 

### Consumer Product Safety Commission requirement for vapor ignition issue. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarketDriven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues Fuel switching. Venting safety issues. Lack ofinfrastructurefor HP water heater. Diverse range ofhot water usage among households. FY 1997 Priority High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule NOPR- 06/98 

### Final Rule

- 12/98 Rationale for Priority Level

17 Based on DOEanalysis June 29, 1995, for gas/oil waterheaters and 1993 TSD forEightProduct NOPRfor electric water heaters. Low energy savings forimprovedresistance electric waterheatersresult from an aggressive market induced efficiency assumption. 

### 39 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Residential Water Heaters

- Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard Hig



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule - Summer 1997 Rationale for Priority Level This test procedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is ublished. Once the final rule is ublished it will become a low riorit .



### 40 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Water Heaters

- Gas, Oil & 

## Electric Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Relationship to Changes in 

### Standard International or Other



## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule

- Summer 1997 Rationale for Priority This test procedure will remain a high priority until the final rule is Level published. Once the final rule is published it will become a lowpriority.



## 40 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards

Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority : High - Drops to Low Priority upon completion

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 0.4 - 1.0 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Level 2000 -2030 Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens

Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested PartiesEvidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 1997 Priori Specific examples below: 

### 4 5 New Lv119 

### 1.0 0.7 0.5 (0.3) (10.9) 0.5 Certain standard levels could require costly chassis changes and eliminate niche products.



### 1 0.4 0.5 3 0.7 

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

0.4 0.5 0.6

SO2 59 86 ill 149 33 79 NOx 55 80 104 141 51 , 74 CO2 30 44 57 79 51 41 Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. Not required for standards.
EPA phaseout of HCFC-22 refrigerant.
DSM programs

. Labeling program very effective.

High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule - 10/97 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 rulemakng. This rulemaking will remain high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final rule is published, it will become a low priority.

18 Based on DOE report, April 1996. 19 The EER's corresponding to the "New Lvl" are the same as those published in the Federal Register Notice - FR Jan 29, 1997 "Limited Reopening of the record and opportunity for public comment" 

### 41 Draft June 27, 1997 

## Standards Product: Room Air Conditioners 

### Priority: High

- Drops to 

### Low Priority upon completion

Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [ 

### 0.4

- 1.0 j18 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Level 

### 1 2 

### 3**~** 

### 5**N~Lv119** 2000 -2030 

### 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.5 Potential Economic 

### [(10.9)

- 0.6] NPV, Billions of 

### 1990$ @ 

### 7% BenefitslBurdens 

### 0.4 0.5 0.6 (0.3) (10.9) 0.5 Certain standard levels could require costly chassis changes and eliminate nicheproducts. Potential Environmental S02 

### 59 86 111 149 33 79 orEnergy Security NOx 

### 55 80 104 141 51 74 Benefits CO2 

### 30 44 

### 57 79 51 41 Emission reductions in (kt) 

### for SO, and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Status ofRequired Not required for standards. Changes to Test Procedures Other RegulatorvActions EPA phaseout ofHCFC-22 refrigerant. Recommendations hy Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. Driven or Voluntary EfficiencvImprovements Issues FY 

### 1997Priority High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule

- 

### 10/97 Rationale for Priority Interested PartieS recommended high priority. Potential energy,savings are Level moderate and based on.incremental technology. LimitedDOE resources needed to completerulemaking. Thisrulemaking will remain high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final ruleis published, it will 

### become a low priority.

18 Based on DOEreport, April 1996. 19 TheEER's corresponding tothe "NewLvI" are the same asthosepublished in the Federal RegisterNotice

- FRJan 29, 1997 "Limited Reopening ofthe record and opportunity forpubliccomment" 

## 41 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Hig



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



### 42 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Product: Room Air Conditioners 

## Priority: Low 

## Test Procedure

Test Procedure not needed to bechanged for standard


### International or Other

Issues 

## Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



### 42 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Standards Determination

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of MarketDriven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 1997 Priority [0.8-4.5120

Not available. 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. IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review.
Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) are exempt.

None known.

None.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed 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

20 Based on draft DOE report, May 1996. 

### 43 Draft - June 27, 1997 

## Standards Determination Product: Small Electric Motors 

### Priority: Low

Potential Energy Savings 

### [O.8-4.5fo from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 1998-2030 Potential Economic Not available. 

### BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental Specific estimates ofemission reductions have notbeen 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. 

### Status ofRequired IEEE test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. 

### Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Small motors used in NAECA "coveredproducts" (e.g. white goods) are exempt. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket- NoneknoWll. 

### Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues None. 

### FY 1997 Prior!ty Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOEplans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking. For example, conducting a screening workshop for a standards rulemaking. 

### Rationale for Priority Potential energy savings are moderate. Determination required byEPACT. 

### Level

20 Based on draftDOE report, May 1996. 

### 43 Draft

- June 27, 1997

## Test Procedure

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues


### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Dependant on Determination Rationale for Priority i Level



### Draft - June 27, 1997 Product: Small Electric Motors 

### Priority: Low

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard 

### Low International or Other Coordinatin2Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

## Test Procedure

Proposed Schedule Dependant on Detennination 

### Rationale for Priority Level



### 44 Draft

- June 27, 1997