## APPENDIX A: 

## FY2005 Technical Support Document (TSO)Table ofContents
A 1 Introduction

............................................................................................ 1-1 

### Al.I Overview ofMethodology for Energy Consumption and Savings EstimatesI-2. Al.2 Calculation Approach for Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates

... I-3 Al.2.1 DeviceAnnualEnergy Consumption (AEC) Estimates
............................. 1-3 Al.2.1.1 Powerdraw by mode, 

### Pm··········································································· 1-4 Al.2.1.2 Annual Usage, 

### Tm······················································································· 1-4 Al.2.1.3 ProductInstalledBase, 8

........................................................................... 1-5 Al.2.2 CumulativeEnergy Savings Estimates
....................................................... 1-5 A2 Cooking Products - Gas & Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and .Microwave Ovens.......................................................................................................2-1 

### A2.I Background

................................................................................................ 2-I A2.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
............................. 2-2 A2.3 TestProcedure Status

................................................................................. 2-5 A2.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 2-5 A2.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens

............................................ 2-6 A2.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 2-6 A3 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas.............................................................3-1 

### A3.I Background

................................................................................................ 3-I A3.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
............................. 3-2 A3.3 TestProcedure Status

................................................................................. 3-4 A3.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 3-4 A3.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens

............................................ 3-5 A3.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 3-5 A4 Dishwashers (Residential).....................................................................4-1 

### A4.I Background

................................................................................................ 4-I A4.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence
...........................4-I A4.3 Test Procedure Status

.................................................................................4-2 A4.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

..............................................4-3 A4.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

............................................. 4-4 A4.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 4-4 AS Electric Motors, 1-200 HP ......................................................................5-1 

### ·As.I Background

................................................................................................ 5-I A5.2 ProductTechnology Descriptions and Market Presence
........................... 5-2 A5.2.1 Motor Types
............................................................................................... 5-2 A5.2.2 MotorDesign Efficiency Measures
............................................................ 5-3 A5.2.3 Regulations and Voluntary Energy EfficiencyPrograms
.......................... 5-3 ·AS.3 Test Procedure Status

................................................................................. 5-6 A5.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 5-7 A5.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

............................................. 5-9 A5.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 5-9 A6 Pool Heaters, Gas...................................................................................6-1 

### .A6.I Background

................................................................................................ 6-I A6.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
............................. 6-I A6.3 Test Procedure Status

................................................................................. 6-2 A6.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 6-2 A6.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens

............................................ 6-3 A6.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 6-3Table of Contents (continued)
A7 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Refrigerators 7-1 

### A7.l Background

................................................................................................ 7-1 A7.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
............................. 7-2 A7.3 Test Procedure Status

................................................................................. 7-5 A7.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 7-7 A7.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

............................................. 7-8 A7.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 7-8 AS Room Air Conditioners ..........................................................................8-1 

### A8.l Background

................................................................................................ 8-1 A8.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
............................. 8-2 .A8.3 Test Procedure Status

................................................................................. 8-4 A8.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 8-4 A8.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

............................................. 8-5 A8.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 8-5 A9 Battery Chargers I External Power Supplies

.......................................9-1 

### A9.1 Background

................................................................................................ 9-1 A9.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
............................. 9-2 A9.3 TestProcedure Status

................................................................................. 9-4 A9.4 Pending Energy Legislation

....................................................................... 9-4 A9.5 International Test Procedures

.................................................................... 9-5 A9.6 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

.............................................. 9-5 A9.7 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

.......................... 9-6 A10 Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines............ 10-1 

### AlO.l Background

.............................................................................................. 10-1 Al0.2 Test Procedure Status

............................................................................... 10-2 

### Al0.2.1 Vending Machines

.................................................................................... 10-2 Al0.2.2 Beverage Merchandisers

......................................................................... 10-3 Al0.3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations, and Technology Description and MarketPresence
........................................................................................................... 10-4 Al0.4 Regulatory Action

.................................................................................... 10-7 Al0.5 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 10-7
· A11 Ceiling Fans ..........................................................................................11-1 

### 'Al 1.1 Background

.............................................................................................. 11-1 Al 1.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
........................... 11-1 Al 1.3 TestProcedure Status

............................................................................... 11-3 Al 1.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 11-5 A11.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

........................................... 11-6 Al 1.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 11-6 A12 Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 12-1 

### Al2.l Background

.............................................................................................. 12-1 Al2.2 TestProcedure Status

............................................................................... 12-2 Al2.3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations, and Technology Description and Market Presence
........................................................................................................... 12-5 Al2.4 Regulatory Action

.................................................................................. 12-10 Al2.5 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

...................... 12-11 A13 Gas Unit Heaters I Gas Duct Furnaces............................................... 13-1

iiTable of Contents (continued)
A13.1 A13.2 AJ3.2.1 A13.2.2 A13.3 A13.4 Al3.5 A13.6 A14 A14.1 A14.2 A14.3 A14.4 A14.5 A14.6 A15 Al5.l A15.2 A15.3 A15.4 A15.5 A15.6 A16 A16.l A16.2 A16.3 A16.4 A16.5 A16.6 A17 A17.1 A17.2 A17.3 A17.4 A17.5 A17.6 A18 A18.l A18.2 Al8.3 A18.4 A18.5 A18.6 A19 A19.l A19.2 A19.3 Background

............................................................................,................. 13-1 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Information

.................... 13-1 Gas UnitHeaters
..................................................................................... 13-1 Gas DuctFurnaces
.................................................................................. 13-2 TestProcedure Status

............................................................................... 13-3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 13-4 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

........................................... 13-5 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 13-5 Illuminated Exit Signs .......................................................................... 14-1 Background

.............................................................................................. 14-1 Product Technology Descriptions and MarketPresence
......................... 14-1 Test Procedure Status

............................................................................... 14-2 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 14-3 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

.....................;..................... 14-4 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 14-4 Lamps, Incandescent Reflector - ER/BR ........................................... 15-1 Background

.............................................................................................. 15-1 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence
......................... 15-1 TestProcedure Status

............................................................................... 15-2 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 15-3 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

........................................... 15-4 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 15-5 Large Unitary Air Conditioners (;:::: 240 kBtu/hr)

................................. 16-1 Background

.............................................................................................. 16-1 Product Technology Descriptions and MarketPresence
......................... 16-2 Test Procedure Status

............................................................................... 16-4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 16-5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

........................................... 16-5 Issues Impacting Potential EnergyEfficiency Standards

........................ 16-6 Residential Furnace Fans.................................................................... 17-1 Background

.............................................................................................. 1 7-1 Product TechnologyDescription and MarketPresence
........................... 17-1 Test Procedure Status

............................................................................... 17-3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 17-3 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens

.......................................... 1 7-4 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 17-4 Torchieres ............................................................................................. 18-1 Background

.............................................................................................. 18-1 Product Technology Descriptions and MarketPresence
......................... 18-1 TestProcedure Status

............................................................................... 18-3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations

............................................ 18-5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

........................................... 18-6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 18-6 Traffic Signal Modules ......................................................................... 19-1 Background

.............................................................................................. 19-1 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence
......................... 19-1 Test Procedure Status

............................................................................... 19-3

iiiTable of Contents {continued)
A19.4 A19.5 A19.6 Energy Savings Estimates and CalCulations

............................................ 19-3 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden

........................................... 19-4 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

........................ 19-5

ivList of Figures
Figure Al-1: The Development ofProduct Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates

......................................... 1-2 Figure Al-2: AEC Calculation Methodology (from ADL, 2002)

............................................................................... 1-4 .Figure Al-3: Energy Savings Potential Model for 2010-2035

.................................................................................... 1-7



### vList ofTables

Table Al-1: Products Addressed in Technical Support Document
............................................................................. 1-1 Table Al-2: Product Priority-Setting Criteria

............................................................................................................. 1-2 Table A1-3: Market Dynamics not Considered in Annual Energy Consumption and Energy Savings Estimates

....... 1-3 Table Al-4: Usage Pattern Mode Definitions

.............................................**~······························································** 1-5 Table Al-5: Definition ofTechnology/Standard Levels

............................................................................................. 1-6 Table A2-1: Cooking Product Background Data
........................................................................................................2-2 Table A2-2: Cooking Product UEC Values

................................................................................................................2-4 Table A2-3: Cooking Product Retail Prices

................................................................................................................2-5 Table A2-4: Cooking Product Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

........................................2-6 Table A3-1: Direct Heating Equipment Background Data
.........................................................................................3-2 Table A3-2: Direct Heating Equipment Efficiency Levels and UEC Values

..............................................................3-3 Table A3-3: Direct Heating Equipment Retail Prices

.................................................................................................3-4 Table A3-4: Direct Heating Equipment Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

.........................3-5 Table A4-l: Residential Dishwasher Background Data
...............................................................................................4-1 Table A4-2: Residential DishwasherTechnology Levels and Energy FactorValues

..................................................4-1 Table A4-3: Residential Dishwasher Current Energy Consumption and Potential Saving Estimates

..........................4-3 Table A5-1: Industrial SectorMotors, 1-200HP Background Data
.............................................................................5-1 Table A5-2: Commercial SectorMotors, l-200HP, Subject to EPAct, Background Data
...........................................5-1 Table A5-3: Open Drip-Proof(ODP) Motor Full-load Efficiencies at Representative Levels (based on EPACT-1992, CEE-2001, .NEMA 2001)

...............................................................................................................................................................5-5 Table A5-4: Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled (TEFC) Motor Full-load Efficiencies at Representative Levels (based on EPACT1992, CEE-2001, NEMA-2001)

..................................................................................................................................5-5 Table A5-5: Installed base efficiency estimates for industrial motors, 1998 (OIT-2002)

............................................5-6 Table A5-6: Installed base efficiency estimates for commercial motors, 1999 (ADL-1999)

.......................................5-6 Table A5-7: AEC Savings from Increasing 1-200HP EPAct Motor Efficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels, Industrial Motors
..........................................................................................................................................................................5-8 Table A5-8: AEC Savings from Increasing 1-200HP EPAct Motor Efficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels, Commercial Motors
..........................................................................................................................................................................5-8 Table A5-9: AEC Savings from 2010-2035 from Increasing 1-200HP EPAct Motor Efficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels

.................................................................................................................................................................................:...5-9 Table A5-Al. Annual Energy Consumption, Industrial Motors, Default scenario

....................................................5-13 Table A5-A2. Annual Energy Consumption, Industrial Motors, EPACT scenario

....................................................5-13 Table A5-A3. Annual Energy Consumption, Industrial Motors, NEMA Premium scenario

.....................................5-13 Table A5-A4 Savings comparison: EPACT vs. NEMA Premium, Industrial Motors
................................................5-14 Table A6-l: Pool Heater Background Data
................................................................................................................6-1 Table A6-2: Pool Heater Technology Levels and UEC Values

..................................................................................6-2 Table A6-3: Pool Heater Retail Prices

........................................................................................................................6-2 Table A6-4: Pool Heater Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

................................................6-3 Table A7-1: Standard Refrigerator, Freezer, and Compact Refrigerator Background Data
........................................7-2 Table A7-2: Standard-Size Refrigerator-FreezerTechnology Levels and UEC Values

.............................................7-4 .Table A7-3: FreezerTechnology Levels and UEC Values

.........................................................................................7-4 Table A7-4: Compact RefrigeratorTechnology Levels and UEC Values

..................................................................7-4 Table A7-5: Standard-Size Refrigerator-FreezerRetail Prices

...................................................................................7-5 Table A7-6 FreezerRetail Prices

................................................................................................................................7-5 Table A7-7: Compact Refrigerator Retail Prices

........................................................................................................7-5 Table A7-8: Refrigerator Potential Energy and Economic Impact Estimates

.............................................................7-7 Table A8-l: Room Air Conditioner Background Data
...............................................................................................8-1 .Table A8-2: Room Air ConditionerTechnology andUEC Values

.............................................................................8-3 Table A8-3: Room Air Conditioner Retail Prices

.......................................................................................................8-3 Table A8-4: Room Air Conditioner Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

...............................8-5 Table A9-l: Background Data on Battery Chargers and Power Supplies

...................................................................9-1 Table A9-2: Battery Charger and Power Supply UECs

..............................................................................................9-3 Table A9-3: Battery Charger andPower Supply Savings Potential Estimate

.............................................................9-6 Table A10-1: Installed Base Data for Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

.......................................... 10-1 .Table A10-2: Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

- Energy Saving Potential Estimates

...................... 10-4 Table A11-1: Ceiling Fan Background Data
............................................................................................................. 11-1 Table Al 1-2: Ceiling Fan Lighting UEC

.................................................................................................................. 11-1 Table Al 1-3: Ceiling Fan MotorUEC

...................................................................................................................... 11-2 Table Al 1-4: Ceiling Fan UEC and Energy Savings Potential (Fan Energy Only)

.................................................. 11-5 Table Al 1-5: Ceiling Fan UEC and Energy Saving Potential (Lighting Only)

........................................................ 11-6 Table Al2-1: Installed Base Datafor Reach-In Freezers and Reach-In Refrigerators

.............................................. 12-2 Table A12-2: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Freezers
.................................................................. 12-5
viList ofTables (continued)

Table Al2-3: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Refrigerators

.......................................................... 12-7 Table A12-4: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Refrigerator-Freezers

............................................. 12-9 Table Al2-5: Total Savings Potential for Reach-in Freezers, Reach-in Refrigerators, and Reach-in Refrigerator-Freezers 12-10 Table Al3-l: Gas Unit Heater and Duct Furnace Data
............................................................................................. 13-1 Table Al3-2: Gas Unit Heater Efficiency

................................................................................................................. 13-2 Table Al3-3: Gas Duct Furnace Efficiency

.............................................................................................................. 13-3 Table A13-4: Gas Unit HeaterUEC and Potential Saving Estimates

....................................................................... 13-4 Table A13-5: Gas Duct Furnace UEC and Potential Saving Estimates

.................................................................... 13-4 Table Al3-Al: Gas Unit Heaters and Duct Furnaces Annual Shipments (Source: GAMA 2003)

............................ 13-7 Table Al3-A2: Gas Unit Heaters AEC Calculation

................................................................................................... 13-8 Table Al3-A3: Gas Duct Furnaces Load Data
.......................................................................................................... 13-9 Table A13-A4: Gas Duct Furnace AEC Calculation

................................................................................................. 13-9 Table A13-A5: Gas Unit Heaters and Duct Furnaces Savings Potential... ................................................................. 13-9 Table Al4-l: Exit Signs Background Data
............................................................................................................... 14-1 Table Al4-2: Exit Sign Technology Levels and Wattage Values

............................................................................. 14-1 Table Al4-3: ENERGY STAR® Requirements for Exit Signs

...................................................................................... 14-2 Table Al4-4: Exit Sign Installed Base, Wattage, and Usage Data
............................................................................ 14-3 Table Al4-5: Exit Sign AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates

...................................................................... 14-4 Table Al5-l: ER/BRBackground Data
.................................................................................................................... 15-1 Table Al5-2: ER/BR Technology Levels and Efficacy Values

................................................................................ 15-2 Table Al5-3: ER/BR Efficacy and Usage Data
........................................................................................................ 15-3 Table Al5-4: ER/BR AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates

......................................................................... 15-4 ·Table Al5-5: Incandescent Reflector Lamps
............................................................................................................ 15-4 Table Al6-l: Large Unitary (<:240kBtu/hour) Background Data for Major Unit Classes

......................................... 16-1 Table Al6-2: Large Unitary AirConditionerTechnology levels and UEC Values

................................................... 16-2 Table Al6-3: Energy Efficiency Levels

- Standards and Voluntary Efficiency ·Programs for Electrically Operated Air-Cooled Air-Conditioners and Heat-Pumps (in Cooling Mode Only)

..................................................................................... 16-3 Table Al6-4: Minimum External Static Pressure for Testing Unitary Products (from ARI 2000)

............................ 16-4 Table Al6-5: Energy Savings Potential Associated with Various Efficiency Improvements
................................... 16-5 TableAl7-1: Residential Furnace Fan Background Data
......................................................................................... 17-1 Table Al7-2: Residential Furnace Fan Technology Levels and UEC Values

........................................................... 17-2 Table Al7-3: Residential Furnace Fan Retail Prices

................................................................................................ 17-2 Table Al7-4: Residential Furnace Fan Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

......................... 17-4 Table Al8-l: Torchiere Background Data
................................................................................................................ 18-1 Table Al8-2: Torchiere Technology Levels and Wattage Values

............................................................................ 18-2 Table Al8-3: ENERGY STAR® Requirements for Indoor Lights

............................................................................ 18-3 Table Al8-4: Torchiere Wattage and Usage Data
.................................................................................................... 18-5 Table Al8-5: Torchieres AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates

.................................................................... 18-6 Table Al9-l: Traffic Signals Background Data
........................................................................................................ 19-1 Table Al9-2: Traffic Signal Technology Levels and Wattage Values

...................................................................... 19-2 Table Al9-3: Energy-Efficiency Criteria for ENERGY STAR® Qualified Traffic Signal Modules

............................. 19-2 Table Al9-4: Traffic Signals Installed Base, Wattage, andUsage Data
.................................................................... 19-3 Table Al9-5: Traffic Signals Sign AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates

..................................................... 19-4 TableAl9-6: California Energy Efficiency Standards for Traffic Signal Modules

.................................................. 19-4

viiA 1 Introduction

The primary goal ofthis Technical Support Document (TSD) is to explain the derivation of energy consumption and savings estimates for the products listed in Table Al-1. This TSD updates segments ofthe analysis contained inthe FY2003 priority-setting TSD and also includes analysis for products not contained in the FY2003 TSD. In anticipation ofthe possible passage ofnew federal energy legislation in 2004, the Departmentdecidedto prepare data sheets for products identified in the draft legislation. Should legislation be enacted, these products couldbe prioritized along with the products already in the Appliance Standards Program (or inthe coverage process).

Table Al-1: Products Addressed in Technical SupportDocument Existing Products Products in Coverage and/or Other, Previously Unevaluated Pending Legislation Products Cooking Products

- Gas & Electric Battery Chargers IExternal Power Large Unitary Air Conditioners Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and Supplies**(~** 240 kBtu/hr) Microwave Ovens Direct Heating Equipment, Gas Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines *Dishwashers (Residential) Ceiling Fans Electric Motors, 1-200 HP Commercial Reach-in Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers Pool Heaters, Gas Gas UnitHeaters I Gas Duct Furnaces Refrigerators and Refrigerator- Illuminated Exit Signs Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Refrigerators Room Air Conditioners Lamps, IncandescentReflector

- ER/BR Residential Furnace Fans Torchieres Traffic Signal Modules * Update to FY2003 Technical Support Document. In addition, this TSD provides product-specific information relating to the priority setting criteria shown in Table Al-2. These criteria are considered invarying degrees in setting the proposed priorities.

1-1TableAl-2: Product Priority-Setting Criteria Criteria Energy savings potential Potential economic benefits Iburdens Potential environmental orenergy security benefits Applicable deadlines for rulemakings Incremental DOEresources required to complete rulemaking process Evidence ofmarket-driven orvoluntary efficiency improvements Status ofrequired changes to test procedures Impact ofpotential regulation on product innovation Fuel neutrality Impact on peak demand for electricity Impact ofpotential regulation on small businesses Cumulative regulative burden on products, relatedproducts manufacturedbythe same manufacturers
Sections Al.1 and Al.2 provide an explanation ofthe general methodology used to calculate energy consumption and savings for mostproducts. Sections A2 through Al9 provide productspecific information for eachproduct listed in Table Al-1.
A1.1 Overview of Methodologyfor Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates The energy consumption and savings estimates presented in Sections A2 through A19 share .three common and general steps: data collection, critical evaluation ofdata, and the development ofenergy consumption and savings estimates (Figure Al-1).

Figure A1-1: The Development of Product Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates The Department accessed the most complete and current information available for each evaluatedproduct. Ifpossible, the products' Annual Energy Consumption (AEC) and Energy

1-2Savings Potential calculations are basedupon data from previous detailed studies. "Bottom-up" engineering analyses are particularlyuseful in this process, as theyprovide a detailed breakdown ofenergy consumption (e.g., byusage mode), which improves the energy savings calculations. In cases where detailed studies couldnotbe found, the energy estimates were developed from a range ofsources including: priorbuilding energy consumption reports, industry data sources, and industry contacts. 

### Ingeneral, the ABC and energy savings estimates do 

### notaddress several market dynamics that would impact future energy consumption or savings (see Table Al-3).

TableAl-3: Market Dynamics not Considered in Annual Energy Consumption and Energy Savings Estimates MarketDynamic Example Future increases or decreases in device installed Pool Heaters, Gas

- The market's preference for base solarpool heating devices may lead to a decrease in the installedbase ofgas pool heaters. Future marketpenetration oftechnologies without Traffic Signal Modules

- LED traffic signal regulatory actions modules are displacing incandescent modules in the absence ofregulatory actions. Future evolution ofproducts, including additional SmartAppliances

- Refrigerators equippedwith product features ·flat screen televisions.

A1.2 Calculation Approach for Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates
A1.2.1 Device Annual Energy Consumption (AEC) Estimates Figure Al-2 illustrates the basic methodologyused to develop the annual energy consumption (ABC) estimates for a device orproduct. Deviations from this methodology are explained inthe product-specific sections. The unit energy (or electricity) consumption (UBC) denotes the energy consumedby an average device overthe course ofa year. The UBC equals the sum ofthe products ofthe power draw in each mode, Pm, andthe approximate number ofhours, Tm, that each device operates in a particularmode, m, in the course ofone year:

UBC=L UBCm 

## =L Pm* Tm An estimate ofthe stock ofthe device, S (or installed base), was obtained or developed. The product ofthe installedbase andthe device UBC equals the total annual energy consumption, ABC, for a particularproduct: ABC=S *UBC



### 1-3Devices and products can operate in up to four different modes: active, standby, suspended or sleep, and off. Forexample, as shown in Figure Al-2, there are four UECm, summing to the device UEC. Figure Al-2 illustrates the expanded model for devices that operate in all four modes. This figure canbe adapted and applied to products that operate in fewer modes (e.g., active and offonly).
Usage Annnal Usage, Power, Mode byMode by Mode

Active

Standby

Sleep

Off Device Annual Unit ElectricityConsumption, byMode Device Unit Electricity Consumption Stock

Figure A1-2: AEC Calculation Methodology (from AOL, 2002) Device Annual ElectricityConsumption

Fordevicespoweredby electricity, electric energy can be convertedtoprimary energy via the factor of 10,958Btu/kWh (BTS, 2000). The following sub-sections describe the general approach used to develop values for Pm, Tm, and 

## s.
A1.2.1.1 Power drawbymode, Pm Energy consumption estimates for a given product incorporate power draw data for each mode of operation. Itis assumed that for a givenproductin a givenmode, there is no variation inpower draw. The power drawbymode, Pm, is based on industry data or studies. Moreover, wheneverpossible, the power draw levels reflect actual power draw measurements for the 'active' power draw, as opposedto the device ratedpower draw. Ratedpowerdraws representthe maximum powerthat the device's power supply can handle and do not equal the actual power draw. The improperuse ofrated power draws to estimate energy consumption usually leads to gross over-estimation ofenergy consumption.
A1.2.1.2 Annual Usage, Tm The device usage patternrefers to the number ofhours perweekthat, on average, a device operates in a given mode. In general, the energy consumption model uses up to four typical

1-4usage modes (see Table Al-4) and different devices mayhave different combinations ofthese modes. Forexample, computermonitors, powered byexternal power supplies (see SectionA9), operate in all four modes, while functioning exit signs (see Section A14) havejustone mode

- active. The annual usage, Tm, in each mode is extrapolated from the weeklyusage. TableAl-4: Usage Pattern Mode Definitions Mode Description Example Type Active Device carrying out intended Computermonitor displays image. operation. Stand-by Device ready to, butnot, carrying out Computermonitor displays screen intended operation. saver. Suspended Device not ready to carry out intended Computermonitorpowered down, but or Sleep operation, buton. turned on. Off Device not turned on but plugged in. Computer monitor off, butplugged in.

Usage data are extracted from studies and/or surveys where researchers have monitored and recorded the usage pattern in a building for a period oftime, ranging from days to several weeks.
A1.2.1.3 Product Installed Base, S The installedbase, S, ofa device denotes the number ofdevices inuse in commercial buildings, industries, residential buildings etc., or a combination ofthese, depending on which segment is .under investigation. When available, the stock estimates come from other studies (e.g., industry market reports). However, many commercial stock estimates come from historical sales data and average product lifetimes, simply by summing the sales data from the past y years, where y equals the average product lifetime. A1.2.2 Cumulative Energy Savings Estimates Usingthe above methodology, estimates ofthe AEC for representative technology levels such as "currentnew," "typical new," and the "best available" products are made. AEC estimates may also be made atpotential standard levels other than "typical new" and "best available." Definitions ofthese technology/standard levels are provided in Table Al-5.

1-5Table Al-5: Definition ofTechnology/Standard Levels AEC Estimates Explanation Example Current Device Based on the product most Traffic signal modules with representative ofthe installed incandescent lamps. base (stock). Typical new Based on the product most Traffic signal modules with representative ofnew LED lamps. products. Best Available Based on the device that Traffic signal modules with consumes the least amount of most efficient LED lamps energy in the market. available today.
The analyses inthe following sections typically assume that the installedbase ofeachproduct type in the standardyear (e.g., 2010) does not increase from its current level. The cumulative energy savings from the standardyear (e.g., 2010) to the terminal year (e.g., 2035) are calculated based on the assumption that the new technology/standard diffuses into the stock linearly over the average lifetime ofthe device (as illustrated in Figure Al-3). The area underthe shadedportion in the graph corresponds to the estimated cumulative energy savings and is given by:

Cumulative Energy Savings= (TY SY+ l)*Annual Energy Savings-0.S*(T*Annual Energy Savings) Where: TY= terminal year SY = standardyear · T = average product lifetime
Forthis approximation, the annual energy savings represents the annual energy saved by replacing the entire installedbase ofthe product (assumed to consume energy atthe "typical new" level) with product consuming energy atthe new technology/standard level.

1-6lOO'X



# .. .. 

# .. >. 

# .. .. Cl. "' to.I) 50% 

### = •;> 

# .. 00 

## ... = 

# ..**~** 

# .. g. 0 2010 2010+T 2035 Year Figure A1-3: Energy Savings Potential Model for 2010-2035
Newly completed analysis for FY2005 uses a standardyear of2010 and a terminal year of2035. Ideally, all data sheets wouldbe consistent with the use ofthese dates. Fordata sheets completed in previous years that reference existing reports, the standard andterminal years vary.

1-7A2 Cooking Products - Gas &Electric Ranges (Ovens and Cooktops) and Microwave Ovens

A2.1 Background

In 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into law establishing minimum energy efficiency standards for cooking products (NAECA 1987). NAECArequired only that gas cooking products having an electrical supply cord not be equipped with standingpilots. Cookingproducts include: (1) gas ovens, cooktops, and ranges, (2) electric ovens, cooktops, and ranges, and (3) microwave ovens. As established byDOE's test procedure, the energy efficiency descriptor for cooking products is the Energy Factor. The EnergyFactor is expressed as a percent and is the ratio ofthe annual useful cooking energy output (i.e., the energy being conveyed to the item being cooked) to its total annual energy consumption. The annual energy consumption includes the cooking energy plus the energy consumedby other features such as a clock, standing pilot, electric ignition system, or selfcleaning cycles. Because DOE does notrequire minimum Energy Factorrequirements for cooking products, cooking products currently are not labeled ortested for energy consumption. Updated minimum standards for cookingproducts were proposed in 1994 (DOE 1994). Because NAECA did not establish product classes for cookingproducts, DOE established the following product classes in its proposed standards: (1) electric cooktops, coil elements, (2) electric cooktops, smooth elements, (3) gas cooktops, (4) electric ovens, non-self-cleaning, (5) electric ovens, self-cleaning, (6) gas ovens, non-self-cleaning, (7) gas ovens, self-cleaning, and (8) microwave ovens. The individual components ofan electric and gas range, consisting ofan oven, cooktop, and occasionally a microwave oven, would have been required to meet the applicable componentproposed standards. DOE issued a Final Rule in 1998 making the determination that minimum efficiency performance standards are not required for electric cooking products, including microwave ovens (DOE 1998). Gas cooking products were held out for further consideration, primarily to further assess the elimination ofstandingpilots for all gas cooking products. Table A2-l provides background data onthe installedbase, annual shipments, lifetime, and national annual energy consumption ofcooking products.

2-1TableA2-l: Cooking ProductBackground Data I

### !l**'yz~~('iL ::~** **~'** ,";/**hat~ tYI>~**  

## ·. <. ' 

# < ..**.:.yll1~~ ··•.·**  

### .**.;.1,~ <~** .•**~.,r;::_/1** • i·

.. N •**''z;~>;<~'s.()sc·~~~ ,:~:**  ',, "', ,,,' :,,/, >' '',J Gas CookingProducts2 Installed Base, million 45.7 Based on historical shipments and 19 year equipment lifetime Annual Shipments, million 2.85 (AHAM2003) Equipment Lifetime, years 19 (DOE 1997) AEC,quad 0.37 Based on installedbased and stock annual energyuse Electric CookingProducts2 Installed Base, million 64.1 Based on historical shipments and 19 year equipment lifetime Annual Shipments, million 4.56 (AHAM2003) EquipmentLifetime, years 19 (DOE 1996) AEC, quad 0.18 Based on installedbased and stock annual energy use Microwave Ovens Installed Base, million 102.8 Based on historical shipments and 30 year equipment lifetime Annual Shipments, million 13.31 (AHAM2003) Equipment Lifetime, years 10 (DOE 1996) AEC,quad 0.16 Based on installed based and stock annual energyuse 1 Installed base, annual shipment, and AEC values are for the year 2002. 2 Represents values for Ranges. Individual Ovens and Cooktops are accounted for bytreating one Oven

and one Cooktop as a single Range.
A2.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
Coil element electric cooktops typically consist oftwo six-inch (1250 watt) and two eight-inch (2100 watt) elements. Improving the contact conductance ofthe elements and using reflective surfaces are means inwhich to improve the efficiency ofthe coil elements. Neither design was found to be cost-effective byDOE (DOE 1998). Smooth element electric cooktops typically consist oftwo six-inch (1500 watt) and two eightinch (2000 watt) solid disk elements. Other smoothtype elements include: halogen lamp, induction, and radiant types. While halogen and induction elements are both more efficient than solid disk elements, neither were found to be cost-effective byDOE (DOE 1998). Radiant elements are actually less efficient than solid disk elements (DOE 1996).

2-2The efficiency ofnon-self-cleaning and self-cleaning electric ovens canbe improved byusing: improved insulation inthe cabinet walls, improved door seals, reducing the ventrate and conduction losses, utilizing oven separators, utilizing forced convection, and incorporating the features ofa bi-radiant design. Bi-radiant ovens were developed in the late 1970's and hadthree features for reducing energy use: highly reflective cavitywalls, highly absorptive finish, and lower-temperature heating elements. Although all ofthe above design features improve efficiency, DOE found that none were cost-effective (DOE 1998). Microwave ovens can be improved through the use ofmore efficientpower supplies, fans, magnetrons, and reflective surfaces. But like conventional electric ovens, DOE found that none ofthe above design features for microwave ovens were cost-effective (DOE 1998). Gas cooktops typically consist offour open 9000 Btu/hrburners. Efficiency canbe improved through the use ofsealedburners, reflective surfaces, andthermostatic burners. DOE determined that all ofthe above designs are not cost-effective for consumers (i.e., the designs resulted in increased consumer life-cycle costs) (DOE 1996). With the exception ofthe bi-radiant design, all design features available to improve the efficiency ofelectric ovens can also beused to improve the efficiency ofnon-self-cleaning and self-cleaning ovens gas ovens. ButDOE found none ofthese design features for gas ovens to be cost-effective (i.e., the designs resulted in increased consumer life-cycle costs) (DOE 1996). For gas cooking products, only the removal ofstanding pilot ignition systems through the use of electric orelectronic ignition systems seem to be cost-effective. Standingpilot systems are only utilizedby gas cooktops, ovens, and ranges without electrical cords. Note thatbecause selfdeaning gas ovens and ranges require electricity to operate, all are requiredbyNAECAto use non-standing pilot systems. Because gas cooking products withoutpower cords do not require electricity to operate, the incorporation ofan electric orelectronic ignition device requires electrical service to be brought to the unit. As a result, costs associated with the installation of electrical service wouldbe incurredby consumers that do nothave electrical outlets already in their kitchens. In addition, based on data from the mid-1990's, electronic or electric ignition systems also incurgreatermaintenance costs than standing pilot systems (DOE 1997). Finally, if electric-based ignition systems are used, a significant amount ofelectricity is usedbythe appliance to operate the hot surface ignition device, therebypartially offsetting the reduction in gas consumption realized by eliminating the pilot. Electronic ignition systems utilizing spark igniters consume negligible amounts ofelectrical energy. A DOE analysis demonstrated that electric and electronic ignition systems are cost-effective for those consumers that do not require the installation ofan electrical outlet. For consumers that need to install an electrical outlet, only electronic ignition systems in gas ranges are costeffective (DOE 1997). Butthe same DOE analysis demonstrated that, based onhistorical shipmenttrends, only 25 percent ofconsumers in 2010 will still utilize gas cooking products with standing pilot systems. Thus, the national energy savings realized from requiring electric or electronic ignition systems are estimated to be minimal.

2-3Table A2-2 summarizes the UECs corresponding to various efficiency levels for cooking products. The UEC data in Table A2-2 are based on analyses performedbyDOE (DOE 1996; DOE 1997). The gas cookingproduct UECs in Table A2-2 are weighted-average values taking into account the market share ofnon-self-cleaning and self-cleaning ranges as well as the market share ofproducts with electric and electronic ignition devices. Based onhistorical market share data, gas non-self-cleaning and self-cleaning ranges each are assumed to capture 50 percent of the market while 75 percent of**n~n-self-cleaning** ranges are assumed to use electric or electronic ignition systems (DOE 1997). The electric cookingproducts UECs are weighted-average values taking into account the market shares ofcoil-type and smooth-type cooktops and non-selfcleaning and self-cleaning ovens. Based on historical market share data, coil-type cooktops are assumedto capture 85 percent ofthe electric cooktop market while it is assumed that 73 percent ofthe electric range market is comprised ofself-cleaningunits (DOE 1997).

Table A2-2: CookingProductUEC Values

Gas Cooking Products 1 Baseline 3.2 33 (DOE 1997) Electronic orElectric Ignition 2.8 33 (DOE 1997) Design Option Combinations2 2.4 53 (DOE 1996) Electric Cooking Products 1 Baseline NA 530 (DOE 1996) Design Option Combinations3 NA 420 (DOE 1996) Microwave Ovens Baseline NA 143 (DOE 1996) Design Option Combinations4 NA 132 (DOE 1996) 1Represents the UEC for ranges. 2 Design options include: Gas cooktops

- electronic ignition, sealedburners, reflective surfaces,

thermostatic burners; Gas ovens -electronic ignition, improved insulation, improved door seals, forced convection, reducedventrate, reduced conduction losses, oven separator. 3 Design options include: Electric cooktops

- improved contact conductance, reflective surfaces,

induction element; Electric ovens - improved insulation, improved door seals, forced convection, reduced ventrate, reduced conduction losses, oven separator, bi-radiant design. 4 Design options include: more efficient power supply, fan, magnetron and reflective surfaces.
Table A2-3 provides retail price information corresponding to the UECs specified in Table A2-2. Table A2-3 also includes the installation and annual maintenance costs for gas cookingproducts. Baselineprice data were provided bythe 2003 AHAM Fact Book (AHAM 2003). Retail prices are generated for more efficientproducts from the percentage price increases indicated bythe price versus efficiency relationship in DOE's 1996 and 1997 analyses on cooking products (DOE 1996; DOE 1997).

2-4TableA2-3: Cooking ProductRetail Prices

Gas Cooking Products Baseline Electronic or Electric Ignition Design Option Combinations 3.2 2.8
2.4 Electric Cooking Products Baseline Design Option Combinations Microwave Ovens Baseline Design Option Combinations NA NA

NA NA 33 33
53

530 420

143 132 $513 NA NA (AHAM2003) $516 $2 $1 (DOE 1997) $698 $2 $1 (DOE 1996)
$508 NA NA (AHAM2003) $766 NA NA (DOE 1996)
$145 NA NA (AHAM2003) $196 NA NA (DOE 1996)
1 Installation and maintenance costs are increased costs relative to the baseline andrepresent the

weighted-average cost to consumers taking into account the percentage ofconsumers that alreadyhave electrical outlets (DOE 1997).

A2.3 Test Procedure Status
The Department adopted a Final Rule ofthe testprocedure for cooking products on October 3, 1997 (DOE 1997a).
A2.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
Table A2-4 presents the energy savings potential for the efficiency levels specified in Table A2- 2. Also provided in Table A2-4 is the economic benefit orburden to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that none ofthe efficiency levels with the exception ofelectric or electronic ignition for gas cooking products result in economic benefits to consumers. Consumer national utilitybill savings for a given year are derivedbytaking the national annual energy savings and multiplying itbythe corresponding electricity price from the DOE-Energy InformationAdministration'sAnnualEnergy Outlook2004 (DOE 2004). Consumernational equipment cost increases are derived bytaking the perunit change in equipment cost and multiplying itbythe annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost increases are

2-5summed overthe time period 2010-2035 with the netbenefit orburden being the difference between the two values. 1

Table A2-4: Cooking ProductPotential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

Gas Cooking Products Baseline 3.2 33 NA NA Electronic orElectric Ignition 2.8 33 0.44 0.57 Design Option Combinations 2.4 53 0.65 -3.10 Electric Cooking Products Baseline NA 530 NA NA Design Option Combinations NA 420 1.66 -5.71 Microwave Ovens Baseline NA 143 NA NA Design Option Combinations NA 132 0.32 -4.66

A2.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens

In the Fiscal Year 2004 Priority-Setting memorandum, cooking products were listed as a lowpriority product (DOE 2003). No significant changes have occurred since then.

A2.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards
As noted earlier, historical shipment trends indicate that gas cooking products may eventually phase-out the use ofstanding pilot ignition systems. Thus, the moderate national energy savings currently estimated may be significantly diminished inthe near future. Also withrespect to gas ignition systems, the maintenance costs associated with the electronic ignition system assumed for this analysis (based on mid-1990's data) may no longerbe representative ofelectronic devices currently being used. Because manufacturers have had additional years to improve the reliability ofelectronic ignition systems since the mid-1990's, the

1Economic calculations are performed with a spreadsheet tool which is available on the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip
2-6maintenance costs associated with these systems maybe equivalentto those associated with standing pilot systems. As a result, electronic ignition systems maybemore cost-effective as a means in which to reduce the energy use ofgas cooking appliances than shownbythis analysis.

2-7References Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 2003. "FactBook 2003." Chicago, IL. .National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1994. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts; Proposed Rule." Federal Register 59 (43): 10464-10532. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofCodes and Standards, 1996. "DraftReport on Potential Impact ofAlternative Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products." Washington, DC. April, 1996. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofCodes and Standards, 1997. "Supplemental Analysis for Cooking Products." Washington, DC. April, 1997. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. 1997a. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts: Test Procedures for Kitchen Ranges, Cooktop, Ovens, and Microwave Ovens." Federal Register 62 (192): 51976-51991. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1998. "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Cooking Products (Electric Cooktops, Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens, and Microwave Ovens); Final Rule." Federal Register 63 (173): 48038-48057. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Building Technologies Program. 2003. "Fiscal Year 2004 Priorities for the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Process." Available online: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/pdfs/october merno.pdf U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 2004.

2-8A3 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas
A3.1 Background

In 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into law establishing minimum energy efficiency standards for direct heating equipment (NAECA 1987). Direct heating equipment is comprised ofgas-firedproducts whose flue products are vented outdoors and deliver heated air to the conditioned space without the use ofducts. The energy efficiency descriptor for direct heating equipment is the Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE), which accounts only for the gas consumption ofthe appliance. Butbecause over 90 percent ofshipped direct heating equipmentproducts currently onlyutilize gas, the AFUE is an adequate measure ofthe overall performance ofan overwhelming majority ofequipment. Minimum efficiency standards for directheating equipmentvarybased on physical configuration (i.e. wall furnaces, floor furnaces, orroomheaters), input capacity, and the means in which heated air is delivered (i.e., gravity- or fan-types). As a result, NAECA established 16 distinct product classes for this equipment. Minimum standards for gravity-type equipment range from 56 to 65 percentAFUE while standards for fan type equipment range from 73 to 74 percent AFUE. During the mid-1990's, vented hearthproducts became popular and product sales grew at a rate of20 to 35 percent. Because these systems are at leastpartiallyused to provide space heat (as opposed to being purely decorative) and their venting systems are similarto conventional direct heat equipment, existing minimum standards for direct heating equipment also apply to hearth products. Hearthproducts consist ofvented fireplaces, fireplace inserts, stoves, and log sets. Updated minimum standards for direct heating equipment were proposed in 1994 butthe proposed standards were never finalized byDOE (DOE 1994). Table A3-1 provides background data onthe installedbase, annual shipments, lifetime, and national annual energy consumption of direct heating equipment. Separate data sets for conventional products (wall furnaces, floor furnaces, androom heaters) and hearth products are provided in Table A3-l.

3-1Table A3-1: DirectHeating EquipmentBackground Data 

## ; ·cnat:atYile :: :·!:\

...... Value1 · ·•. ': .·.··• S:()ur"ce/Pomments'.'' ••. '.••·: .•. •.• .• . •>

...... :: >>:•·i•. Conventional Equipment Installed Base, million (2002) 3.4 Based on historical shipments and 15 year equipment lifetime Annual Shipments, million (2002) 0.208 (Appliance 2003) Equipment Lifetime, years 15 (DOE 1993) AEC, quad (2002) 0.11 Based on installed based and stock annual energy use Hearth Products Installed Base, million (2002) 5.4 Based on historical shipments and 30 year equipment lifetime Annual Shipments, million (2002) 0.897 (Hearth Products Association 2004) Equipment Lifetime, years 30 (GRI 1997) AEC, quad (2002) 0.07 Based on installedbased and stock annual energy use 1 Installed base, annual shipment, and AEC values are for the year 2002.

A3.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
Conventional direct heating equipmenthas two common characteristics: (1) heat is conveyed without ducts and (2) flue products (i.e., products ofcombustion) are vented outside. In conventional systems, combustion products pass through the inside ofa heat exchanger. Air passes overthe outside ofthe heat exchanger eitherthrough natural convection, as used by gravity-type units, or forced convection through the use ofair-circulation fans, as usedby fantype units. Flue products are typically either vented: (1) up though the roofutilizing B-vents or (2) through-the-wall utilizing direct vents. In direct vent systems, flue products are vented through the center ofthe vent while outdoor air for combustion is aspirated through the outer ring ofthe vent. Conventional systems come in three basic configurations: room heaters, wall furnaces, and floor furnaces. Room heaters are free-standing and are installed directly within the space they are heating. All room heaters are sold as gravity-type units but optional air-circulation fans can be installed with the units to improve efficiency. Wall furnaces are either installed onthe wall as a free-standing unit orrecessed within the wall. A majority ofwall furnaces are gravity-type units while some are sold as fan-type units. As their name implies, fan-type wall furnaces utilize aircirculation fans to force air overthe heat exchanger in a counterflow direction to the flue products. Because counterflow air circulation greatly improves the heat exchange process, fantype wall furnaces are more efficientthan gravity-type units. Floor furnaces are suspended from the floor ofthe heated space within an unconditioned crawl space. All floor furnaces are sold as gravity-type units.

3-2Vented hearth products are sold either as fireplaces, fireplace inserts, gas stoves, orlog sets. Flue products are either vented through the use ofB-vents ordirect-vents. Because fireplace inserts, gas stoves, and log sets often are used for decorative purposes rather than providing space heat, it is uncertain as to whetherthe minimum efficiency standards for direct heating equipment apply .to these products. DOE in the pasthas required decorative hearth products to meet the efficiency requirements ifthe appliance either has a thermostat orifthe manufacturerpromotes the appliance's efficiency orheating function. Forpurposes ofthis analysis, itwas assumedthat all vented hearth products had to meetthe applicable existing minimum efficiency standards. The primary method for reducing gas consumption in both conventional and hearthproduct direct heating equipment is by eliminating the standing pilot through the use ofelectronic ignition. Butmost directheating equipment are gravity-type units that do not require electricity to operate. As a result, the incorporation ofan electronic ignition device requires electrical service to be brought to the unit resulting in higher installation costs. Electronic ignition systems also incur greatermaintenance coststhan standingpilot systems. In addition, electronic ignition systems use electricity. Thus, the reduction in gas consumption realized by eliminating the standing pilot is partially offsetbythe electricity consumption ofthe electronic ignition device. Table A3-2 summarizes the efficiency improvements for direct heating equipment. In addition to the electronic ignition efficiency measure, a combination ofdesign options was also considered for conventional direct heating equipment. The efficiency and UEC data inTable A3-2 are based on analyses performed bythe Gas Research Institute (GRI 1994; GRI 1997; GRI 1997). Rather than providing efficiency data for every direct heating producttype, the efficiency measures were evaluated from a shipment-weighted average baseline unit for each class of equipment (i.e., conventional equipment and hearth products). For conventional equipment, the baseline is a shipment-weighted composite ofall product classes, including fan-type units. Because fan-type units consume electricity to drive the fan, electrical energy is consumed in the baseline design. Forhearth products, almost 70 percent ofproducts surveyed by GRI utilize electronic ignition (GRI 1997). As a result, the baseline hearthproduct design also consumes electricity.

TableA3-2: DirectHeating Equipment Efficiency Levels and UEC Values 

## ''uEC''·••••**'.(1cwiily~)** Conventional Equipment Baseline 64.2% 30.4 5.3 (GRI 1994) Electronic Ignition 66.1% 28.0 102.3 (GRI 1994) Design Option Combinations1 70.0% 26.3 123.3 (GRI 1994) Hearth Products Baseline 73.4% 11.2 30.5 (GRI 1996; GRI 1997) Electronic Ignition 75.0% 10.9 95.0 (GRI 1996; GRI 1997) 1Design options include: electronic ignition, 20% de-rating, andburnerbox or stack dampers.

3-3Table A3-3 provides retail price information corresponding to the efficiency levels specified in Table A3-2. Table A3-3 also includes the installation and annual maintenance costs. The price data were taken from analyses performedby GRI (GRI 1994; GRI 1996) and inflated to 2002 dollars using consumerprice index data from the U.S. Department ofLabor (DOL 2004).

TableA3-3: DirectHeating Equipment Retail Prices

Conventional Equipment Baseline 64.2% $520 Electronic Ignition 66.1% $631 Design Option 70.0% $771 Combinations Hearth Products Baseline 73.4% $1532 Electronic Ignition 75.0% $1608 <" •··

### Aiifiti.3.f';**/.Maiiite'naric~ J:>r~«!e**  

### · • •·•**9o~t** 

### ;,$. ($2002)**~** ..($20,02)· >•.

$211 $3 $229 $8 $276 $14


### NA $3 $61 $5 1Installation price is the price increase relative to the baseline.

A3.3 Test Procedure Status (GRI 1994) (GRI 1994) (GRI 1994)

(GRI 1996; GRI 1997) (GRI 1996; GRI 1997)

The Department adopted a Final Rule ofthe test procedure for direct heating equipment onMay 12, 1997 (DOE 1997).

A3.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
Table A3-4 presents the energy savings potential for the efficiency levels specified in Table A3- 2. Also provided in Table A3-4 is the economic benefit orburden to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that none ofthe efficiency levels result in economic benefits to consumers. Also note that the electronic ignition design option for hearth products actually results in negative energy savings due to the additional electricity consumption ofthe ignition device. Consumernational utility bill savings for a givenyear are derivedbytaking the national annual energy savings and multiplying itbythe corresponding electricityprice from the DOEEnergy Information Administration'sAnnualEnergy Outlook2004 (DOE 2004). Consumer national equipment cost increases are derived bytaking the perunit change in equipment cost andmultiplying it by the annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost
3-4increases are summed overthe time period 2010-2035 with the netbenefit orburdenbeing the difference between the two values.2

Table A3-4: DirectHeating Equipment Potential Energy Savings and Economic ImpactEstimates

ConventionalEquipment Baseline 64.2% NA Electronic Ignition 66.1% 0.10 Design Option Combinations 70.0% 0.19 Hearth Products Baseline 73.4% NA Electronic Ignition 75.0% -0.10

A3.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens 

## \**PoteD.ti~1Jic~~omic**

## ·
·.·•••·.•

### ~.)eJ1(lfitsf!l9i:~~J1s;.•.•.~.··) ··**~u.mulatif~ ~~.~9.J°'~2035•** 

·· · (Jlill;of!s**ot;~2Q02)•.**· ·
NA -0.15 -0.45
NA -1.25

In the Fiscal Year 2004 Priority-Setting memorandum, direct heating equipment was listed as a low-priorityproduct (DOE 2003). No significant changes have occurred since then.

A3.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards
The smoke from wood-burning fireplaces contributes to outdoor airpollution. In the western U.S., atmospheric inversions are common: warmer air above traps cooler airbelow, resulting in a highly stable atmospheric condition where pollutants disperse slowly. Because ofsuch "brown cloud" inversions, many western states have restricted woodburning. Restrictions are also in place inparts ofthe northeast. Usually the restrictions amount to levying fines for woodburning on certain days. Although the laws are seldom enforced, they do affect consumerbehavior. Due to the restrictions placed on wood-burning fireplaces, many consumers are turning to gas-fired hearthproducts as an alternative. Because gas-hearthproducts are being usedby consumers in response to air quality regulations, it may notbe wise to impose efficiency regulations onthese products, especially ifsuch regulations significantly increase the retail price ofthe equipment and dissuade consumers from purchasing these products.

2 Economic calculations are performedwith a spreadsheet tool which is available on the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip
3-5With respect to gas ignition systems, the maintenance costs associated with the electronic ignition system assumed for this analysis (based on early 1990's data) mayno longer be representative ofelectronic devices that can now be usedby direct heating equipment. Because manufacturers have had additional years to improve the reliability ofelectronic ignition systems since the early 1990's, the maintenance costs associated with these systems may be equivalentto those associated with standingpilot systems. As a result, electronic ignition systems maybe more cost-effective as a means in whichto reduce the energy use ofdirect heating equipment than shown bythis analysis.

3-6References Appliance Magazine. 2003. "Statistical Review." May, 2003. Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1994. "Assessment ofTechnology for Improving the Efficiency of Gravity Direct Heating Equipment". Chicago, IL. GRI-94/0342. Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1996. "Gas Hearth Products MarketFact Base". Chicago, IL. GRI-96/0013. Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1997. "HearthProducts Meter Study (1995-1997)". Chicago, IL. GRI 97/0298. Hearth Products Association. 2004. Private communications with Carter Keithley. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofCodes and Standards, 1993. "Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Room Air Conditioners, Water Heaters, DirectHeating Equipment, Mobile Home Furnaces, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Pool Heaters, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts & Television Sets." Washington, DC DOE/EE-0009, Volume H. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1994. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts; ProposedRule." Federal Register 59 (43): 10464-10532. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. 1997. "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Furnaces/Boilers, Vented Home Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters." Federal Register 62 (91): 26140-26165. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Building Technologies Program. 2003. "Fiscal Year2004 Priorities for the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Process." Available online: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/pdfs/october memo.pdf U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 2004. U.S. Department ofLabor (DOL), Bureau ofLabor Statistics. 2004. ConsumerPrice Index-All Urban Consumers. Available online: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

3-7A4 Dishwashers {Residential)
A4.1 Background Dishwashers use heated water and dishwashing detergent to clean and dry dishes. Collectively, the installedbase ofapproximately 61.7 million residential dishwashers consumes about 0.26 quad ofenergyperyear (see Table A4-1). · Table A4-1: Residential Dishwasher Background Data Data Type Value Source Installed Base, millions 61.7 Meyers et al. (2002) Annual Shipments, millions 6.4 Appliance (March 2004) Equipment Lifetime, years 13 DOEBREN FEMP AEC, quad 0.26 Meyers et al. (2002), modified to use an updated estimate of215 average cycles/year, ratherthan 250 cycles/year, based on CFR 2004. A4.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence For energy consumption considerations, dishwashers are categorizedbytwo metrics-I) whether equipped to sense the amount ofsoil in the wash load, and 2) the dish load capacity. Dishwashers equipped with soil sensors offer the potential to save energy compared to a timed cycle because the dishwasher only uses the volume ofwaterneededto clean the dishes. The energy used to heat the water is the main component ofdishwasher energy use, so any feature that saves water will also reduce energy consumption. Standard size dishwashers are units with a dish load capacity of8 ormore place settings. Compact dishwashers are units with a dish load capacity ofless than 8 place settings. The stockunit energy consumption (UEC) levels (see Table A4-3) include dishwashers at and belowthe current minimum efficiency standard. ENERGY STAR® qualified dishwashers use 25% less energy thanthe federal standard for energy efficiency. The federal minimum efficiency standard remains unchanged. However, Energy Factor values (Table A4-2) for the Stock andparticularly, the TypicalNew level are dated. These values do not considerthe effect ofrestating Energy Factorvalues for soil-sensing dishwashers in light ofthe new dishwasher procedure, nor do they consider the relative quantity ofhigher efficiency 

### I soil-sensing ·dishwashers in the mix ofshipped and installedunits. Itis expectedthat much ofthis information will be compiledwithin the yearwhen all manufacturers mustmake their annual statements to the Federal Trade Commission. TableA4-2: Residential DishwasherTechnology Levels and Energy Factor Values Technology Level Energy Factor Comments/Source [cycles/kWhl Stock 0.41 Meyers et al. (2002) MinimumEfficiency 0.46 DOE BREN FEMP (2000) Standard Typical New 0.50 ADL(2000) ENERGY STAR® 0.58 http://www.energystar.gov Soil-Sensing 0.60 Typical value for soil-sensingunits listed at http://www.energystar.gov BestAvailable 1.19 http://www.energystar.gov

4-1The Energy Factor associated with best available technology is taken from the latest data available at the ENERGY STAR® site. However, there is some question whetherthese data represent data gathered according to the new test procedure. Some dishwashers use much less energy than the minimum standard and the ENERGY STAR® rating. The best available dishwasher uses approximately 39% 3 ofthe energy level specified in the minimum efficiency standard and approximately 49% ofthe energy level specified in the ENERGY STAR® rating. The primary factor in dishwasher energy consumption is wateruse - the less waterused the more energy saved.
A4.3 Test Procedure Status OnAugust 29, 2003 the Department ofEnergypublished its final rule for the "Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption ofDishwashers" (10 CPR430 Subpart. B, App. C). This update to the dishwasher test procedure presents several significant additions and revisions, including: • Addition ofthree-point test method, specifically for soil-sensing dishwashers • Addition ofa test method to measure standby power for all dishwashers-both soilsensing and fixed-cycle machines, and • Reduction ofthe number ofaverage-use cycles peryear Soil-sensing dishwashers mustnow be tested with soiled dishware to more accurately reflect their energy and water consumption (effective 2/25/04). A review ofdishwasher survey datahas shown that relative to the level ofsoil on dishware in dishwashers, U.S. households distribute into three levels ofsoil--Light-62%, Medium-33%, andHeavy-5% (ADL, 2001). Further, the review finds survey data to define the mass offood soil at each ofthese three levels ofsoil and expresses the masses offood soil interms ofthe food soils used in the industry's 'worst-case' cleaning test, ANSI/AHAM DW-1. The test standard, ANSI/AHAM DW-1, soils each place setting with 31.3 grams ofspecific food soils, such as egg, oatmeal, preserves, potatoes, ground meat, coffee, etc. Based on the findings ofthe review, the amount offood soil at each soil level IS: Light

- 112of1 soiledplace setting (15.65 grams), .Medium

- 2 soiledplace settings (62.6 grams), and Heavy

- 4 soiledplace settings (125.2 grams). Based onthe recommendations ofthe review, the energy factor for soil-sensing dishwashers is now determined from a weighted average ofenergy consumption tests conducted at each ofthe three soil levels. For example, ofthe eightplace settings used inthe energy consumption test, the heavy soil level has four ofthose place settings soiledperDW-1. The weighting ofthe average ofthe energy consumption tests results from the distribution ofU.S. households relative to the level ofsoil on the dish ware in their dishwashers. Therefore, the calculation ofthe energy factor ofa soil-sensing dishwasher (EFsoil-sensing) is:

3 KWh/cycle is the inverse ofthe Energy Factorvalue presented in Table A4-2. Thus, the best available technology uses 0.46/1.19 = 39% ofthe energyusedby a product meeting the minimum efficiency standard.
4-2EFsoil-sensing 

### = 1/ (0.62 *EnergyLight Soil Level+ 0.33* EnergyMedium Soil Level+ 0.05 * EnergyHeavy Soil Level)
The dishwashertestprocedure is the first test procedure to include the measurement ofstandby power for all dishwashers. However, a dishwasher's standbypower is not included inits energy factor calculation and therefore does not impact the minimum standard. The standby power measurement is factored into a dishwasher's estimated annual operating cost (EAOC) and is reported on its EnergyGuide label. The number ofaverage-use cycles per year for a dishwasher has been reduced to a value of215 (264 was the value usedpriorto FY2003). This average-use numberrepresents a midpoint in a range ofaverage-use numbers determined from a review offive surveys ofconsumers' usage habits, including the 2001 RECS data (ADL 2001). In addition to these majormodifications, otherupdates includedthe addition ofdefinitions to support the soil-sensing test method, and modifications to improve the clarity andrepeatability of the testprocedure.
A4.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations Table A4.3 presents the estimates ofthe current energy consumption andpotential energy savings for residential dishwashers. The energy savings calculations assume that the entire installedbase ofdishwashers consume energy atthe "typical new" level. Table A4-3: Residential Dishwasher CurrentEnergy Consumption and Potential Saving Estimates UEC Annual Energy Energy Saving Technology/Standard Level (MMBtu/yr) SavingsPotential Potential, 2010- (quad) 2035 (quads) TypicalDishwasher (Current Stock) 4.05 NA NA 'TypicalNew' 3.28 NA NA ENERGY STAR® 2.83 0.028 0.52 Soil-Sensing 2.73 0.034 0.63 BestAvailable 1.40 0.12 2.17 The energy savings potential betweenENERGY STAR® andbest available dishwasher technology shows a wide range ofpotential energy savings. However, as noted above the data on best available dishwasher technology may notreflect testing against the new test procedure. Furtherthere is a relatively low saturation level,**~60%,** ofhomes with dishwashers, which gives room for much more saturation and lends some additional uncertainty in potential energy savings. Additional dishwasher energy savings could be realized ifconsumers' habit ofpre-treating dishes with water canbe avoided. Itis well documented that approximately 70% ofhouseholds with dishwashers pre-treat dishes with waterbefore putting them into the dishwasher (ADL

4-32001). Estimates ofwater consumption vary widely and little information is available onthe amount ofhotwaterused. Therefore, estimating this potential energy savings is currently difficult and likelyto beuncertain.
A4.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden Dishwashers are regulated for energy efficiencyunderNAECA and have the minimum energy efficiency level listed in Table A4-2. The extent to which regulation impacts dishwashers, including health and safety, was not determined. Companies that manufacture dishwashers typically produce other white goods thathave been subjectto past energy efficiency regulations underNAECA, including clothes washers & dryers, refrigerators, and freezers.
A4.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards With increasing use ofmicroprocessors to control the dishwashing cycle and improved electronic user interfaces (e.g., visual displays), the potential for standby losses increases. Standby energy consumption onthe order of5 Watts could increase typical new dishwasher AEC by approximately 10%.

4-4References ADL, 2000, "Guide for Evaluation ofEnergy Savings Potential". Report to the US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS), February, 2000. ADL, 2001, "Review ofSurvey Data to Support Revisions to DOE's DishwasherTest Procedure", Report to U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Conimunity Programs, December 18, 2001. Appliance Magazine, 2004, appliance industry statistics, page 16 ApplianceMagazine, March. Appliance Magazine, 2001, "Appliance Statistical Review: 48 1h Annual Report".Appliance Magazine, May. CFR, 2004, 10 Code ofFederal Regulations

- Energy, as ofMarch 15, 2004. DOE, 2000, Energy Efficiency and Renewable EnergyNetwork (EREN), Federal Energy ManagementProgram (FEMP), "Dishwasher Cost-Effectiveness Example", Available at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/procurement/dish cost.html

. Meyers, S., McMahon, J., McNeil, M., and Liu, X., 2002, "Historical and Projected Impacts of U.S. Federal Efficiency Standards for Residential Appliances", Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory Report, LBNL-49504, May.

4-5AS Electric Motors, 1-200 HP
A5.1 Background Industrial motor systems are the largest single electrical end use in the U.S. economy. According to the United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market OpportunityAssessment (OIT2002), a study publishedbythe United States Department ofEnergy, electric motors used in industrial processes consumed 679 billion kWh (approximately 7.5 quads ofprimary energy) in 1994. This accounts for 23 percent ofall United States electricity consumption. (OIT-2002) Motors coveredbythe Energy PolicyAct (EPAct) account for 50-70 percent ofall integral horsepower motors sold, and 23-32 percent ofannual energy consumedby integral horsepower motors. (OIT-2002) Table A5-l shows background data on industrial sectormotors inthe size range covered byEPAct. Industrial motors in the size range covered byEPAct consumed 380 billion kWh site energy, or4.2 quads ofprimary energy, in 1994. Most industrial motors in the EPAct size range are in fact subject to EPAct (that is, they are considered general purpose; many motors used in the commercial sector are considered special purpose and therefore are not subject to EPAct efficiency standards). Thus energy consumption for the size range gives a reasonable approximation ofthe total industrial sector energy consumption subject to EPAct. Table A5-2 shows the same data for commercial sectormotors. TableA5-1: Industrial SectorMotors, 1-200HP Background Data DataType Units Value Source Installed Base Million units 12.3 (OIT-2002) Annual Million units l.54 (Census-2002) Shipments, 2002 Equipment Years 15-20 years for (OIT-2002) Lifetime (years) 80% turnover 1994 AEC, 1-200 quads 4.2 (OIT-2002) HP Motors5

Table A5-2: Commercial Sector Motors, 1-200HP, Subject to EPAct, Background Data DataTvpe Units Value Source Installed Base Million units 4.1 (ADL-1999) Annual Million units 0.54 (ADL-1999) Shipments Equipment Years 15 (ADL-1999) Lifetime (years) AEC, 1-200 HP quad 0.7 (ADL-1999) EP ActMotors6

·4 This figure is actually the total number ofshipped motors in the size range; it is not restricted to industrial motors only. 5 This figure assumes that the distribution ofmotor system energy consumption by horsepower size for all industrial motors is identical to the distribution for motors from the manufacturing sector. This annual energy consumption (AEC) figure includes all motors in the EP Act size range, and thus may include energy consumed by some definite and special purpose motors not subject to EPAct. 6 This figure is based on Tables 4-3 and 4-4 of(ADL-1999). Most ofthe energy subject to EPAct (in the 1-200HP size range, and not a special purpose motor such as a compressor) is consumed by blower motors in medium unitary air conditioners, large unitary air conditioners, Central Station Air Handling Units, and pumps in Hydronic heating systems. 5-1Commercial sectormotors are much more numerous than industrial motors, and tend to be smaller: in 1995, there were 123 million commercial sectormotors total; approximately 70 percent ofthose (87 million) are smaller than lHP, and thus not subjectto EPAct. About 36 million commercial motors fall in the EP Act size range. The number ofcommercial sector motors greaterthan 200HP is very small. The Annual Energy Consumption for commercial sectormotors in 1995 was 356 billion kWh. Ofthat, 31 percentwas consumed by fractional horsepower motors, and 7 percentby motors greaterthan 200HP. About 220 billion kWhwas consumed by commercial motors in the 1-200HP range. 196 billion kWh (55 percent ofthe total) was consumed bymotors in the range 1-20HP. (ADL-1999) Despite these apparently large numbers, most energy in the commercial sector is consumed byrefrigerant compressors and othermotors that are considered special purpose and thus not subject to EPAct.
A5.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence
A5.2.1 Motor Types Forthe purpose ofefficiency standards, motors designed for use under usualservice conditions without restriction to a particular application ortype ofapplication are known as "generalpurpose motors." (NEMA-2001). Usual service conditions include limits on variables such as temperature, altitude, power supply quality, mounting conditions, and ventilation conditions. (LINCOLN-1995) Motors that operate using alternating electrical current are known as AC Motors; motors powered by direct current are known as DC motors. Because AC motors are simpler in construction, and because electric grids provide AC power, AC motors are typically used in industrial settings. Polyphase motors are simpler in construction, more reliable, and provide higherpower/size ratios than corresponding single phase motors, and thus are the norm for industrial applications. (LINCOLN-1995) ACPolyphase motor types The most common form ofpolyphase induction motor (again because ofsimplicity) is the squirrel cage, so-named for the appearance ofits rotor. The othertypes ofAC polyphase motors are the wound rotor induction motor, and synchronous motor. The existing EPAct standards applyjustto squirrel cage polyphase induction motors. Motor size Motors below lHP are known as fractional horsepower motors; those lHP and above are known as integral. Drive Ifthe power source driving the motor can only supply a fixed voltage and frequency, it is described as a single speed drive. Ifthe source can vary the supply voltage or frequency in order to control the motor speed, it is termed an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD), orVariable Speed Drive (VSD). Some motor applications, such as pumps and blowers, canmatch flow requirements by operating at different speeds appropriate to each application. AlthoughASDs typically result in a moderate (approximately 5%) decrease in motor system efficiency, they can realize large reductions in motor system energy consumption in applications that favorably accommodate operation ofmotors atreduced speed. Forexample, an ASD canreduce the
5-2energy consumed by a central station air handler by approximately 40% (ADL-1999). Most induction motor ASDs are not integral parts ofthe motor; thus, they do not impactthe tested fullloadmotor efficiency (see the "TestProcedure" section). Enclosure The most common types ofindustrial motor enclosures are Open Drip-Proof(ODP), and Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled (TEFC). ODP motors have open vents, but are designed to tolerate drops ofliquid falling on them from angles within 15 degrees ofvertical. TEFC motors are more protected than ODP motors, as an enclosure completely covers the motor internals. Cooling is provided by fan-driven airflow overthe exterior ofthe motor enclosure. Although TEFC motors are entirely enclosed, they are not airtight. ("Encapsulated motors," with airtight enclosures, are available for more specialized applications including safety, butthese are far less common than ODP orTEFC enclosures.) Existing regulations apply to ODP and TEFC motors. The efficiency regulations for the two types ofenclosedmotors are different.

A5.2.2 Motor Design Efficiency Measures The efficiency ofinduction motors canbe improved in several ways. Inpractice, all represent a balance betweenperformance gain and cost. Betterquality core materials for the motorrotor and stator can reduce eddy current and hysteresis losses (collectivelyknown as "iron losses"). Increasedwindingslot fill increases the amount ofmaterial (typically copper) in the stator windings, which reduces resistance to electric flow in the stator windings and associatedresistive "copper" loss. Reducedrotor barconductor resistance reduces losses from motor slip by switching the conductor material to copper or a different aluminum alloy. Improved manufacturingquality encompasses several potential measures that decrease motor losses (e.g., reduced lamination edge shorts onthe stator and rotor to improve suppression ofeddy currents, improved motor design and manufacturing processes to reduce stray load losses, improved rotor bar-lamination isolation to reduce resistive losses). Increasing the stacklength enables attainment ofrequired torque and powerratings with lower flux and current loadings thereby lowering iron and copper losses, but requires a greater expenditure ofmaterial andperhaps an increase in motor frame size. Improvedbearings andlubricants couldreduce bearing friction loss. Improved fan designs and other aerodynamic improvements could reduce windage loss. Othermotortechnologies, such as permanentmagnet and switched reluctance motors, have the potential to realize highermotor efficiencies than EPAct-level induction motors, particularly at smallermotor sizes. Increasing the efficiency ofmotors mayrequire changes to othermotorparameters such as inrush current, startup torque, and slip. In certain applications, motor efficiency cannotbe increasedbeyond a certainpointwithout altering othermotorparameters beyondwhat is feasible for the application. A5.2.3 Regulations and Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programs The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) requires that general purpose, polyphase, single speed, squirrel-cage induction motors rated from 1-200hp manufactured for sale inthe US from
5-3October, 1997 onward meet minimum efficiency standards. EPAct also requires standardized testing procedures and labeling. (EPACT-1992). The EPAct standard was adapted from earlier standards promulgated bythe National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA). Specifically, EPAct dictates that the nominal full load efficiencies for open and enclosedmotors of3600, 1800, and 1200 rpm are consistent with the energy efficiencies listed inNEMA Standard MGl, Part 12, (NEMA-1998) according to tests specified in IEEE Standard 112 Method B (IEEE-1996), carried outby a NIST/NVLAP approved independenttesting laboratory (NIST-1995). NEMA maintains a more stringent voluntary standard known as NEMAPremiumTM. The .Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) launched a Premium Efficiency Motors Initiative in 1996. In 2001, CEE aligned its standards with NEMA PremiumTM, so there is no longer a distinct CEE standard. The United States Environmental ProtectionAgency considered introducing the EnergyStar® label for integral horsepower electric motors, but decided not to, in partbecause the combined CEE 

### INEMAPremiumTM standard appeared to provide a broadly recognized and consistent means for identifying more efficient motors. Furthermore, manufacturer support for an alternative, potentially competing label was not strong. (EPA-2001) The Motor Challenge program ofthe US Department ofEnergy (DOE) was an effort to improve motor efficiency through education, rather thanregulation. This program has been integrated into DOE'sbroader BestPractices program7
, whichprovides energy efficiency resources for a variety ofindustrial systems, notjustmotors. "MotorDecisions Matter" is a national campaign encouraging the use ofsound motor management and planning as a tool to cutmotor energy costs and increase productivity. The campaign is sponsoredby a consortium ofmotor industry manufacturers and service centers, trade associations, electric utilities and government agencies. The campaign is sponsored or supported by CEE, NEMA, EPA, DOE, majormotor manufacturers, utility and state energyefficiencyprograms, and other stakeholders. (DECISIONS-2004). The purpose ofthe Efficiency ofElectric Motors (EEM) program ofthe National Institute of .Standards and Technology (NIST), part ofthe National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), is to accredit testing laboratories to assure that standard test procedures for efficiency are followed in testing electric motors. Specifically, the EEM program addresses testing the efficiency ofelectric motors for EPAct and NEMA PremiumTM standards. (NIST1995) (NIST-2004). Both EPAct and NEMA PremiumTM use the same testing procedures, described later in section A5.3. The main difference between the EPAct and the NEMA PremiumTM standards are the required efficiency levels. Table A5-3 below compares EPAct and NEMA PremiumTM efficiency levels for 2 pole, 4 pole, and 6 pole Open Drip Proofmotors at five representative motor size bands. Table A5-4 provides the same comparison for Totally EnclosedFan Cooled Motors. The two standards differ in scope, that is, EPAct only applies to motors from 1to200 HP, whereas the NEMAPremium standard is defined for motors from 1to500HP. Also,

7 More information is available at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors. 5-4NEMAPremium specifies an additional set ofefficiency standards for mediumvoltage motors (600V to 5kV), in the range 250 HP-500 HP.

HP 1 5 20 50 100 200

BP 1 5 20 50 100 200 TableA5-3: Open Drip-Proof(ODP) Motor Full-load Efficiencies atRepresentative Levels (based on EPACT-1992, CEE-2001, NEMA 2001) FullLoad Efficiencies r%1 6-Pole I 1200 RPMs 4-Pole I 1800 RPMs 2-Pole I 3600 RPMs EPAct NEMA EPAct NEMA EPAct NEMA Standard Premium Standard Premium Standard Premium 80.0 82.5 82.5 85.5 NIA 778 87.5 89.5 87.5 89.5 85.5 86.5 91 92.4 91 93 90.2 91.0 93 94.l 93 94.5 92.4 93.0 94.1 95.0 94.1 95.4 93 93.6 94.5 95.4 95.0 95.8 94.5 95.0

Table A5-4: Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled (TEFC) Motor Full-load Efficiencies atRepresentative Levels (based on EPACT-1992, CEE-2001, NEMA-2001) FullLoad Efficiencies £%1 6-Pole I 1200 RPMs 4-Pole I 1800 RPMs 2-Pole I 3600 RPMs EPAct NEMA EPAct NEMA EPAct NEMA Standard Premium Standard Premium Standard Premium
80.0 82.5 82.5 85.5 75.5 779 87.5 89.5 87.5 89.5 87.5 88.5 90.2 91.7 91 93 90.2 91.0 93 94.l 93 94.5 92.4 93.0 94.1 95.0 94.5 95.4 93.6 94.1 95.0 95.8 95.0 96.2 95.0 95.4

Installed-base efficiency estimates for industrial motors, from (OIT-2002), are shown in the Table A5-5. The same data for commercial motors, from (ADL-1999), are shown in Table A5-6.

8 CEE andNEMA tables differ in this entry. NEMA figure is shown. 9 CEE andNEMA tables differ in this entry. NEMA figure is shown.
5-5TableAS-5: Installed base efficiency estimates for industrial motors, 1998 (OIT-2002) HP Efficiency [%] >l-1.5 79.3 >5-7.5 85.16 >20-25 88.91 >50-60 91.29 >100-125 92.17 >150-200 93.03 Table AS-6: Installed base efficiency estimates for commercial motors, 1999 (ADL-1999) HP Efficiency (%] 1 75 5 83 20 88 50 89 100 90 200 91
A5.3 Test Procedure Status The various energy efficiency standards for motors (EPAct and NEMA 

### I CEE) all rely onthe same efficiency test procedures, the so-called "MethodB" ofIEEE Standard 112, "IEEE .Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators." (IEEE-1996) Method B ofIEEE Standard 112 is described as "Input-outputwith segregation oflosses and indirect measurement ofstray-load loss." Inthis test, according to IEEE-1996, "the apparent total loss (input minus output) is segregated into its various components with stray-load loss defined as the difference between the apparent total loss and the sum ofthe conventional losses (stator androtor I2R loss, core loss, and friction and windage loss). The value ofstray-load loss thus determined is plotted vs. torque squared, and a linearregression is usedto reduce the effect ofrandom errors in the test measurements. The smoothed stray-load loss data are used to calculate the final value oftotal loss and the efficiency." The specific testprocedure for Method B consists ofa series ofmeasurements that mustbe performed in order, with interspersed calculations. The numbers below are the relevant section headings from IEEE-1996. 6.4.1.1 Rated load temperature test 6.4.1.2 Testunder load 6.4.1.3 No loadtest 6.4.2.1 Friction and windage loss 6.4.2.2 Core loss 6.4.2.3 Stator I2R loss 6.4.2.4 Rotor I2R loss 6.4.2.5 Apparent total loss
5-66.4.2.6 Stray-load loss determination (indirect method) 6.4.2.7 Smoothing ofthe stray-load loss The procedure for 6.4.1.2 is described as follows (taken from 6.3.1, which 6.4.1.2 references): The machine is loadedby means of a mechanical brake ordynamometer (see 4.3.1). Readings of electricalpower, current, voltage,frequency, slip, torque, ambient temperature, and statorwinding temperature orstatorwinding resistance shall be obtained for four load points approximately equally spacedbetween notless than 25% andup to andincluding 100% load, and two load points suitably chosen above 100% loadbutnotexceeding 150% load (IEEE-1996) The nominal efficiency, i.e., the efficiency listed onthe motor nameplate and the regulated efficiency value, is the efficiency at 100% load. A more realistic typical load level for industrial motors in the lHP

- 200HP size class would be 55%. Sub-appendix Table A5-Al (please see column 3 and footnote 2) presents more detailed information ontypical motor loading levels. The relative errorresulting from this approximation should be small, as efficiency ofpartially loaded motors does not drop offdrastically until below 50%. Please see (ADL-1999) Figure 2-2 (afterNEMA-1994) for a characterization ofefficiency as a function ofloading. As of 1998,just9 percent ofindustrial motors hadASDs; these motors were responsible forjust 4 percent oftotal motor energy consumption. (OIT-2002)
A5.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations Table A5-7 shows the change in Annual Energy Consumption that would result from shifting from EP Actto NEMA Premium standards. The table shows that the proposed change in regulation could save 0.06 quad peryear ofprimary energy (5.4 billion kWh peryear). 10 In a scenario inwhich the marketpenetration ofNEMAPremiumTM level industrial motors ramps linearly from 0 in2010 to 100% in 2025, and then remains at 100% through 2035, the total benefitresulting from mandating the NEMA PremiumTM efficiency standard instead of EPACT wouldbe approximately 1.0 quad, as shown inthe third column ofthe table.

10 This calculation is based on the fonnulaAEC (kWh) =MotorSize (HP) x 0. 746x OperatingHoursx Loadingx InstalledBaseI Efficiency. The data for Operating Hours, Loading, and Population in each size class comes from OIT-2002. Benefit = AECEPACT -AECNEMA Premium. The calculation details appear in the appendix. 5-7Table A5-7: AEC Savings from Increasing 1-200HP EP ActMotorEfficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels, Industrial Motors

Size Class (HP) AEC Savings [quad] Total AEC Savings, 2010-2035 rquad1 1to 5 0.0094 0.16 5 to 20 0.014 0.25 20 to 50 O.oI5 0.27 50 to 100 0.0098 0.17 100 to 200 0.011 0.19 Total 0.060 1.0 (OIT-2002) estimates that industrial motorAnnual Energy Consumption couldbereducedby as much as 0.82 to 1.3 quads (75 to 122 billion kWh), or 11 to 18 percent, 

### if all cost-effective applications of matureproven efficiency technologies and practices were employed, inthe manufacturing sector alone. (OIT 2002) This estimate includes savings from both motor efficiencyupgrades, and system efficiency upgrades.

Table A5-8: AEC Savings from Increasing 1-200HP EPAct MotorEfficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels, Commercial Motors

Size Class (HP) AEC Savings [quad] Total AEC Savings, 2010-2035 Jquadl 1to5 0.0025 0.043 5 to 20 0.013 0.23 20 to 50 0.0 0.0 50 to 100 0.0 0.0 100 to 200 0.0 0.0 Totals 0.016 0.28 Table A5-8 shows AEC savings for the commercial sector. 11 One source ofuncertainty in this calculation is the estimate ofinstalledbase efficiency. Also, this calculation includes energy consumption fromjust a few motor applications that account for most ofthe consumed energy that is subject to EPAct. Estimates ofmotor operating hours are another significant source ofuncertainty for our calculations. This uncertainty directly affects our savings calculation for industrial motors, and indirectly affects our commercial savings estimates. (Our commercial calculation is based on an Annual Energy Consumption figure from (ADL-1999) that in tum depends on an operating hours estimate.) While the changes in efficiency being contemplated are small, on the order ofa few percentage points, it seems plausible thatthe uncertainty in motor operating hours is much larger, as an individual motor can easily run at any duty cycle from 0 to 100 percent. On the other hand,

11 The data in this table were calculated based on AEC data for commercial motors from ADL-1999 [figure ES-3, p. x] ("AECoeFAULT"), and assumed installed base efficiencies for commercial motors from ADL-1999 [figure 4-4, p. 4-5], shown in this document as Table 1-6 ("EFFoeFAud'). The formula used to calculate the table is Benefit

### = AECEPACT

- AECNEMA Pro,,,;um• where AECEPACT =AECoEFAULTx EFFoEFAULTI EFFEPACT- Similarly, AECNEMAPronUum =AECoEFAULTX EFFoEFAULTI EFFNEMA Prom/um·

5-8the same estimate ofoperating hours appears inboth the EPAct and the NEMA Premium scenario calculations. In a scenario in which the market penetration ofNEMAPremiumTM level commercial motors ramps linearly from 0 in2010 to 100% in 2025, and then remains at 100% through 2035, the totalbenefitresulting from mandating the NEMA PremiumTM efficiency standard instead of EPACT wouldbe approximately 0.28 quad, as shown in the third column ofTable A5-8. Table A5-9 below summarizes the cumulative Annual Energy Consumption savings that could be realized in the period 2010-2035 by increasing the 1-200HP EPAct efficiency levels to NEMAPremium levels: approximately 1.3 quads ofprimary energy. Table A5-9: AEC Savings from 2010-2035 from Increasing 1-200HP EPActMotor Efficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels Motor Type TotalAEC Savings, 2010-2035 rquadsl Industrial 1.0 Commercial 0.28 Total 1.3

A5.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden EPAct regulates the full-load efficiency of50-70 percent ofall integral horsepower motors sold. (OIT-2002) In addition, many 1-200HP motors- both those covered EPAct and special-purpose motors not coveredby EPAct

- are major components ofequipmentregulatedbyEPAct, e.g., unitary A/C compressors and blowers. Two main kinds ofmotormanufacturers exist. Some motor manufacturers primarily manufacture motors and do notproduce significant quantities ofotherproducts that face energy efficiency regulations. Most remaining motor manufacturers are a motors-focused division ofa parent company. In the second case, other divisions ofthe parent mayproduce equipment that faces efficiency regulation, such as appliances.
A5.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards In the upcoming years, it is likely that the continued decreases in the cost ofASDs will increase their market share. Other (non-induction) motortechnologies may achieve greater market share, particularly atthe lower end ofthe 1to 200HP range. In the future, some motors may directly incorporate an ASD in the motor design. However, these motors would not be subject to EP Act regulation, and thus do notrepresent an issue for the contemplated change in efficiency standards.

5-9Premium Efficiency motors are not feasible for all applications, because the high efficiency levels would require changes to othermotorparameters that wouldbe inconsistent with application requirements. Because oftheirhigher cost, Premium Efficiency motors tend to be economical, in the sense of providing paybackwithin two years, ifthey are run for 4000 hours ormore peryear. Premium Efficiency motors that are run for 2000 or fewer hours peryeartend not to yield a timely payback. (CEE-1999) For motors that are run for a small number ofannual operating hours, the dollars invested in an efficiency upgrade might yield more energy savings ifapplied elsewhere.

5-10References ADL, 1999, "Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with High-Efficiency Electric Motors'', Final ReportbyArthurD. Little, Inc., to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, December. Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/doemotor2 2 00.pdf. ADL-2000, "Guide for Evaluation ofEnergy Savings Potential". Report to the US Department of Energy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS), February. BESTPRACTICES-2003. Website: http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors/. CEE-1999, "EfficientMotors: Selection and Application Consideration," Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Boston, MA, 1999. http://www.cee1.org/ind/motrs/motr-broch.pdf CEE-2001, "CEE Premium-Efficiency Motors Initiative Efficiency Specifications," http://www.ceel.org/ind/motrs/Cee-nema.pdf. Initiative web page http://www.ceel .org/ind/motrs/motrs-main.php3. CENSUS-2002, "Motors and Generators: 2002." US Census Bureaureport, MA335H(02)-l. Published by Information Services Center, MCD, Washington, D.C, 1993. CFR-1999, 10 Code ofFederal Regulations

- Energy, Revised as ofJanuary 1, 1999. DECISIONS-2003. MotorDecisions Matterprogram web site: http://www.motorsmatter.org/ EPACT-1992, Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification Requirements for Electric Motors; Final Rule. 10 CFRPart 431. Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 192, October 5, 1999. EPA-2001, Kathleen Hogan, Director, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Office ofAir and Radiation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Letterto all interestedparties," October, 2001. IEEE-1996, "IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators," IEEE Std 112-1996 (Revision ofIEEE Std 112-1991). ISBN 1-55937-891-3. Publishedby IEEE, NewYork, 1997. LINCOLN-1995, "Fundamentals ofpolyphase electric motors," PublishedbyLincoln Electric Motor Division, Cleveland, OH, 1995. Available on website:

. http://www.lincolnmotors.com/pdf/d-funds.pdf

NEMA-1998, "Motors and Generators," MGl-1998. Definitive standard defining NEMA PremiumTM Efficiency levels. Published byNEMA, Rosslyn, VA, 1999.

5-11NEMA-2001, "Information Guide for General Purpose Industrial AC Small andMedium Squirrel-Cage Induction Motor Standards." A condensation ofNEMA-1998. Publishedby NEMA, Rosslyn, VA, 2002. NIST-1995 Handbook 150-10, Efficiency ofElectric Motors (EEM). A publication ofthe National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) ofthe National Institute of Standards and Technology. Publishedby US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1995. NIST-2004 Directory ofAccredited Laboratories, Efficiency ofElectric Motors. Website: http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/scopes/eemot.htm. Most recent update as ofthis writing January 2004. OIT-2002, "United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment," Publishedbythe US Department ofEnergy's Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and its Office oflndustrial Technologies {OIT), Washington, D.C., 2002.

I 5-12Sub-Appendix: Detailed calculations

Table AS-Al. Annual Energy Consumption, Industrial Motors, Default scenario Annual Enen:v Consumption, Default scenario

Size Class Unit Loading Efficiency UnitEnergy Number of Annual Operating (2) (3) Consumption Motors (6) Energy hours (1) Consumption HP Hours I Percent Percent kWh/Year kWh/Year Year 1to5 2745 56.6 82.0 4.24E+03 7306080 3.lOE+lO 5 to 20 3391 51.7 86.5 l.89E+04 3288035 6.21E+10 20 to 50 4067 57.1 90.0 6.74E+04 1129527 7.61E+10 50 to 100 5329 52.2 91.5 l.70E+05 363940 6.19E+10 100 to 200 5200 66.1 92.5 4.16E+05 220908 9.19E+10 Totals 6.76E+05 1.23E+07 3.23E+ll

Table A5-A2. Annual Energy Consumption, Industrial Motors, EP ACT scenario Annual Eneri [Y Consumption, EP ACT scenario Size Class Unit Loading Efficiency UnitEnergy Number of Annual Operating (2) (4) Consumption Motors (6) Energy hours (1) Consumption HP Hours/ Percent Percent kWh/Year kWh/Year Year 1to5 2745 56.6 85.0 4.09E+03 7306080 2.99E+IO 5 to 20 3391 51.7 89.25 l.83E+04 3288035 6.02E+IO 20 to 50 4067 57.1 92.0 6.59E+04 1129527 7.44E+IO 50 to 100 5329 52.2 93.55 l.66E+05 363940 6.05E+10 100 to 200 5200 66.1

. 94.55 4.07E+05 220908 8.99E+10 Totals 6.61E+05 1.23E+07 3.15E+ll

TableA5-A3. Annual Energy Consumption, Industrial Motors, NEMA Premium scenario Annual Eneri:y Consumption, NEMA Premium scenario

Size Class Unit Loading Efficiency UnitEnergy Numberof Annual Operating (2) (5) Consumption Motors (6) Energy hours (1) Consumption HP Hours I Percent Percent kWh/Year kWh/Year Year 1to5 2745 56.6 87.5 3.97E+03 7306080 2.90E+10 5 to 20 3391 51.7 91.25 l.79E+04 3288035 5.89E+IO 20 to 50 4067 57.1 93.75 6.47E+04 1129527 7.31E+10 50 to 100 5329 52.2 94.95 l.64E+05 363940 5.97E+10 100 to 200 5200 66.1 95.6 4.02E+05 220908 8.89E+IO Totals 6.53E+05 1.23E+07 3.lOE+ll

5-13Table A5-A4 Savings comparison: EP ACT vs. NEMA Premium, Industrial Motors EP ACT vs. NEMA Premium Absolute Savin2s comparison Size Class EPACT Savings NEMA Premium Benefit Savin2s HP kWh kWh kWh I to 5 l.09E+09 l.95E+09 8.54E+08 5 to 20 l.91E+09 3.23E+09 l.32E+09 .20 to 50 l.65E+09 3.04E+09 l.39E+09 50 to 100 l.36E+09 2.25E+09 8.93E+08 100 to 200 l.99E+09 2.98E+09 9.87E+08 Totals 8.01E+09 l.35E+10 5.44E+09

Notes: (1) OIT-2002, p. B-2 (2) Expected load values based on Table 1-19, "LoadingbyHorsepower," OIT-2002, p. 46. This table provides a 'distribution' ofloading levels: within each horsepower class, it lists the fraction ofmotors loaded less than 40%, 40-120%, or above 120%. The values we used are the expectedvalue ofthe loading, assuming that the distribution is uniform within each ofthe three load level classes. Also, we assumed thatmotors were never loaded beyond 130% oftheir rated load. (3) OIT-2002, Table 2-10, p. 65, 1800 RPM, midrange value taken (i.e., this table is very fine-grained, 1-1.5 HP, l.5-2HP, etc. We picked a representative efficiency from the middle ofourHP size classes. (4) Efficiency standards for 4 pole (1800 RPMS) ODP motors. The EPACT efficiencies for the low and high end ofthe HP ranges were averaged to produce the EPACT efficiency number. (5) Efficiency standards for 4 pole (1800 RPMS) ODP motors. TheNEMA PremiumTM efficiencies for the low and high end ofthe HP ranges were averaged to produce the NEMAPremiumTM efficiency number. (6) OIT-2002, p. B-2. (7) Relative to 1994 AEC for 1-200HP Industrial motors: 3.81E+11 kWh. This AEC figure assumes: (a) 1994 AEC for all industrial motors of6.79E+ll (OIT-2002, p. 1), and (b) we can apply distribution ofmotor system energy with respect to horsepower size for manufacturingsectormotors (OIT-2002, p. 40) to all industrial motors.

5-14A6 Pool Heaters, Gas
.A6.1 Background

In 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into law establishing minimum energy efficiency standards for gas-firedpool heaters. As definedby NAECA, a pool heater is "an appliance designed for heating non-potable water contained at atmospheric pressure, including heating water in swimming pools, spas, hottubs, and similar applications" (NAECA 1987). This definition is limited to residential gas-firedpools and spas by the general application ofNAECA to consumerproducts only. Pool heaters are a covered product. The energy efficiency descriptor for pool heaters is thermal efficiency. As prescribed byNAECA, all pool heaters must meet a minimum thermal efficiency of78 percent. Updated minimum standards for pool heaters were proposed in 1994 but DOE never finalized the proposed standards (DOE 1994). Table A6-1 provides background data on the installed base, annual shipments, lifetime, and national annual energy consumption ofpool heaters.

Table A6-1: Pool HeaterBackground Data

·,',,,,. ·):'',•,'

. J>atlitype.• (•' 

## .. 

## . 

# .. ·Value1 

# ... ;**.sourc~zc~Dimeiits' •··**  • '.<''</·**~iii;** ; ..**~;·c;** ) 

# . ., I

. ; 

### • ·.;' •. 

### .. . . Installed Base, million 2.5 Based on historical shipments and equipment lifetime oflryears Annual Shipments, million 0.205 (DOE 1993) EquipmentLifetime, years 15 (DOE 1993) AEC, quad 0.082 Based on installed based and stock annual energyuse 1 Installed base, annual shipment, and AEC values are for the year 2002.

A6.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence Water is heated as it passes through the pool heater. The pool heater does not store heated water. The heaters are installed on the water line that circulates pool waterthrough the filter. This plumbing arrangement avoids an additional pump for the heater. When the circulating pool water temperature is too low, a thermostat turns on the heater. Afterthe pool waterreaches the desired temperature, the heater is turned off. The majority ofpool heaters being manufactured consist offinned copper tube heat exchangers in a rectangular combustion chamber. Mostpool heaters are designed for outdoor installation. The venting is directly out ofthe combustion chamber, with some extrabaffling onthe vent for protection from the elements. Baseline pool heaters have a standing pilot. Electronic ignition can beused to replace the standing pilot and reduce gas consumption, although the benefit of .electronic ignition is not reflected in the thermal efficiency rating. The non-condensing limit was consideredto have a thermal efficiency of80 percent. Two condensing levels were also analyzed. Table A6-2 summarizes the various efficiency levels considered byDOE in 1994 when updated minimum efficiency standards were being considered (DOE 1993).

6-1TableA6-2: Pool Heater Technology Levels and UEC Valnes

Baseline 78% 30.5 (DOE 1993) Electronic Ignition 78% 26.0 (DOE 1993) Non-Condensing Limit 80% 24.7 (DOE 1993) Condensing (Induced Draft) 91% 22.4 (DOE 1993) Condensing (Pulse) 96% 21.2 (DOE 1993) Table A6-3 provides retail price information corresponding to the efficiency levels specified in TableA6-2. Retail price data were taken from DOE's 1993 Technical Support Document and inflated to 2002 dollars using consumerprice index data from the U.S. Department ofLabor (DOL2004).

TableA6-3: Pool HeaterRetail Prices

### Thermal ·· R.etaitPrice ·· ·Efficiency.··· · ......($2002) Baseline 78% $1785 (DOE 1993) Electronic Ignition 78% $1905 (DOE 1993) Non-Condensing Limit 80% $2080 (DOE 1993) Condensing (Induced Draft) 91% $3196 (DOE 1993) Condensing (Pulse) 96% $4318 (DOE 1993)

A6.3 Test Procedure Status
The Department adopted a Final Rule ofthe test procedure for gas-firedpool heaters onMay 12, 1997 (DOE, 1997).

A6.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
Table A6-4 presents the energy savings potential for the efficiency levels specified in Table A6- 2. Also provided in Table A6-4 is the economic benefit orburden to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that the condensing designs do notyield an economic benefit to consumers. Consumer national utility bill savings for a given year are derived bytaking the national annual energy savings and multiplying itbythe corresponding electricity price from the
6-2DOE-Energy Information Administration'sAnnuaiEnergy Outlook2004 (DOE 2004). Consumernational equipment cost increases are derivedbytaking the perunit change in equipment cost and multiplying itbythe annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost increases are summed overthe time period 2010-2035 with the netbenefit or burden being the difference between the two values. 12

TableA6-4: Pool Heater Potential Energy Savings and Economic ImpactEstimates

Baseline 30.5 NA Electronic Ignition 26.0 0.29 Non-Condensing Limit 24.7 0.37 Condensing (Induced Draft) 22.4 0.52 Condensing (Pulse) 21.2 0.59

A6.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens**3··~~ote.~f,ia1 Fi£0,D,'oDi1~'·**  0;.;·'.· .·.··•····.· ..••**~~l!~~tsLilμt(len~;** .: •.•.·' 

### •**ctiR.u11ltiy~~~:\l'·Z0)9t~~~.s.**

### • .•**(billiotisof;$200~)** •·· · ·· NA 0.40 0.28 -1.22 -2.88



### In the Fiscal Year 2004 Priority-Setting memorandum, pool heaters were listed as a low-priority product (DOE 2003). No significant changes have occurred since then.

A6.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards Although not directly impacting gas-firedpool heaters, DOE actively promotes the use ofsolar pool heating. Inparticular, there is a DOEprogram called "Million Solar Roofs" which has resulted in increaseduse ofsolarpool heating (DOE 2004b). DOE also provides consumer guides detailing the benefits ofsolarpool heating (DOE 2004c). Forexample, DOE states in their Energy Smart Managementwebsite for solarpool heating systems: "The most costeffective use ofsolar energy today is to heat swimming pools. Swiinming pools require low temperature heat which is where solar collectors are most efficient." Because the market share ofsolarpool heating is growing, itwill tend to reduce the savings from gas-firedpool heater standards below what are provided here (Table A6-4).

12 Economic calculations are performed with a spreadsheet tool which is available onthe DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site.**http:/~www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance** standards/docs/fy05 prioritv setting spreadsheets.zip
6-3References National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofCodes and Standards, 1993. "Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Room Air Conditioners, Water Heaters, Direct Heating Equipment, Mobile Home Furnaces, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, Pool Heaters, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts & Television Sets." Washington, DC DOE/EE-0009, VolumeG. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-U.S. Department ofEnergy-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1994. "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rule." Federal Register 59 (43): 10464-10532. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-U.S. Department ofEnergy-Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. 1997. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts: Test Procedures for Furnaces/Boilers, Vented Home Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters." Federal Register 62 (91): 26140-26165. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Building Technologies Program. 2003. "Fiscal Year 2004 Priorities for the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Process." Available online: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/pdfs/october memo.pdf U.S. Department ofLabor (DOL), Bureau ofLabor Statistics. 2004. Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers. Available online: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004a. "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 2004. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2004b. "Million Solar Roofs: A Technology Success Story". http://www.rnillionsolarroofs.com/articles//static/l/binaries/ChristyMSRIPresentation0703.pdf U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2004c. "Reduce Swimming Pool Energy Costs'', Energy Smart Management: Solar Pool Heating Systems. http://www.eere.energy.gov/rspec/solar.html

6-4A7 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Compact Refrigerators
A7.1 Background Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are major household appliances designed for the refrigerated storage offood products. A refrigerator consists ofa refrigerated cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage offood attemperatures above 0°C (32°F) andbelow 3.9°C (39°F), configured for general refrigerated food storage, and having a source ofrefrigeration-requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only. A refrigerator may include a compartment for the storage offood attemperatures below 0°C (32°F), but does notprovide a separate low temperature compartment designed for freezing and storage offood attemperatures below -13.3°C (8°F). A refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet which consists ofat least one compartment designed for the refrigerated storage offood attemperatures above 0°C (32°F) and at least one other compartment designed for the freezing and storage offood at temperatures below -13.3°C (8°F). A freezer consists ofa cabinet for the storage and freezing offoods at
- 17.8°C (0°F) orbelow. Compactrefrigerators are definedbythe DOE as having less than a 7.75 cubic foot capacity and 36 inches or less in height. In 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into law establishing minimum energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Fortwelve product classes, NAECA specified the maximum allowable energy in kilowatt-hours peryear for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1990 (NAECA 1987). Subsequentto the NAECArequirements, a new set ofminimum efficiency standards became effective first in 1993 then again in 2001 (DOE 1997). The new minimum efficiency standards in 1993 eliminated 99 percent ofthe models and increased efficiencyby 25 to 30 percent relative to the NAECA requirements. The minimum efficiency standards thatbecame effective on July 1, 2001 increase the efficiency ofthe mostpopularproduct class, top mount refrigerator-freezers
·with auto-defrost, by approximately 30 percent relative to the 1993 standards. Table A7-1 provides background data onthe installed base, annual shipments, lifetime, and national annual energy consumption for refrigerator-freezers and freezers. The background data are divided into three categories: standard size refrigerators andrefrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compactrefrigerators.

7-1Table A7-1: StandardRefrigerator, Freezer, and CompactRefrigerator Background Data TYJ>e.'}

.. :• Datatype/ · 

# . I >**,vaiue~** cl c;_:•.•**<,~•** .... · .• · •; .**'\i;·~J:'.** 

### '/';

.. ·. ·,·**"'.u~•** .·• '"**·~** ; •' Installed Base, millions 142 Based on historical shipments and equipment lifetime of 19 years Refrigerator & Annual Shipments, millions 9.74 (Appliance 2004)RefrigeratorFreezers Equipment Lifetime, years 19 (DOE 1995) ABC, quad 0.86 Based on installed base and stock annual energy use Installed Base, millions 29 Based on historical shipments and equipment lifetime of 19 years · Annual Shipments, millions 1.49 (Appliance 2004) Freezers Equipment Lifetime, years 19 (DOE 1995) AEC,quad 0.14 Based on installedbase and stock annual energyuse Installed Base, millions 12 Based on historical shipments and equipment lifetime of 19 years Compact Annual Shipments, millions 1.40 (Appliance 2004) Refrigertors Equipment Lifetime, years 11 (DOE 1995) AEC,quad 0.04 Based on installed base and stock annual energyuse 1 Installed base, annual shipment, and ABC values are for the year 2002.

A7.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence Technology for improving refrigerator and freezer performance include: using more efficient compressors, reducing the power consumption offans, using smart defrost technology to minimize the amount ofdefrost that is needed and adding insulation. The saturation ofrefrigerators/refrigerator-freezers was 96 percent in 2001, based onthe number ofhouseholds with at least one refrigerator (AHAM 2003). The sales ofcompact refrigerators have increased appreciably in the last several years. While most seemto be sold to residential consumers, significant amounts are also prevalent in non-residential applications such as hotels, dormitories and offices. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), ENERGY STAR®, and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) specify voluntary efficiency requirements for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (FEMP 2004; ENERGY STAR® 2004; CEE 2004). FEMP provides efficiency targets only for standard size refrigerator-freezers. Forexample, for topmount refrigerator-freezers with auto-defrost, the specified annual energyuse reduction target is four percent lowerthan the current minimum standard. FEMP is in the process ofrevising its purchasing recommendations for refrigerators, in order to be in alignment with ENERGY STAR® specifications. The difference between FEMP and ENERGY STAR® will be that while
7-2ENERGY STAR® specifies an efficiency curve, FEMP divides recommendations into bins based on capacity and reports their recommendations inkWh/yearrather than as a percentage increase in efficiency. ENERGY STAR® specifies annual energy use reduction targets of 15, 10, and 20 percent for standard size refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compactrefrigerators respectively. CEE targets only standard-size refrigerator-freezers. CEE specifies three tier levels specifying annual energy use reduction targets of20, 25, and 30 percentrelative to current minimum efficiency standards. The market presence ofhigher efficiency refrigerators and freezers canbe gauged somewhatby the numberrefrigerators meeting the ENERGY STAR® specifications and CEE tier levels. The AHAM 2003 FactBookreports that 25 percent ofsales ofrefrigerator products over 6.5 cu. ft. in capacity meet ENERGY STAR® levels (AHAM 2003). OnJanuary 1, 2004, the ENERGY STAR® criteria changed for all full size refrigerators (above 7.75 cu. ft in capacity). Fortopmount refrigerator-freezers with volumes between 16.5 to 18.4 cu. ft., 33 models currently meet the ENERGY STAR® criteria. For chest freezers, twelve models currently meet the ENERGY STAR® criteria; however, none were inthe 22.5 to 24.4 cu. ft. range. For single-door refrigerators, 23 models currently meet the ENERGY STAR® criteria (ENERGY STAR® 2004). All single-door refrigerator models meeting ENERGY STAR® have volumes less than 7.75 cu.ft., qualifying them as compactrefrigerators. According to information compiled by ENERGY STAR®, several refrigerator-freezer models meet the CEE tier levels. Over 50 refrigerator-freezer models lie betweenthe first two CEE tier levels (i.e., energyuse of20 to 25 percent lower than existing minimum standards), five models lie between the second and third CEE tier levels (i.e., energy use of25 to 30 percent lowerthan existing minimum standards), and six models have lower energy consumption than the third CEE tier level (ENERGY STAR® 2004). Tables A7-2 through A7-4 provide the UEC values corresponding to various efficiency levels of standard-size refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compactrefrigerators.

7-3Table A7-2: Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Technology Levels and UEC Values



### ..··· UEC1

(kWh/year) Typical New 552 (AHAM2003) Minimum Efficiency Standard 4842 (DOE 1997) FEMP3 (4% decrease) 530 (FEMP 2004) ENERGY STAR® (15% decrease) 469 (ENERGY STAR® 2004) CEE Tier 1 (20% decrease) 442 (CEE 2004) CEE Tier 2 (25% decrease) 414 (CEE 2004) CEE Tier 3 (30% decrease) 338 (CEE 2004) 1 UEC values are a shipment-weighted average ofall standard-size refrigerator-freezers. 2 Minimum standard for top- mount refrigerator-freezer with auto defrost, 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. 3 FEMP is in the process ofrevising its purchasing recommendations for refrigerators, in order to be in alignment

with ENERGY STAR® specifications. The difference between FEMP and ENERGY STAR® will be that while ENERGY STAR® specifies an efficiency curve, FEMP divides recommendations into bins based on capacity and
· reports theirrecommendations in kWh/year rather than as a percentage increase in efficiency.

Table A7-3: Freezer Technology Levels and UEC Values

Typical New ENERGY STAR® (10% decrease) 

### <UEc1 (kWh/year)·· 444 400 (AHAM2003) (ENERGY STAR® 2004) 1UEC values are a shipment-weighted average ofall freezers.

TableA7-4: CompactRefrigeratorTechnology Levels and UEC Values 

## iJEc1·· • .. (kWh/year)

.... Typical New 300 (AHAM 1996) ENERGY STAR® (20% decrease) 240 (ENERGY STAR® 2004) 1UEC values are a shipment-weighted average ofall compact refrigerators. Tables A7-5 through A7-7 provide retail price information corresponding to the efficiency levels specified in Tables A7-2 through A7-4. Retail price data for typical new standard-size refrigerator-freezers and freezers are providedbyAHAM in their 2003 Fact Book (AHAM 2003). A representative retail price for a typical new compact refrigerator was obtained from a retailer website (WalMart 2004). Retail prices are generated for high efficiency levels from the percentage price increases indicatedbythe price versus efficiencyrelationships in DO E's 1995 refrigerator Technical SupportDocument (TSD) (DOE 1995).

7-4TableA7-5: Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Retail Prices :'',,''. ',',**'?~::,** ,'>:' ,''·:, ..•.· Retau

### t>rice•·

.

### Techn~logyLeyel • ($20Q2)

.. TypicalNew $788 (AHAM2003) FEMP (4% decrease) 530 $796 (DOE 1995) 1 .ENERGY STAR® (15% 469 $856 (DOE 1995)1 decrease) CEE Tier 1 (20% decrease) 442 $903 (DOE 1995) 1 CEE Tier 2 (25% decrease) 414 $961 (DOE 1995) 1 CEE Tier3 (30% decrease) 338 $1031 (DOE 1995) 1 1 Price vs. efficiency relationship, top-mount refrigerator-freezer with auto-defrost, Table 4.1.

TableA7-6 Freezer Retail Prices 

### {J:Ec

. • ..·.RetailPrice (kWh/year) •($20()2) Typical New 444 $405 (AHAM 2003) ENERGY STAR® (10% decrease) 400 $415 (DOE 1995)1
1 Price vs. efficiency relationship, chest manual defrost freezer, Table 4.8, baseline to design option 2

efficiency range.

TableA7-7: Compact RefrigeratorRetail Prices

Typical New ENERGY STAR® (20% decrease) 240**R.~taiIPrice** •($2()02)'

. $125 $131 (WalMart 2004) (DOE 1995) 1
1 Price vs. efficiencyrelationship, compact manual defrost refrigerator, Table 4.9.

A7.3 Test Procedure Status
Standard-size refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compactrefrigerators are all coveredunder the same DOE test procedure. They are tested at an ambienttemperature of90°F while internal volume temperatures are kept within specifiedtemperature conditions. DOE has recently taken action on a couple ofissues regarding the testprocedure. Also, there have been recent actions to improve AHAM's test standard. The National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST) has investigated the possibility ofharmonizingtheU.S. test procedure with international test standards. All ofthese recent actions are described in more detail below.

7-5Credit for a more efficientdefrostsystem DOE issued a direct final rule, whichbecame effective in May2003, amending the calculation of the testtime period for "long-time" automatic defrost units (DOE 2003). This change gives credit for a control capable ofdetecting frost so that the defrosting occurs otherthan during a compressor-on cycle, thereby saving energybytaking advantage ofthe natural warming ofthe evaporator during the compressor-offcycle. This revision has no effect on the testing of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that do not employ a long-time automatic defrost system. ·Change in electric refrigerator definition to exclude wine coolers Several manufacturers ofwine coolers requested exemptions from the refrigerator energy efficiency standards. Some wine coolers are made with glass front doors, which make them less energy efficientthan standard refrigerators. As a result, the DOE amendedthe definition of "electric refrigerator", effective December 19, 2001, to include a maximum temperature ofthe fresh food storage compartment, and to exclude certain appliances whose physical configuration makes themunsuitable for general storage ofperishable foods. The purpose ofthe revised electric refrigerator definition was to exclude wine coolers from the energy efficiency regulation (DOE 2001). This rule may also affect other compactrefrigerators designed to store and cool beverages other than wine. For example, since the time ofthe test procedure revision, a new product has entered the marketthat is both a compact refrigerator and wine cooler whose performance cannotbe rated bythe existing test procedure. Repeatability issues for testing compact refrigerators Because ofinconsistencies in test results for compact refrigerators, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigated repeatability andreproducibility issues and published a report entitled "Repeatability ofEnergy Consumption TestResults for Compact Refrigerators". In addition, NIST participated in a task force formed bythe Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to revise their AHAM HRF-1 test procedure. The latest version ofAHAM's testprocedure is now AHAM HRF-1, 2003. Butthe existing DOE testprocedure still references an older version ofthe AHAM test procedure, AHAM HRF-1, 1979. DOE may need to amend the test procedure to reference the mostrecent version of AHAMHRF-1. Harmonizing with internationalstandards NIST has done comparisons between ISO's international test standards and the North American .test standard. The two testprocedures are similarbut not identical. Differences include the ambient temperature atwhich the refrigerators are tested and the ISO specified test load. There is some interest in harmonizing andunifying the two testprocedures bymanufacturers interested in international trade. Recently, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have harmonized their testprocedures.

7-6A7.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
Table A7-8 presents the energy savings potential for the FEMP, ENERGY STAR®, and CEE efficiency levels specified in Tables A7-2 through A7-4. Also provided in Table A7-8 is the economic benefit orburden to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that only the FEMP and ENERGY STAR® efficiency levels yield an economic benefitto consumers. Consumer national utility bill savings for a givenyear are derived bytaking the national annual energy savings and multiplying itbythe corresponding electricity price from the DOE-Energy Information Administration'sAnnualEnergy Outlook2004 (DOE 2004). Consumernational equipment cost increases are derived bytaking the perunit change in equipment cost and multiplying itby the annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost increases are summed overthe time period 2010-2035 with the netbenefit orburden being the difference between the two values. 13

TableA7-8: Refrigerator Potential Energy and Economic ImpactEstimates

.·• / ..······ UEC..·•······

. •..·Tech110Iogy Leyel • 1 

### (k\Vhlyr)•· Standard-SizeRefrigerator-Freezers Base Case 552 NA NA FEMP 530 0.77 1.00 ENERGY STAR® 469 2.89 0.52 CEE Tier I 442 3.85 -1.28 CEE Tier2 414 4.82 -4.07 CEE Tier 3 386 5.78 -7.85 Freezers Base Case 444 NA NA ENERGY STAR® 400 0.38 0.61 CompactRefrigerators Base Case 300 NA NA ENERGY STAR® 240 0.48 0.87

13 Economic calculations are performed with a spreadsheet tool which is available on the DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip
7-7A7.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden
For full line manufacturers ofwhite goods, consideration needs to be given to what other regulatory actions are in effect for otherproducts. Also, refrigerator manufacturers had to recently complywith U.S. EPAregulations onthe phaseout ofHCFC-14lb in 2003, the blowing agent that was used for foam insulation. Any consideration given to updated minimum efficiency requirements needs to account for the effort and cost manufacturers expended for meeting this regulation.

A7.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards
DOE's most recent energy efficiency standards became effective on July 1, 2001. This set of standards is the third set ofminimum efficiency requirements that the industry has faced since 1990. The first set ofstandards took effect in 1990 andthe second set in 1993. Wine cooler andbeverage centers as well as combination refrigerator/beverage coolers, need definitions andpossible test procedures and standards. Compactrefrigerators are a fast growing part ofthe overall refrigerator market. Thus, due to their increased national energy consumption, potential energy savings couldbecome greater in the future.

7-8References Appliance Magazine. 2004. "HealthyTimes Ahead." January, 2004. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1996. Data on compactrefrigerators. Chicago, IL. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 2003. "FactBook 2003." Chicago, IL. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). 2004. www.ceel.org ENERGY STAR®. 2004. www.energystar.gov Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). 2004. http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eeproducts.cfrn National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofCodes and Standards, 1995. "Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, & Freezers."Washington, DC. DOE/EE-0064. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1997. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers; Final Rule." Federal Register 62 (81): 23102- 23116. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2001. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts: Amendmentto the Definition ofElectric Refrigerator; Final Rule." Federal Register 66 (223): 57845-57848. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: TestProcedure for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers; DirectFinal Rule." Federal Register 68 (45): 10957-10961. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 withprojections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 2004. WalMart. 2004. Retail price for a Haier4.2 cu.ft. compactrefrigerator. March, 2004. www.walmart.com

7-9AS Room Air Conditioners
AS.1 Background
A room air conditioner is an encased assembly designed as a unitto be mounted in a window or through a wall thatprovides cool orwarm conditioned air to an enclosed room or space. In 1987, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into law establishing minimum energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners (NAECA 1987). The energy efficiency descriptor for room air conditioners is the energy efficiency ratio (EER). The EER is the ratio ofthe cooling capacity (in Btu/hr) to the inputpower (in Watts). Minimum EER standards were first prescribedbyNAECA and went into effect onJanuary 1, 1990 ranging from 8.0 to 9.0 EER depending on the product class. A total oftwelve product classes were establishedbyNAECA based on the cooling capacity ofthe unit, the presence of louvered sides (to enhance air flow over the outdoor coil), and the presence ofa reversing valve (to allow the unit to provide space-heating through heatpump operation). A second set ofrevised minimum efficiency levels went into effect on October 1, 2000 raising the minimum efficiency standards for the mostpopularproduct classes to 9.7 or 9.8 EER (DOE 1997). The mostpopularproduct classes are cooling-onlyunits equipped with louvered sides andranging in capacity from less than 6000 Btu/hrto 20,000 Btu/hr. The second set ofstandards also established minimum efficiency requirements for four additional product classes, two of which explicitly accounted for units designed for mounting in casement windows. Table A8-l provides background data on the installed base, annual shipments, lifetime, and national annual energy consumption ofroom air conditioners.

Table AS-1: Room Air ConditionerBackground Data Dafatype Value1 Installed Base, millions 57
Annual Shipments, millions 6.15 6.06 (year 2006 forecast) EquipmentLifetime, years 13 AEC,quad 0.33 Based on historical shipments and equipment lifetime of 13 years (Appliance 2004) (DOE 1997a) Based on installedbased and stock annual energyuse 1 Installedbase, annual shipment, and ABC values are for the year2002 except where noted.

8-1A8.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence Higherroom air conditioner efficiencies are typically achieved by improving the performance of the heat exchangers, compressor, fan motor, and fans. Heat exchangerperformance is improvedby one ormore ofthe following methods: increased frontal coil area, additional refrigerant tube rows, increased fin density, improved fin design, improved tube design, and adding a sub-coolerto the outdoor condenser coil. Most, ifnot all room air conditioners, collectthe condensate that drips offthe indoor evaporator coil into a pan beneath the outdoor condenser coil. The condensate is sprayed onto the condenser coil via a slinger ring attached to the circumference ofthe condenser fan to improve the heat exchanger performance ofthe condenser coil. Room air conditioners typically use rotary-type compressors with efficiencies ofup to 11.0 EER at standard rating conditions. Mostunits utilize a permanent split capacitor (PSC) fan motor to drive both the evaporatorblower and condenser fan. Designs that improve the seasonal or cyclic performance ofthe unit, such as variable speed or multi-speed compressors, variable-opening expansion devices, and advanced control systems, typically do not improve the steady-state efficiency or EER ofthe unit. Therefore, these types of designs are typically not utilized in room air conditioners. ENERGY STAR® andthe Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) specify voluntary EER requirements for room air conditioners (ENERGY STAR® 2004; CEE 2004). CEE's efficiency targets ofgreaterthan 11.0 EER seem to be quite aggressive, as according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers' (AHAM) 2003 Directory ofCertified RoomAir Conditioners, few models can meet CEE's EER specifications. However, there are several models meeting the .ENERGY STAR® voluntary efficiency requirements of 10.7 and 10.8 EERfor units with capacities ofless than 20,000 Btu/hr. Table A8-2 provides the EER and UEC values corresponding to various types ofroom air conditioners. Note that the UEC is based on 533 hours ofoperationper year as opposed to the 750 hours in DOE's test procedure. The 533 hour value is based on more recent data from the 1997 Technical Support Document for room air conditioners (DOE 1997a).

8-2TableAS-2: Room Air ConditionerTechnology and UEC Values

TypicalNew Minimum Efficiency Standard ENERGY STAR®
CEE Tier 1
CEE Tier2 9.75 9.7 to 9.82 10.7 to 10.82 (10% efficiency increase) 11.2 to 11.32 (15% efficiency increase) 11.6 to 11.82 (20% efficiency increase) 536 538 to 533
486
465
445 (AHAM2003) (DOE 1997) (ENERGY STAR® 2004) (CEE 2004) (CEE 2004) Basedtypical new cooling capacity of9800 Btu/hr and 533 hours ofoperation. 2 Corresponds to units with cooling capacities less than 20,000 Btu/hr. Table A8-3 provides retailprice information corresponding to the EER levels specified in Table A8-2. Retail price data for a typical new unit is providedbyAHAM intheir 2003 FactBook. Retail prices are generated for high EER levels from the percentage price increases indicatedby theprice versus efficiency relationship in DOE's 1997 room air conditioner TSD for units with cooling capacities between 8000 to 14,000 Btu/hr, with louvered sides, and without reversing valves (DOE 1997a).

TableAS-3: Room Air ConditionerRetail Prices

TypicalNew 9.75 $322 (AHAM2003) (DOE 1997)1 ENERGY STAR® 10.7 to 10.82 (10% efficiency increase) $357
CEE Tier 1 (DOE 1997)2 11.2 to 11.32 (15% efficiency increase) $460
CEE Tier2 11.6 to 11.82 (20% efficiency increase) $520 (DOE 1997)2 Price vs. efficiencyrelationship, 8000 to 14,000 Btu/hrwith louvered sides, without reversing valve, Table 4.4, 9.3 to 11.0 EER efficiency range. 2 Price vs. efficiencyrelationship, 8000 to 14,000 Btu/hrwith louvered sides, without reversing valve,

Table 4.4, greater than 11.0 EER efficiency range.

8-3A8.3 Test Procedure Status
The DOE testprocedure for room air conditioners references ASHRAE Standard 16-69, Method of Testing forRatingRoomAir Conditioners. While the ASHRAE Standardhas beenrevised in 1983 andreaffirmed in 1999, the DOE testprocedure references the 1969 version. The changes made to ASHRAE Standard 16-69 since 1969 have been editorial (i.e., to clarify language for interpretive purposes). Thus there are no substantive technical differences between the 1969 and 1999 versions. In DOE's Final Rule regarding minimum efficiency standards published on September 24, 1997, the Departmentrecognizes that the current test procedure is not adequate for determining the benefits due to designs that improve seasonal or cyclic performance, such as variable speed compressors. Although the currenttestprocedure cannot measure the benefits ofdesigns that

. improve seasonal or cyclic performance, the Departmenthas no plans to revise the test procedure.

A8.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
Table A8-4 presents the energy savings potential for the ENERGY ST AR® and CEE efficiency levels specified in Table A8-2. Also provided in Table A8-4 is the economic benefit orburden to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that only the ENERGY STAR® efficiency level yields an economic benefitto consumers. Consumernational utility bill savings for a given year are derivedbytaking the national annual energy savings and multiplying itbythe corresponding electricityprice from the DOE-Energy Information Administration'sAnnualEnergy Outlook 2004 (DOE 2004). Consumernational equipment cost increases are derivedbytaking the per unit change in equipment cost and multiplying itbythe annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost increases are summed overthe time period 2010-2035 with the net benefit orburden being the difference between the two values. 14

14 Economic calculations are performed with a spreadsheettool which is available onthe DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip 8-4Table A8-4: Room Air ConditionerPotential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates

Typical New 536 NA NA ENERGY STAR® 486 0.80 0.03 CEE Tier 1 465 1.15 -4.14 CEE Tier2 445 1.47 -6.29

A8.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is phasing out the use ofR-22 in 2010 for use in new appliances. R-22 is a hydrochlorofluorocarbon that has been found to contribute to atmospheric ozone depletion. Because R-22 is the refrigerant used in room air conditioners, the industry must find a replacement. The central air conditioning and heatpump industry is also faced with the same environmental regulation. As a result, this industry has identifiedtwo replacements: R410a and R-407c. Although R-407c can be used as a "drop-in" replacement, it tends to degrade the efficiency ofthe equipment. Thus, R-410a seems to bethe likely choice by central air conditioning andheatpump industry. Butbecause R-410ahas properties thatresult inhigher compressor discharge pressures, equipment may have to beredesigned to accommodate this refrigerant. Itis still uncertain which refrigerant the room air conditioner industry will choose to replace R-22. Regardless ofthe choice, room air conditioner designs will likely change to accommodate the new refrigerant as well as maintain equipment efficiencies in order to meet current minimum efficiency requirements.

A8.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards
The largest single issue facing the industry is the phase-out ofR-22. As noted earlier, manufacturers will likelyneedto redesign their units to accommodate the new refrigerant while preventing any degradation in equipment efficiency.

8-5References Appliance Magazine. 2004. "Healthy Times Ahead." January, 2004. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 2003. "FactBook 2003." Chicago, IL. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). 2004. www.ceel.org ENERGY STAR®. 2004. www.energystar.gov National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1997. "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts: Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners; Final Rule." Federal Register 62 (185): 50122-50150. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE)-Office ofCodes and Standards, 1997a. "Technical Support Document for Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners, Volume 2

- Detailed Analysis ofEfficiency Levels (DocketNumbers EE-RM-90-201 & EM-RM-93-801-RAC)." Washington, DC. September, 1997. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 withprojections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 2004.

8-6A9 Battery Chargers I External Power Supplies

A9.1 Background External power supplies andbattery chargers are used bymany types ofconsumerelectronic and electrical devices. In some products, the battery charger and power supply are integratedwithin the electronic or electrical device. For otherproducts, the battery is integrated into the device (e.g., cell phones) and an external power supply is used to charge the battery. Table A9-l provides background data on battery chargers and external power supplies collectedbyLawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory (LBNL) and Ecos Consulting. The table shows products used in both the residential and commercial sectors.

TableA9-1: Background Data on Battery Chargers and Power Supplies**···:<J>7·~,,::** 

### .. . , ... , ...

## ·r·'·./, .:

# ". }**~()t~(i~;!f~~;·** •'.**~!.;•n•**

# ;~~.~~~~~ff·. I : 

# :·)·•'.:'\'": ;.**~~~~i~**

# .• .·.\:

... 

### <millfons)·· · :;.':::::.v ·.·. '.;?> •.· I••. YI u;«ui f; Electronic Musical Instruments 10.00 6 1.67 Digital camera charger 10.75 6 4.50 Answering Device 47.00 6 5.64 Phone: Conference Phone 1.15 6 0.16 Phone: Cordless 128.40 6 31.27 Phone: Cordless/ Answering Machine Combo 76.94 6 15.10 Phone: OtherPowered 10.27 5 1.47 Phone: Wireless 140.80 2 57.00 CFL DeskLamp 0.43 7 0.61 Low-voltage halogen lighting 25.00 7 3.57 Rechargeable Appliances 23.15 4 5.79 Security Systems, Home 3.20 10 0.32 Battery Chargers 8.00 4 2.00 Handheld Computers 8.24 4 2.06 Portable Computer 49.43 4 10.90 Desktop Calculators 40.00 6 6.67 Dictation Equipment Desktop 1.71 6 0.28 Dictation EquipmentPortable 2.70 6 0.45 .Computer Speakers 59.62 4 20.08 External Modems 5.16 4 1.29 LCD ComputerMonitor, external PS 4.35 4 2.30 (Commercial/Industrial) LCD Computer Monitor, external PS (Residential) 2.25 4 1.13 Multifunction device, Inkjet (External PS) 0.22 5 0.74 Printer, Inkjet, external PS 29.50 5 6.76 Printer, Thermal, external PS 4.91 5 0.70 BroadbandInternet Devices Hubs in Ports, External PS 35.81 4 8.95 Broadband InternetDevices LAN 8.31 4 2.08 BroadbandInternet Devices Routers, External PS 1.56 4 0.39 ·Source: All data is extracted from a draft spreadsheetbemg developed by Ecos Consultmg and LBNL. Pnmary sources include Appliance Magazine, technical reports, and internal/professional estimates.
9-1A9.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence
The distinction between external power supplies andbattery chargers is notwell definedbecause for many products, such as cell phones, the power supply's function is to charge the battery. For purposes ofthis analysis, ifthepower supply is physically separated from the battery charger, it is referred to as an external power supply. Also for purposes ofthis analysis, battery chargers are defined as a product whose sole function is to charge batteries. With regard to power supplies, there are both external and internal types. Power supplies provide the function ofreducing primary voltage from 115 volts to a lowervoltage. Most often this is also convertedto a direct current (DC) voltage. In other cases, the voltage is simply reduced to a lower alternating current (AC) voltage. Forthis assessment, only external AC to DC power supplies are being considered. Draft legislation currentlybeing considered by Congress also includes AC to AC power supplies (often referred to as transformers) which are used in applications such as door bells. Up until recently, the most common type ofpower supply was the lineartype. Linearpower supplies use a coil ofwire (similarto a transformer) to lower voltage. Recently, a newtype of power supply using electronic circuitry, called a switch mode power supply (SMPS), entered the market. SMPSs are designed to bemore efficientthan linearpower supplies. SMPSs are typically lighter and smaller in size and canbe made more compatible with different frequencies and voltages making them more suitable for the international market. As a result, SMPSs are becoming more widely used in some products. Currently integrated circuit manufacturers sell the power supply chip required for SMPSs to a power supply assembler. Most SMPSs are assembled in Asia, particularly China. The wholesale cost ofSMPSs is marginally higherthan that for linearpower supplies. However, because SMPSs are lighter and smaller in size, their costmaybe comparable to lineartypes after factoring in shipping costs. Future road map analyses sponsoredby the Power Sources Manufacturers Association (PSMA) presented atthe AppliedPower Electronics Conference (APEC) inFebruary 2004, foresees little orno cost difference between linear and SMPS power supplies. Unit**~nergy** consumption (UEC) and efficiency are affectedbythe operational mode ofthe battery charger orpower supply. Types ofoperational modes include: no load (i.e., while plugged in a wall socketbutnot charging a device), active mode (i.e., actively charging a device), and lowpower or sleep mode. Inmany cases, even whenthe device is drawing full load, the power supply is operating at less than its full rated capacity. As exemplifiedby cell phones, operational modes are affectedbyhow the device is used. In the case ofcell phones, the power supply may be: (1) charging the cell phone battery, (2) connectedto the cell phone even after the battery is fully charged, (3) left in the wall socketbut disconnected from the cell phone, or (4) disconnected from the wall socket. Obviously, the amount oftime the charger orpower supply spends under a specific load condition affects its UEC. The output voltage also affects the efficiency ofthe power supply. A high efficiency power supply is more difficult to manufacture at lower outputvoltages.

9-2.ENERGY STAR® has proposed voluntary efficiency requirements for battery chargers and power supplies. Itis estimatedthat approximately 12 percent ofpower supplies can meet the proposed ENERGY STAR® maximum limits for both no-load and active modes. The efficiency ofpower supplies ranges from 30 to 90 percentwith most in the range of60 to 70 percent. Table A9-2 summarizes the typical UECs for the battery charger andpower supply devices listed in Table A9-l. The UECs are based on a representative distribution ofefficiencies for each device.

TableA9-2: Battery Charger and Power Supply UECs



## .. ··•. 

# M,.;;,;; .. : ... · .. ·..· .... > •.. 

# ·•·.·.···**'vhic~i~2iK¥~~~f~,'.j'** ·.· ·

# .. .. Device ··...• .. ····•· 

### . 

# . • T .•.. 1: Electronic Musical Instruments 29.4 Digital camera charger 7.5 Answering Device 34.5 Phone: Conference Phone 30.8 Phone: Cordless 42.3 Phone: Cordless/ Answering Machine Combo 50.6 Phone: OtherPowered 34.2 Phone: Wireless 14.2 CFL DeskLamp 23.2 Low-voltage halogen lighting 29.3 Rechargeable Appliances 16.7 Security Systems, Home 122.6 Battery Chargers 7.5 Handheld Computers 0.3 Portable Computer 27.0 Desktop Calculators 14.0 Dictation Equipment Desktop 0.3 DictationEquipmentPortable 0.1 Computer Speakers 19.6 External Modems 47.3 LCD Computer Monitor, external PS (Commercial/Industrial) 101.2 LCD Computer Monitor, external PS (Residential) 56.0 Multifunction device, Inkjet (External PS) 11.9 Printer, Inkjet, external PS 40.8 Printer, Thermal, external PS 40.8 Broadband InternetDevices Hubs in Ports, External PS 11.0 Broadband InternetDevices LAN 35.0 Broadband Internet Devices Routers, External PS 350.4 Source: All data 1s extracted from a draft spreadsheet bemg developed by Ecos Consultmg andLBNL. Pnmary sources include Appliance Magazine, technical reports, and internal/professional estimates.

9-3A9.3 Test Procedure Status Departmentof Energy (DOE) DOE does not have a test procedure for eitherpower supplies orbattery chargers. Draft legislation being considered by Congress would specify that DOE prescribe bynotice and comment, definitions andtestprocedures for the poweruse ofbattery chargers and external power supplies, within 18 months afterthe date ofthe legislation's enactment. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA) & CaliforniaEnergy Commission (CEC) The EPA and the CEC collaborated in developing a testprocedure for external power supplies andbattery chargers. Contractors developing the test procedures were Ecos Consulting and EPRI-PEAC. InNovember 2003, EPA vetted the test procedures ofboth externalpower supplies and battery chargers to interestedparties. The battery charger test procedure had several issues that could notberesolved. EPA and the interestedparties decided that emphasis should beplaced onfinalizing a test procedure for external power supplies. The test procedure measures energyuse and efficiency under no-load conditions and at 25, 50, and 75 percent of rated current loading. Atthe Applied Power Electronic Conference inFebruary 2004, EPA announced a draft test procedure and a draft ENERGY STAR® specification for external AC to DC power supplies. Battery chargers andpower supplies with integratedbattery charging circuitry are currentlynot included in the EPA specifications.

A9.4 Pending Energy Legislation As noted above, draft legislation is currentlybeing consideredby Congress that would establish definitions and establish a schedule for the development oftestprocedures for external power supplies andbattery chargers. The draft legislation defines an external power supply to be an external power supply circuitthat is used to convert household electric current into eitherDC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumerproduct. The draft legislation defines a battery chargerto be a device that charges batteries for consumerproducts and includes battery chargers embedded in other consumerproducts. The legislations also states: "In establishing these test procedures, the Secretary shall consider, among other factors, existing definitions and test procedures used for measuring energy consumption in standby mode and othermodes and assess the current and projected future market for battery chargers and external power supplies."

9-4.A9.5 International Test Procedures EPA issued a draft testprocedure for external power supplies inFebruary 2004. EPAhas notyet issued a testprocedure for battery chargers because testing battery chargers would be more complex than power supplies. Factors that needto be considered include the type ofbattery to be charged, the rates ofcharging and discharging and other factors that influence energy consumption. Recently, EPA distributed to its stakeholders a letter, co-signedbythe CEC and representatives ofAustralia, Brazil, Canada and China, indicating strong international support for a single test procedure for single voltage external AC/DC power supplies. Other testprocedure activities include voluntary specifications bythe European Code ofConduct on testing devices at a 100 percent loading. Standbypower test procedures affecting power supplies include the IEC test procedure on standby power (IEC 62301) and the U.S. Executive Order on standbypower, recommending standby power consumption under one Watt.

A9.6 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
The energy savings potential assessment was based on a distribution ofpower supply andbattery charger efficiencies representing the range ofefficiencies currently onthe market. The assessment was based onthe size ofthe power supply used byeach device as well as a distribution ofpower supply efficiencies for each device. The distribution ofefficiencies was based on a sample testedbyEcos Consulting. Energy savings estimates were based onthe assumption that 80 percent efficientpower supplies were used in all applications. Energy savings estimated in Table A9-3 are based on estimating the energyusage in four modes ofoperation: active, ready, low, and off. Not all devices have all four modes. As noted above, .the UEC for a device is also based on a distribution ofpower supply efficiencies as measuredby Ecos Consulting. Ecos sorted these power supplies into bins based ontheirrated output. The power supplies were tested at more than one loading (i.e., percent ofrated output current). Based onthe testing, efficiency was found notto vary significantly with load, except at very low loads (e.g., no load or light load conditions). The distribution ofefficiencies is based onthe models Ecos had available to them for testing and is not necessarily representative ofa shipmentweighted average ofall available power supplies. The lifetime ofa power supply is assumed to be at least as long as the product it is used with.

9-5Table A9-3: Battery Charger and Power Supply Savings Potential Estimate 

## •• · • ..· ·tecllno1og)'1 Standard**Le\!.~1** 80% efficient in active mode 1.8

A9.7 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards DraftEnergyLegislation Perhaps the largest issue impacting potential efficiency standards is the pending energy legislation currently being considered by Congress. Ifapproved and enacted, battery chargers andpower supplies will become coveredproducts. Even ifthe draft legislation is signed into law, there are several issues that DOE will needto contend with in trying to regulate these products including:

• The draft legislation specifies the energy measurement for "standby and other modes" but does not explicitly define the "other"modes. • The draft legislationuses the term "consumer" to define power supplies andbattery chargers. Clarification is needed whetheruse ofthe term consumer excludes commercial sector applications. • Power quality andpower factor issues are not addressed. The power factor andpower quality canbe significantly lower for SMPSs. Data needs The high variability in power supplyusage as well as the large number ofapplications greatly affects the certainty ofestimated potential energy savings. Thus, additional data needto be collectedto better define the overall energy use ofpower supplies andbattery chargers and the savings potential associated with higher efficiency products. EPA actions EPA announced in February 2003 a design competition to take place overthe nextyear. This competition will assist inmaking information available onthe efficiency and cost-effectiveness ofvarious external power supply designs. ENERGY STAR® specifications will also beuseful in obtaining more information on efficientpower supplies. California Energy Commission The CEC is interested in establishing efficiency standards for both power supplies andbattery chargers. Butifthepending energy legislation is not approvedby Congress, states will notbe pre-empted from taking action on issuing efficiency regulations for these products.

9-6Stakeholder Comments and Concerns Some stakeholders have recommended that DOE wait until the outcome ofthe draft energy legislation is known before taking any action to cover and regulate these products. Atthe Technical Workshop on Power Supplies andBattery Chargers in San Francisco on November 7th, 2003, a representative from AHAM provided two lists to participants: one regarding external power supplies and the other onbattery chargers. These memos askthe CEC, which is considering the regulation ofthese products, to consider a list ofissues before addressing possible regulations. A sample ofthe issues listed for external power supplies include:

• External power supplies are not an independentproduct. • Power supplies may be external for safety reasons and a regulation may encourage companies to putthem inside a product. • Power supplies are used in a wide variety ofapplications. Some safety regulations may affect the power consumption. • Adding a powerfactor correction lowers the efficiency. Issues listed for battery chargers include:

• Battery chargers are not a stand-alone, independentproduct. • Power requirements and stand-by characteristics are different for different products. • Chargers have different characteristics based onthe type ofbattery they are charging.

9-7A10 Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines
A10.1 Background Vending machines andbeverage merchandisers are refrigerated cabinets that holdbottled or cannedbeverages at a cool temperature up until the time ofpurchase bythe consumer. The vending machine is designed as self-operating while the beverage merchandiser is designed for use in a restaurant or store where a cashier or merchant is present. Accordingly, vending machines often have bright signs installed on the front to advertise the product and coin slots and dispensers to complete the transaction. The vending machines to be considered are ones that dispense canned beverages, bottledbeverages, milk, andjuice. Beverage merchandisers usually have a glass door to display the productto the customer. Often, vending machines are sited outdoors at schools, gas stations, etc. Onthe otherhand, mostbeverage merchandisers are located indoors to discourage theft. Beverage merchandisers are very similar in construction and size to reach-in refrigerators. The main visual difference is the glass door on a beverage merchandiser compared to the solid door ofa typical reach-in refrigerator, which allows more heat leak into the case. An important functional criterion for beverage merchandisers is to be able to rapidly "pull down" the temperature ofwarmbeverages loaded into the merchandiser. For example, one ofthe largest customers ofbeverage merchandisers requires beverage merchandisers to bring the temperature ofthe beverages down to the desired level in a specific amount oftime. The glass door and the pull down requirement necessitate biggerrefrigeration systems for beverage merchandisers than comparably sized reach-in refrigerators. Table Al0-1 presents the installedbase data for vending machines andbeverage merchandisers. There are approximately 3.7 million beverage vending machines and 800,000 beverage merchandisers installed in the US. The annual primary energy consumption ofthe vending machines and beverage merchandisers equals 0.122 and 0.052 quad, respectively.

Table Al0-1: Installed BaseData for Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

Equipmenttype Datatype Value Source Installed Base, thousands (1994) 3,711 Vending Machines Annual Sales, thousands (2001) 353 Equipment Lifetime, years (1994) 7 to 10 ADL(1996); AEC,quad 0.122 Appliance Installed Base, thousands (1994) 800 Magazine Annual Sales, thousands (2001) 175 (2002) Beverage Merchandises Equipment Lifetime, years (1994) 7 to 10 AEC, quad 0.052

10-1A10.2 Test Procedure Status Neithervending machines norbeverage merchandisers have a DOE testprocedure. Discussion is proviqed in the following two subsections. A10.2.1 Vending Machines Forbeverage vending machines, energyuse is typically expressed in terms ofdaily power consumption (kWh/day) pervendible capacity ofthe standardproduct. Two publicly available testprocedures have been developed for rating refrigeratedbeverage vending machines, and they are widely usedbymanufacturers. There are also proprietary test procedures developedby bottling companies to evaluate energy consumption andperformance ofvending machines. The publicly available testprocedures are:

• Canadian Standards Association C804-1996 (CAN/CSA C804-96) EnergyPerformance of

Vending Machines, and

• American Society ofHeating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 32.1- 1997 (ASHRAE 32.1-97) Methods ofTesting for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned and Other SealedBeverages. The CAN/CSA C804-96 prescribes standards as well as test procedures for a 24-hour steadystate energy consumption test. The standardrating conditions include an ambient temperature of 90° F +/- 1.8° F and a relative humidity of65% +/- 5%, which corresponds well to a vending machine installed in a hot environment. In addition, a product temperature of34° F is specified for packaged beverages. The standard productused inthe CAN/CSA C804-96 is a 12 oz. can, and the testprocedure specifies that the machine be loaded to the minimumrated capacity, as specified bythe manufacturer. The ASHRAE 32.1-97 test procedure is similarto the CAN/CSA C804-96 standard inthat it includes a 24-hour steady-state energy consumption test thathas the same ambient temperature conditions and a 2° F higherbeverage temperature. The producttemperature is 36° F and the ambient rating conditions are 90° F +/- 1.8° F ambient temperature and 65% +/- 5% relative humidity. Since the ambient temperature specified is relatively high, it properlyrepresents vending machines installed in a hot environment, such as certain outdoor locations in the summer. This temperature rating condition does not accurately represent machines installed in indoor, air-conditioned locations. The ASHRAE 32.1-97 testprocedure specifies the same standardproduct as CAN/CSA C804-96, a 12 oz. can, but differs in specifying that the machine be fully loadedto capacity. In addition, the ASHRAE 32.1-97 testprocedure includes a vend test, where the machine dispenses products at a regular frequency, and a recovery test, where a halfempty machine is loadedwith warmproducts. However, the recovery test does not include provisions for measuring the energy consumption during the test. The revised version ofthe ASHRAE 32.1-1997 testprocedure has been recommended bythe ASHRAE Standards Project Committee 32.1 for publication. This revised version specifies two energy consumption test temperatures
- 90° F and 75° F. While one committee member wanted indoor vending machines to only be tested at 75° F, the committee voted to have these machines tested atboth 90° F and
10-275° F. The energy consumption test is at steady state and does not include a recovery test. Bottles orcans can be used as the standard test package for the tests. In addition to the two publicly available test procedures listed above, there are a number of proprietary test procedures developed bybottling companies to evaluate energyuse and performance ofbeverage vending machines. These test procedures include a recovery test specification that limits the amount oftime required for a vending machine to cool down warm products introduced into the machine. Boththe CAN/CSA C804-96 and the ASHRAE 32.1-97 are well-defined, ea·sy to implement, and have similarrating conditions. The CAN/CSA C804-96 is widelyused in Canada, butnot in the US. Onthe otherhand, the ASHRAE 32.1-97 testprocedure is widely accepted andusedby US manufacturers and state agencies. Therefore, it is recommend that the ASHRAE 32.1-97 be used as the foundation for developing a DOE test method for measuring the energy efficiency of beverage vending machines. The potential limitations ofASHRAE 32.1-97 canbe addressedby includingprovisions to measure the energy consumption during the recovery test and specifying ambient rating temperatures that are consistent with conditions expected for the machine.

A10.2.2 Beverage Merchandisers No testprocedures specificallytargetbeverage merchandisers. However, the California Energy Commission classifies a beverage merchandiser as a glass door reach-inrefrigerator, so it uses the ASHRAE 117 test with their specifiedproduct temperatures to testbeverage merchandisers. Although the ASHRAE 117 test includes door openings, it does not include the energy required to pull down the temperature ofwarm beverages that havejustbeen loaded into the merchandiser. Itis unclear ifthe Canadian Standards Association's CSA C827-98 standard applies to beverage merchandisers. The CSA standard "applies to commercial refrigerator

... cabinets that are intended for storing or holding food products and otherperishable merchandise" (CSA, 1998). Bottled and canned beverages may not fall under the definition of"foodproducts" and are definitely notperishable. The ASHRAE 117 test with specifiedbeverage temperatures couldbe an appropriate test procedure for future energy efficiency standards. Itincludes energy consumption during standby mode and door openings, a frequent occurrence withbeverage merchandisers. The 75°F ambient temperature used in the ASHRAE 117 test also is well-suited to represent the typical indoor .location ofa beverage merchandiser. As for the reach-in freezers and refrigerators, the ASHRAE 117 test does not correlate closely with peak load conditions because ofits moderate 75°F ambient temperature (relative to hotter temperatures encounteredby outdoorunits).

10-3A10.3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations, and Technology Description and Market Presence The potential energy saving estimates are shown inTable Al0-2. Table Al0-2: Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

- Energy Saving Potential Estimates Annual Energy Technology/ % Energy Saving Equipment StandardLevel Energy Savings Potential Source Type Savings Potential (2010- Potential (quad) 2035), (quads) Vending %Energy Savings Machines Energy StarTier I 0 0 0 potential from Energy Star Website15 %Energy Savings Energy Star Tier2 13 0.016 0.33 potential from Energy Star Website 16 % Energy Savings CEC Design 14 0.017 0.35 potential from Requirements CEC Appliance Efficiency Regulations17 %Energy Savings Royal Vendors

- Econo- 47 0.057 1.19 potential from cool Technology Royal Vendors Website18 (2002) % Energy Combination 28 0.034 0.71 Savings potential from ADL (1996) <2 Years Payback (ECM % Energy Motors for Evaporator 32 0.039 0.81 Savings Fans and High Efficiency potential from Compressor) ADL (1996)

15 Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod _development/new_specs/downloads/vend_ machines/ES_ V 1.0

_VendingMachine

_spe c.pdf 16 Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod _development/new_specs/downloads/vend_ machines/ES_ V 1.0

_VendingMachine

_spe c.pdf 17 Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-09-lO

_400-03-016.PDF 18 Available at: http://www.royalvendors.com/royal.html

. 10-4<5 Years Payback (High % Energy Efficiency Condenser 42 0.051 1.06 Savings Fan Motor) potential from ADL (1996) %Energy Savings CECTier 1 29 O.oI5 0.31 potential from CEC Appliance Efficiency Regulations19 %Energy Savings CECTier2 36 0.019 0.39 potential from CEC Appliance Beverage Efficiency Regulations20 Merchandisers % Energy Combination 35 O.oI8 0.38 Savings potential from ADL (1996) <2 Years Payback (ECM % Energy Motors for Evaporator 44 0.023 0.47 Savings Fans and High Efficiency potential from Compressor) ADL(J996) <5 Years Payback (High %Energy Efficiency Condenser 55 0.029 0.59 Savings Fan Motor) potential from ADL (1996)
ENERGY STAR®has proposed two tiers ofefficiency levels for beverage vending machines. The first tier will take effect on April l, 2004, and the secondtier is scheduled for January 1, 2007. The ENERGY STAR® tier 1level for an 800 can capacity vending machine, the capacity chosen for analysis based on annual sales, equals 8.72 kWh/day which represents a 0% savings from the baseline 8.22 kWh/day. The tier 2 level for the vending machine is 7.14 kWh/day, a 13% savings. The California Energy Commission (CEC) does not have an energy level, but a design requirement for beverage vending machines. This designrequirement states that the internal illumination shall only be T-8 flourescent lamps with electronic ballasts or a lighting system that has no fewer lumens perwatt than a systemusing only T-8 flourescent lamps with electronic ballasts. According to Royal Vendors, Inc, this lighting system will give an energy savings of 14%. The next energy savings estimate is for a new line ofvending machines from Royal Vendors, · Inc. The "Econo-cool" line consists ofT8 lighting, a brushless DC motor for the evaporator fan, a high efficiency compressor, and computer controls to tum offlighting during non-demand periods. Royal Vendors, Inc. claims a 50% reduction in energy consumption relative to another

19 Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-09-10_400-03-016.PDF 20 Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-09-IO

_400-03-016.PDF 10-5vending machine made bythe same manufacturerthatjustmeets the CEC efficiency levels (Royal Vendors, 2002). AnASHRAE 32.1 energy consumptiontest ofa baseline 800 can capacity vending machine indicated 4.6 kWh/day. Afterretrofitting with "Econo-cool'', the unit consumed47% less energy than the baseline. Assuming a 47% savings is achieved for all vending machines because of"Econo-cool" the annual primary energy savings potential is 0.057 quad, and the energy savings potential from 2010 to 2035 is 1.19 quads. Implementing this technology has an incremental cost of$75 with a payback ofless than one year (ACEEE, 2002a). The CEC has proposed two tiers ofenergy efficiency standards for beverage merchandisers. The first tiertook effect onMarch 1, 2003; the second tier is scheduled for August 1, 2004. The CEC tier 1 level for a 27ft3 total volume beverage merchandiser is 10.42 kWh/day, which is a 29% savings from the baseline 14.71 kWh/day, while the tier 2 level equals 9.41 kWh/day, giving a 36% energy savings. These two tiers give an annual primary energy savings potential of0.015 and 0.019 quad, respectively, and the energy savings potential from 2010 to 2035 is 0.31 and 0.39 quad, respectively. The two theoretical combinations oftechnologies presented in ADL (1996) consist ofa high efficiency compressor and a brushless DC evaporator fan motor. Boththe compressor and the evaporator fan motor are relatively simple to change and couldbe deployed on a retrofitbasis. The energy savings potential for vending machines equals 28%, with simple payback periods of about 1year for the high efficiency compressor and about 2 years for the brushless DC evaporator fan motor. The beverage merchandiser combinationreduces energy consumptionby 35%, with simple paybackperiods ofabout 1year for the high efficiency compressor and 1.4 to 4.4 years for the brushless DC evaporator fan motor. Although the efficiency gains for beverage merchandisers exceed those for vending machines, the larger installedbase ofvending machines results in higher annual energy savings potential for vending machines.

10-6A10.4 Regulatory Action The California Energy Commission (CBC) has prepared efficiency standards for glass door reach-in refrigerators that encompass beverage merchandisers (CBC, 2001). In addition, the CBC requires registration ofbeverage vending machines andhas prescribed a design standard mandating the use ofenergy efficient T8 lamps for sign illumination (CBC, 2001). Regarding vending machines, the Canadian Standards Association has a maximum daily energy consumption level that depends on the can capacity. The EPA ENERGY STAR® program has developed voluntary efficiency improvements for beverage vending machines. In addition to the ENERGY STAR® program specification, ACEEE also recommends specifications to be developedbythe Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). The CEE has been monitoring the progress ofthe EPA on the ENERGY ST AR®programbuthas not yet developed a CEE level (ACEEE, 2002b). Since all beverage merchandisers and vending machines use a vapor compression cycle, most manufacturers have contended with the elimination ofozone-depleting CFC refrigerants from new products imposed bythe Montreal Protocol. Most manufacturers produce more than one type ofcommercial refrigeration equipment, so that regulation ofrefrigeration equipment as an equipment class would impact a broad range ofproducts for many manufacturers. In addition, some commercial refrigeration manufacturers have other divisions thatmanufacture other types ofequipmentthathave come under energy efficiency regulations, e.g., unitary air-conditioners. Hence, most manufacturers ofbeverage merchandisers and vending machines have alreadyborne the cumulative burden ofCFC elimination andprevious energy efficiency standards (and also face the possible elimination ofglobal warming refrigerants).

A10.5 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards

In the beverage vending machine industry, there is a large market for refurbished vending machines. Many vending machines are refurbished after about five years and are thenputback into the market. The EPA's Energy Star Program Requirements for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines does not currently include specifications for remanufactured vending machines but does plan on implementing such a specification after discussions with industry representatives. In addition, there are nowresidential vending machines on the marketthat do nothave coin mechanisms. The main issue impacting potential energy efficiency standards is the distinction between a beverage merchandiser and a glass doorreach-in refrigerator. Specifically, the energy efficiency standards proposedby the CBC would require beverage merchandiser and glass doorreach-in refrigerators to meet the same efficiency levels. Although both types ofcommercial refrigeration equipment can have similarphysical dimensions and holding temperatures, a beverage

10-7merchandiser cannotbe expected to meetthe same energy efficiency standards as a comparablysized glass doorreach-in. Beverage merchandisers usually have an oversized refrigeration system to "pull down" the temperatures ofnewly-loadedbeverages in a short period oftime. As a result, the beverage merchandiserwill typically cycle (on-off) more often than a glass door reach-in refrigerator, reducing overall device efficiency. Moreover, the larger cooling loads imposedbythe "pull down" condition upon beverage merchandiser necessitates a larger evaporator fan, which consumes more energy and dissipates more heat in the units, further reducing unit efficiency. Finally, the beverage merchandiser may also have modest illuminated signs to attract customers, which also consume energy. In sum, due to different application requirements, promulgating the same energy efficiency standards for beverage merchandisers and reach-in refrigerators is inappropriate.

10-8References
ACEEE, 2002a. "Commercial Packaged Refrigeration: An Untapped Lode for Energy Efficiency," American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy, ReportNo. A015, May. ACEEE, 2002b. "Packaged Commercial Refrigeration Equipment: A Briefing Report for ProgramPlanners and Implementers," American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report No. A022, December. ADL, 1996, "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", Final Report to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, June. Appliance Magazine, 2002, "49th Annual Report",ApplianceMagazine, May. ASHRAE, 1997. "Methods ofTesting for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned, and Other Sealed Beverages", American Society ofHeating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 32.1. CEC, 2001. California Energy Commission Proposed Amendments to California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations. DocketNo. OO-AB970-APSTD, April. CEC, 2003. California Energy Commission California Code ofRegulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1601-1608: Appliance EfficiencyRegulations. Effective August. CSA, 1996. "Energy Performance ofVending Machines", Canadian Standards Association, C804-96. CSA, 1998. "EnergyPerformance for Food Service Refrigerators and Freezers", Canadian Standards Association, C8217-98, September. Energy Star®, 2003(?). "Energy Star® ProgramRequirements for Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines", Version 1.0. Royal Vendors, 2002, "Econo-Cool Keeps Drinks Cool While Saving Money", Product Documentation. Available at: http://www.royalvendors.com/royal.html.

10-9A11 Ceiling Fans
A11.1 Background Most often found in residences, ceiling fans move airto enhance occupant comfort. Used primarily during the cooling season, the installedbase ofabout 192.8 million ceiling fans is weightedtoward the Southern portion ofthe country. The vast majority (about 95%) ofceiling fan installations includes associated lighting, andthe energy consumption and savings for the fan motor and lighting are analyzed separately (Table Al 1-1). Table All-1: Ceiling Fan Background Data Type Data type
. Value Source Installed Base, millions (2001) 192.8 Calwell and Horowitz Equipment Lifetime, years (1997) 13 (updated 2003); ADL Ceiling Fans Motors AEC,quad 0.17 1999; RECS (1997 & 2001); Appliance Magazine (2000) Installed Base, millions (1997) 183.221 Calwell and Horowitz Ceiling fans (lighting only) Equipment Lifetime, years (1997) 13 (2001); Appliance AEC,quad 0.29 (2000) Overall, ceiling fans consume about one-halfquad ofenergyperyear, with associated lighting accounting for about 63% ofthe total. A11.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence All ceiling fans use blades driven by a motorto move air, but the efficiencies ofdifferentblademotor combinations vary substantially. For example, data collected in support ofthe ceiling fan ENERGY STAR® program showed that fan air-moving efficiency (quantifiedusing a cfm/W metric) varied by more than a factor oftwo betweenmodels. Table Al 1-2 presents the lighting UEC values for the different lighting options, while Table Al 1-3 displays the UEC estimates of the different fan and motortechnologies, as well as the ENERGY STAR® air-moving efficiency threshold, investigated for ceiling fans (fan motor energy only). Table All-2: Ceiling Fan Lighting UEC Description Value Comments Stock UEC (kWh) 383 Based on a 120 watt baseline unitpower consumption, Calwell and Horowitz (updated 2003) Typical NewUEC (kWh) 383 Assumed same as stock Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA No minimum efficiency standard Current ENERGY STAR® 83 Based on a 26 watt average unit power consumption for Efficiency (kWh) ENERGY ST AR® ceiling fans with lighting, Calwell and Horowitz (updated 2003)

21 The 183.2 million ceiling fan lighting units reflects an estimate by Calwell and Horowitz (2001 and updated in 2003) that 95%

ofall ceiling fans have associated lighting.
11-1Table All-3: Ceiling Fan Motor UEC Description Value Comments StockUEC (kWh) 164 Based on 100 cfm/W airflow, Calwell and Horowitz (updated 2003) Typical New UEC (kWh) 164 Assumed same as stock Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA No minimum efficiency standard Best Available Efficiency (cfm/W) 165 Aerodynamic fan blade and more efficient motor Current ENERGY ST AR® 122.3 Aerodynamic fan blades Efficiency (cfin/W) Future Technology (maximum 260 High-efficiency motor and aerodynamic fan blades, technology) (cfm/W) Permanent split capacitor orpermanentmagnet motor Ceiling fans do nothave minimum efficiency standards for either air moving efficacy or lighting efficacy, but do fall underthe voluntary ENERGY STAR® program. The ENERGY STAR® ceiling fan requirement specifies that the ceiling fan motors shouldhave an air moving efficiency that is about 49% lowerthan that for typical motors. As ofFebruary, 2004, 487 fan models without lighting and 19 fan models with lighting have met the ENERGY STAR® requirements.22 The ENERGY STAR® program requires that the ceiling fan include pin-based compact fluorescent fixtures. The 26 watt level reflects the average wattage ofENERGY STAR® ceiling fans (Calwell and Horowitz, updated in 2003). Future amendments to the ceiling fan ENERGY STAR®program may increase the required fan efficacy, as well as specify additional controls andnoise requirements. The aerodynamic fan blade reflects efficiency gains attained via improvedblade design (airfoil shape) to enhance its air moving efficiency. Specifically, the energy savings reflect test data measured for the Hampton Bay "GossamerWind"23 fan, currently for sale at Home Depot. Most ceiling fans use a shaded pole motor (Parker et al., 1999), which have full-speed efficiencies in the 10 to 20% range for sizes typically used in ceiling fans (ADL, 1999). Replacing the shaded pole motorwith a more efficient motortype, such as a permanent split capacitor (PSC) or a brushless DC motor,24 could easily double the efficiency relative to current motors (ADL, 1999). BothPSC andbrushless DC motors are available in the size range used by ceiling fan motors. However, the effect ofdesign constraints particular to ceiling fans, such as reversing the position ofthe rotor and stator, on motor feasibility has yet to be studied. Itis also notknown whether commercially-available ceiling fans incorporate either PSC orbrushless DC motors. The highefficiency motor and aerodynamic blade performance level simply combines the separate performance gains for the aerodynamic fan design and the high-efficiency motor options. To date, no commercially-available fans offerthis technology combination.

22 Information about ceiling fans meeting the ENERGY ST AR® requirements is available at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=ceiling fans.pr ceiling fans. 23 Based on the IAeroenvironments CF-1 design; more information available at:

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/-bdac/PROTOTYPE/CFAN.htm.

. 24 Also known as an electronically commutatedpermanent magnet (ECPM) motor. 11-2Economic cost-benefit analyses have yet to be performed for any ofthe technology options. In particular, the motor options require additional information about how motor design issues specific to ceiling fans

- ifany - impactmotor selection and costs.
A11.3 Test Procedure Status Ceiling fans do nothave a DOE test procedure for a lighting or air moving efficiency. The air moving efficiency ofceiling fans is given in air volume (cubic feet per minute or cfm) divided by electrical inputpower (W), or cfm/W. There are a number ofexisting test procedures that have been developed to measure this efficiency, including:

• National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standard PublicationNo. FMl-1951 (NEMA FMl-51), • International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60879-1986 (IEC 60879-86)

Performance and Construction ofElectric Circulating Fans and Regulators, • Canadian Standards Association C814-96 (CAN/CSA C814-96) Energy Performance of Ceiling Fans, • American National Standards Institute and Air Movement and Control Association Standard 230-99 (ANSI/AMCA 230-99) Laboratory Method ofTesting Air Circulator Fans for Rating, and • Hunter Fan Company Solid State Test Method. The testprocedures listed above were all considered during the development ofthe EPA's ENERGY STAR® Program for Residential Ceiling Fans. During EPA's discussions with industry stakeholders, stakeholders concluded that the HunterFan Company's Solid State Test Method was the preferred testprocedure for several importantreasons:

• the testmethod includes a specific set ofstandard test conditions, • the results using this method are reproducible, • test conditions represent "real life" conditions, • testing costs and turnaround time were reasonable, and • test equipment is widely accessible. The Solid State Test Method was therefore recommendedby stakeholders to beused as the official metric for cfm determination in the ENERGY STAR® Program. The NEMAFMl-51 test procedure utilizes a mechanical anemometer instrument along with manual readings ofair velocity along three-inch centers in a standard room. The equipment and ·instrumentation used for this test procedure are inexpensive. However, because ofthe way the measurements are taken, the test is time-consuming and the readings are non-repetitive within a reasonable tolerance. This test procedure has been used bythe HunterFan Company and Air Cool. The IEC 60879-86 testprocedure is similar to the NEMAFMl-51 testprocedure but utilizes controlled airflow in a standard room. The limitations for IEC 60879-86 are the same as NEMA

11-3FMl-51 with regard to the time neededto run the tests and lack ofrepeatability for the measured results. The testprocedure was developed in Europe and is used extensively outside the U.S. Within the U.S., it is usedbyHome Depot (for its Hampton Bay ceiling fan products), Air Cool, King ofFans, Minka and CEI. The CAN/CSA C814-96 testprocedure is similarto the IEC 60879-86 testprocedure butuses hot wire velocity measurements and a different room configuration. The time needed to run the tests is slightly lowerthan the NEMA FMl-51 and the IEC 60879-86 testprocedures. This test procedure is notwidely used. The ANSVAMCA 230-99 test procedure uses a load cell to measure the downward thrust ofthe fan's air movement in an axial direction and specific room geometry. The thrust is used to calculate the amount ofair movement. The test is inexpensive to conductbutit is very sensitive to ceiling fan wobble, vibrations, and the design ofthe ceiling fan blades, which contribute to inaccuracies in the test results. Because the load cell is set up to measure airflow inthe axial direction, any airflow inthe lateral direction is not accounted for. Because ofthe limitations with existing test procedures, the HunterFan Company internally developed an improved and refined method ofmeasuring ceiling fan air delivery based on the IEC 60879-86 test method called the Solid State Test Method. The Solid State Test Method improves upon the IEC 60879-86 test method by incorporating solid state hot-wire thermister anemometers that are mounted on a sensor arm and allows for simultaneous, multi-point velocity measurements. This improved method allows for greatly reduced testing time andmuch greater accuracy. According to Hunter Fan Company, the measurements using this test method are typically within 3% ofeach other. The distinguishing feature ofthis test method is that it uses the latest developments in air velocity measurements to improve upon accuracy along with automated measurements to reduce the testing time. One major limitation ofthe Solid State Test Method is its inability to report accurate airflow values for hugger type ceiling fans. Hugger fans are installed flush mounted to the ceiling as opposedto hanging from a down-rod pendant style, and subsequently move much less air because ofthe limited amount ofspace behindthe fan blades. Airflow values from hugger fans tested with the Solid State TestMethod are higher than normal because the hugger fans are mounted on a down-rod during the test, thus move more air than they would when installed flush to a ceiling. The Solid State Test Method is currently used as the testprocedure for certifying ENERGY STAR® compliant ceiling fans. Currently, the ENERGY STAR® Ceiling Fan program does not certify hugger fans because ofthe limitations ofthe method oftesting. Because ofthe superiority ofthe Solid State Test Method overthe othervarious test methods in terms ofaccuracy, repeatability, and short test duration, it is recommend as the basis for a uniform test method for measuring the energy efficiency ofceiling fans. The Solid State Test Method correlates well with ceiling fan motor energy consumption, energy savings potential, and

11-4peak demand impactbecause it directly measures power draw in all air-moving modes and most fans are expected to operate during (hot) peak demandperiods. To address the problem in measuring hugger type ceiling fans, modifications wouldhave to be made to the Solid State Test Method byeitherrearranging the configuration ofthe test setup to be more applicable to hugger fans, applying a correction factor to hugger fan test data (this could be empirically determined), or developing a completely different test method to measure hugger fan performance.

A11.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations The best available technology standard level (aerodynamic fan blades and high efficiency motor combination) has an energy savings potential of 1.22 quads, while the future technology standard level (future technology with aerodynamic fan blades and improved motor efficiency) can realize 1.93 quads ofsavings (see Table Al 1-4). The ENERGY STAR® air moving efficacy level energy savings potential equals 0.57 quad.

Table All-4: Ceiling Fan UEC and Energy Savings Potential (Fan Energy Only) Annual Energy Technology/ UEC Energy Saving StandardLevel (kW-h) Savings Potential Source Potential (2010-2035),

(auad) (auads) Typical Device (current 164 NA NA Calwell and Horowitz stock) (updated 2003) 'TypicalNew' 164 NA NA Assumed same as Stock UEC from_Calwell and BestAvailable Technology 100 0.067 1.22 Horowitz (updated 2003) ENERGY STAR(Rl, Fan UEC from Calwell and Efficacy Only25 134.5 0.031 0.57 Horowitz (updated 2003) Future Technology UEC from Calwell and 62.3 0.104 1.93 Horowitz (updated (maximum technology) 2003) Due to a lack ofdata differentiating energy consumption offans byvintage, both the fan motor and lighting energy consumption analyses assume the same energy consumption levels for the installedbase andtypical new equipment. ENERGY STAR® lighting standard levels, future technology lighting standard levels (maximum technology), and best available lighting technology standard levels assume the use of pin-based compact fluorescent fixtures, which could save 4.22 quads ofenergy each overthe 2010-2035 period (see Table Al 1-5).

25 http://yosemitel.epa.gov/EST AR/consumers.nsfi'content/ceilingfans.htm

. 11-5TableAll-5: Ceiling Fan UEC and Energy Saving Potential (Lighting Only) Technology/ UEC Annual Energy Energy Saving StandardLevel (kW-h) Savings Potential Potential (2008- Source (quad) 2030) (quads) Current stock 383 NA NA Calwell and Horowitz (updated 2003) Typical new 383 NA NA Assumed same as stock UEC from Calwell and Best Available 84.3 0.228 4.22 Horowitz (updated 2003) ENERGY UEC from Calwell and STAR(RlLighting 84.3 0.228 4.22 Horowitz (updated 2003) Future UEC from Calwell and Technology 84.3 0.228 4.22 Horowitz (updated (maximum technology) 2003) The installedbase ofall ceiling fans has grown dramatically over the past quarter century, from roughly 10 million units in 1976 (Sanchez, 1997) to more than 190 million units in 2001. Itis unclear ifthe trend will continue in the future; continued strong growth will increase both the energy consumption and savings potential overthe 2010-2035 period.
A11.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden Ceiling fans have not been subjectto regulation for energy efficiency. The extent to which other regulations impact ceiling fans, such as safety regulations, was not determined.
A11.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards Ceiling fans improve occupant comfortby generating an indoorbreeze, which decreases the perceived indoor air temperature. As a result, ceiling fans can enable higher indoor air temperature settings, displacing a portion ofan air conditioning load and saving cooling energy. Thus, the cooling energy savings realized by ceiling fans may well exceedtheir own energy consumption. Potential energy efficiency standards need to ensure thatthe incremental cost of an efficiency standard (ifany) does not deter the purchase ofceiling fans and potentially create a net increase in energy consumption.

11-6References ADL, 1999, "Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with High-Efficiency Electric Motors", Final Report to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, December. ANSI/AMCA, 1999. "Laboratory Method ofTesting Air Circulator Fans for Rating", American National Standards Institute and Air Movement and Control Association Standard 230-1999. Appliance Magazine, 2000, "23rd Annual Portrait ofthe U.S. Appliance Industry",

### Appliance Magazine, September, pp. 87-89. Callwell, C. and Horowitz, N., 2000, "Residential Ceiling Fan

- A Look at TheirEnergy Use and Opportunities for Energy Savings," June 2000 (updated by author in April 2003) Calwell, C. and Horowitz, N., 2001, "Ceiling Fans: Fulfilling the Energy Efficiency Promise", 

### Home Energy, Jan./Feb., pp. 24-29. CAN/CSA, 1996. "Energy Performance ofCeiling Fans'', Canadian Standards Association C814-1996. Energy Information Administration, 1997, "Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)". Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/pubs.html Energy Information Administration, 2001, "Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)". Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/pubs.html Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, "Energy Star® Testing Facility Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility and Performing the Solid State Test Method for Energy Star® Qualified Ceiling Fans", Version 1.1, December. IEC, 1986. "Performance and Construction ofElectric Circulating Fans and Regulators'', International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60879. NEMA, 1951. National Electrical Manufacturers Association StandardPublicationNo. FMl1951. Parker, D., Callahan, M., and Sonne, J., 1999, "Development ofa high efficiency ceiling fan'', Florida Solar Energy**Center.FSEC-CR-1059-99~** Available at:**http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/~bdac/pubs/CRl**059/CRl059.html

. Sanchez, M., 1997, "Miscellaneous Electricity Use in U.S. Residences", M.S Thesis inthe Energy and Resources Group, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.

1P1A12 Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers
The commercial refrigeration equipment category consists ofreach-in refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, beverage vending machines, and beverage merchandisers. These products all use a vapor compression refrigeration cycle to remove heat from beverage items orfood products andreject the heat to ambient air. The three energy-consuming components ofa vapor compressor refrigeration cycle are:

• The compressor: moves the refrigerant through the refrigeration cycle; • The evaporator air fan: blows air to be cooled overthe cold evaporator; • The condenser air fan: blows ambient air overhot condenserto remove heat from the refrigeration system. Some equipmentrejects heat from the condenser vianatural convection eliminating the condenser fan. Therefore, the energy consumption and savings potential ofcommercial refrigeration equipment depend on the efficiency ofthese three components, the effectiveness ofthe condenser and evaporatorheat exchangers, and the refrigeration system heat gain from insulation, air leaks, door openings, etc. In addition, auxiliary devices such as lighting or a door frame heater also consume electrical power. Some ofthe equipment installed base estimates are about 10 years old, creating the theoretical potential for uncertainties in the current installedbase. Since commercial refrigeration equipment has been in the marketplace for decades and the primaryvenues using refrigeration equipment have not increased dramatically over the past 15 years, the older installedbase data should provide reasonable estimates ofthe current installedbase ofcommercial refrigeration equipment.

A12.1 Background
Reach-in refrigerators, reach-in freezers, and reach-in refrigerator-freezers are upright, refrigerated cases with solid or glass doors thathold frozen orrefrigerated food products respectively. The freezers maintainthe temperature ofthe food productbelow freezing, usually around 0°F, and the refrigerators typically maintain food product temperatures between 35°F and 40°F. Besides the normal complement ofpower-consuming devices for the refrigeration system, a frame heater is required to prevent condensation on the outside ofthe case. In addition, lighting inside the case illuminates the inside ofthe case when the door is open. Table A12-1 shows thatthe installed bases ofreach-in freezers, refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers in 1994 were 800,000, 1.3 million, and 200,000, respectively. Reach-in freezers, refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers have an average lifetime of8 to 10 years, and freezers, refrigerators andrefrigerator-freezers annually consume 0.066 quad, 0.054 quad, and 0.012 quad, respectively. Despite the larger installedbase ofrefrigerators, the annual energy consumption of all reach-in freezers exceeds that ofrefrigerators because offreezers' greaterpower draw levels.

12-1TableAl2-1: Installed Base Data for Reach-In Freezers and Reach-In Refrigerators Equipmenttype Data type Value Source Installed Base, thousands (1994) 800 Reach-In Freezers Annual Sales, thousands (2001) 47 ADL(l996); Appliance Equipment Lifetime, years (1994) 8 to 10 Magazine (2002) AEC, quad 0.066 Installed Base, thousands ( 1994) 1,300 Reach-In Annual Sales, thousands (2001) 260 ADL(l996); Appliance Refrigerators Equipment Lifetime, years (1994) 8 to 10 Magazine (2002) PrimaryAEC, quad 0.054 Installed Base, thousands (2003) 200 Reach-In Annual Sales, thousands ADL (1996); Personal



### - Refrigerator- Equipment Lifetime, years (1994) communication with Freezers 8 to 10 PG&EFSTC AEC,quad 0.012

A12.2 Test Procedure Status

A DOE testprocedure does not exist for reach-in freezers, reach-in refrigerators, orreach-in refrigerator-freezers; however, several organizations have test procedures for reach-in refrigeration. Measures ofenergyuse or efficiency for commercial refrigeration typically consist ofan amount ofenergy the product uses (per unit volume perunit time). Forreach-in refrigerators, freezers, andrefrigerator-freezers, energy use is typically expressed in terms ofdaily energy consumption (kWh/day) per internal volume ofthe refrigerated space (ft3). There are a number ofexisting test procedures that have been developed for rating commercial refrigeration equipment. These include the following:

• National Sanitation Foundation/AmericanNational Standards Institute Standard 7-2001 (NSF/ANSI 7-01) Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers;

• Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 1200-2002 (ARI 1200-02) Commercial Refrigerated Display Cases; and

• American Society ofHeating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 117-2002 (ASHRAE 117-02) Method ofTesting Closed Refrigerators. The NSF/ANSI 7-01 testprocedure was developed with food safety as an objective, and therefore does not include measurements ofenergy consumption. However, the ARI 1200-02 and the ASHRAE 117-02 test procedures were developed to allow comparisons ofcommercial refrigeration equipment, and therefore include measurements ofenergy consumption.

12-2TheNSF/ANSI 7-01 testprocedure is a performance test for reach-in refrigerators and freezers used to store and/or display cold food. This test procedure is usedto ensure thatthe refrigeration equipment can maintain temperatures safe for food preservationbyrequiring a case temperature ofless than 40° F for refrigerators and less than 0° F for freezers, while the surrounding ambient temperature is maintained at 100° F and the compressor duty cycle is no more that 70% during the test. The 100° F ambientrating condition is appropriately conservative for food safety purposes butmay notrepresent real-world conditions for commercial refrigeration. The test procedure by itselfis not sufficientto be used for energy efficiency standards because it lacks an electrical consumption test. The ARI 1200-02 test procedure for commercial refrigerated display cases provides test and rating requirements for self-contained orremote, open or closed, and service and self-service commercialrefrigerated display cases. Itwas developed to provide guidance to the commercial refrigeration industry and allows comparison ofenergy consumption among remote commercial refrigerated display cases or comparison ofenergy consumption among self-contained commercialrefrigerated display cases. The rating conditions for the open type display cases are based onthe ASHRAE Standard 72 testprocedure, andthe rating conditions for the closed type display cases are based onthe ASHRAE Standard 117 test procedure. However, two different ambient temperature conditions are used for each type ofdisplay case, depending on the environment in which the equipment is installed. Type I display cases are intended to be used in areas where the ambienttemperatures do not exceed 75° F and are therefore rated at an ambient dry-bulb temperature of75° F +/- 2°F. Type II display cases are intendedto be used in areas where the ambient temperatures do not exceed 80° F and are therefore rated at an ambient drybulb temperature of80° F +/- 2°F. The ASHRAE 117-02 test procedure is used as the basic test methodbymany organizations, including the Canadian Standards Association inthe CSA C827-88 Standard, the California Energy Commission (CEC) as the test method for their commercial refrigeration standards, and the EPA certification ofcommercial refrigeration products for theirENERGY STAR® program. The ASHRAE 117 standard is used for all types ofclosedrefrigerators and freezers thathold or display food, and it applies to both remote and self-containedproducts. In the ASHRAE 117 test, the refrigerated case is filled to capacity with a combination of simulated food and space fillers. The doors are opened for specific intervals during an 8-hour period, in orderto simulate typical operation. The energy consumption is measured over a 24- hourperiod, while the ambient conditions are fixed at a dry-bulb temperature of75° F +/- 2° F and a wetbulb temperature of64° F +/- 2° F. There are several potential limitations ofthe ASHRAE 117 testprocedure. First, the ambient temperature rating condition may not represent the typical real-world conditions found in active commercial kitchens. These temperatures canbe well above the 75° F ambientrating condition and may even reach 100° F at times. Furthermore, ASHRAE 117 does not include a recovery test where the energy consumptionrequired to cool down warm food is measured. This couldbe particularly important for beverage merchandisers ifDOE decides thatrapid "pull down" of product temperature is an important feature ofbeverage merchandisers and accounts for significant energy use. Finally, the ASHRAE 117 testprocedure does not specify a case

12-3temperature or a food temperature and is thus inadequate by itselffor energy efficiency standards, because a valid comparative evaluation ofenergy consumption among products would require equal food orcase temperatures to be maintained during the tests. The ASHRAE 117 test procedure is fairly difficult to carry out and is generally performedby test labs, not manufacturers. In currenttesting for the CEC, not all units made by a manufacturer are tested. Instead, representative units are tested, andperformance estimates are extrapolatedto otherunits. The ASHRAE 117 testprocedure is, however, widely used and has beenrevised several times since itwas originally developed in 1983. Itis currently undergoing a revision under ASHRAE's continuous maintenance program, which will combine ASHRAE 117 with ASHRAE 72 for open type refrigerators and freezers. In the CSA C827-88 standard, the ASHRAE 117 testprocedure is modified to include a cabinet airtemperature of38° F for refrigerators and 0° F for freezers. Forthe CEC, the ASHRAE 117 testprocedure is modified to include an integrated average product temperature of38° +/- 2°F for refrigerators. Forfreezers, an integrated average product temperature of0° +/- 2°F is specified. The EPA's program for commercialreach-in refrigerators and freezers takes the same approach as the CEC by specifying the same integrated average product temperatures. Because the ASHRAE 117 testprocedure is widely used, has been improved and is being improved through several revisions since 1983, serves as the basis for performance ratings for many organizations and is applicable to many types ofcommercial refrigeration equipment, it is a good basis for measuring the energy efficiency ofcommercial refrigeration equipment. To overcome the limitations identified, modifications to the rating conditions maybe considered, possibly including: ambient temperature ratings more closely representative ofthose typically encounteredby the equipment, a recoverytest that measures the energy consumption required to cool warmproducts introduced into the cabinet, and an integrated average producttemperature rating condition.

12-4A12.3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations, and Technology Description and Market Presence

Table Al2-2 presents the potential energy saving estimates for reach-in freezers.

Table A12-2: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Freezers Technology/Standard % Annual Energy Energy Saving Level Energy Savings Potential (2010- Savings Potential (quad) 2035) (quad) Potential Combination 35 0.023 0.47 <2 Years Payback (High Efficiency Compressor, and Non- 30 0.020 0.40 Electric Anti Sweat Heating) <5 Years Payback (ECM Motor for Evaporator Fans, Hot 44 0.029 0.59 Gas Defrost, and Defrost Controls
CEC Tier 1 8 0.005 0.11

CEC Tier2 13 0.008 0.17

ENERGY STAR® 20 0.013 0.27
The first combination employs several technologies to save energy: • hot gas antisweat; • high efficiency compressor; • brushless DC evaporator and condenser fan motors.

26 Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/. 27 Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/. Source
% Energy Savings potential from ADL (1996) % Energy Savings potential from ADL (1996)

% Energy Savings potential from ADL (1996) % Energy Savings potential from CEC Database ofEnergy EfficientAppliances26 % Energy Savings potential from CEC Database ofEnergy EfficientAppliances27 % Energy Savings potential from ENERGY STAR®website28

28 Available at:http://yosemitel.epa.gov/estar/consumers.nsf/content/refrigerator.htrn.
12-5The annual energy savings potential ifall reach-in freezers employed these technologies equals 35%, which translates into 0.47 quad overthe 2010-2035 period. All features have a simple paybackperiod ofless than three years. These energy savings estimates assume a 70°F ambient temperature and a 75% duty cycle. Manufacturers provided these conditions and, given the high duty cycle, probably imply door openings. The baseline energy consumption is 14.2 kWh/day, an estimate thatrepresents the average consumption for units ofall sizes (ADL, 1996). The California Energy Commission (CEC) has proposed two tiers ofenergy efficiency standards. The first tier took effect on March 1, 2003; the second tier is scheduled for August 1, 2004. The CEC database ofappliances produces an average daily energy consumption for solid doorreachin freezers between 19 and 21 ft3 of11.74 kWh/day. This is lowerthan the 14.24 kWh/day baseline usedbyADL (1996), because it only considers the smaller-sizedunits. Forunits in the 19 to 21 ft3size range, assuming all new units consume 11.74 kWh/day, the energy savings of CEC's tier 1 standards would equal 8% 29• The energy savings ofCEC's tier 2 standards are 13%. Subsequently, it is assumed the 8% and 13% energy savings canbe applied across the entire volume range ofreach-in :freezers. The ENERGY STAR® efficiency level for reach-in freezers is slightly more stringent than the CEC's but only a£plies to solid-doorunits, i.e,. glass doorunits are notin the program. The ENERGY STAR level for a 20 cubic foot solid door freezer equals 9.36 kWh/day which represents a 20% savings from the baseline of 11.74 kWh/day. Similarly, it is assumedthe 20% energy savings can be applied across the entire volume range ofreach-infreezers. Table A12-3 shows two different combinations oftechnologies to reduce energy consumption in reach-in refrigerators, as well as the energy savings for reach-in refrigerators that qualify for ENERGY STAR® certification.

29 That is, the CEC Tier 1 standard requires that a unit in the same range consume no more than 10.79 kWh/day; the Tier 2 level caps energy consumption at 10.24kWh/day.
12-6TableAl2-3: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Refrigerators Technology I % Energy AnnualEnergy Energy Saving Savings Savings Potential Potential (2010- Source StandardLevel Potential <ouad) 2035), <ouad) % Energy Savings Combination 1 44 0.024 0.49 potential from ADL(l996) % Energy Savings Combination 2 67 0.036 0.74 potential from ADL (2001 and 2002b) % Energy Savings Combination 3 80 0.043 0.89 potential from ADL (2002b) <2 Years Payback (ECM Motors for Evaporator Fans, % Energy Savings High Efficiency 35 0.019 0.39 potential from ADL Compressor, and (1996) Non-Electric Anti SweatHeating) <5 Years Payback % Energy Savings (ECM Motor for 45 0.024 0.50 potential from ADL CondenserFan) (1996) % Energy Savings CEC Tier 1 0 0 0 potential from CEC (2002)30 % Energy Savings CEC Tier2 9 0.005 0.10 potential from CEC (2002)31 % Energy Savings ENERGY STAR® 29 0.016 0.32 potential from Energy Star, See Footnote32

Combination 1is a shortbut effective list ofimprovements: • Hot gas antisweat; • High efficiency compressor; • Brushless DC evaporator and condenser fan motors. The 44% energy savings potential translates into 0.49 quad over the 2010-2035 period. The last two technologies, a high efficiency compressor andbrushless DC fan motors, are relatively easy to implementwhile the first, hot gas antisweat, requires product redesign andretooling for a new case. All features have a simple payback period ofless than three years.

30No reduction in ASHRAE 117 Energy use from 9kWh/day (ADL(current)) to 9.65kWh/day for 43.5 cuft unit. 31Reduction in ASHRAE 117 Energy use from 9kWh/day (ADL(current)) to 8.20kWh/day for 43.5 cuft unit 32 Reduction in ASHRAE 117 Energy use from 9 kWh/day (ADL(current)) to 6.39 kWh/day for 43.5 cubic ft. unit.
12-7These projected savings assume a 70°F ambient temperature and a 65% duty cycle for the baseline refrigeration system. Such a high duty cycle ofthebaseline refrigerator at 70°F ambient temperature means that it may fail the NSF7 test atthe higher ambienttemperature of 100°F. Since refrigerators cannotbe sold without NSF approval, it is likely that the 65% duty cycle includes door openings, suggesting that the energy savings estimate is based onreasonably realistic operating conditions. Combination 2 is a more aggressive application ofenergy saving features, incorporating: • Improved face frame design; • Improved gasket;

·• Reduced antisweat heater wattage (done in conjunction with improvements to face frame design and gasket); • Condensate line trap; • Brushless DC evaporator fan motor; • PSC condenser fan motor; • Evaporator fan shutdown; and • Refrigeration system optimization. The same operating condition assumptions apply as for the "Combination 1" approach. The final energy savings analysis results in 67% annual energy savings potential or0.74 quad overthe 2010-2035 period. Simple payback periods were not calculated for this option. Combination 3 includes the following design modifications: • Improved Face Frame Design; • Improved Gasket; • Reduced Antisweat Heat Input; • Condensate Line Trap; • Brushless DC Evaporator and CondenserFan Motors; • Variable-SpeedRefrigeration System; and • Hot Gas Antisweat Heating. The same operating condition assumptions apply as for the "Combination 1" approach. The final energy savings analysis results in 80% annual energy savings potential or 0.89 quad over the 2010-2035 period. Simple paybackperiods were not calculated for this option. All ofthe options considered in the three "combinations"

- with the possible exception ofthe variable-speed refrigeration systems
- are presently feasible and the components neededto implement the options commercially available. Variable-speed refrigeration systems may notbe available in sizes (andwithrefrigerants) compatible with all sizes ofreach-in refrigerators in the market. The California Energy Commission (CEC) includes two tiers ofenergy efficiency standards for all reach-in refrigerators. Analysis ofa two-door solid reach-in refrigerator with an interior

12-8volume of43.5 

### ft3indicates that the first tier will notrealize measurable energy savings. However, the secondtierwill achieve 9% energy savings. On the other hand, ifthe CEC standards apply to glass doorreach-in refrigerators, which have inherently higher energy consumption levels, the energy savings potential will exceed the aforementioned values. Ifall reach-in refrigerators attained ENERGY STAR® certification, then the annual energy savings potential wouldbe 29%. Table Al2-4 shows one combination oftechnologies to reduce energy consumption inreach-in refrigerator-freezers.

Table Al2-4: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Refrigerator-Freezers Technology I % Energy PrimaryAnnual Energy Saving StandardLevel Savings Energy Savings Potential (2010- Source Potential Potential( quad) 2035), (quad) % Energy Savings Combination I 35 0.0041 0.08 potential from ADL(l996) Combination 1 is the same list ofimprovements as the reach-in freezer: • Hotgas antisweat; • High efficiency compressor; • Brushless DC evaporator and condenser fan motors. The 35% energy savings potential is from the data for reach-in freezers. This combination was chosen because it has a lower energy savings potential than that ofthe reach-in refrigerator. The energy savings potential translates into 0.08 quad over 2010-2035. The last two technologies, a high efficiency compressor and brushless DC fan motors, are relatively easy to implementwhile .the first, hot gas antisweat, requires product redesign and retooling for a new case. All features have a simple payback period ofless than three years. Differences in test conditions complicate direct comparison ofthe ADL (1996) cases with the other energy savings approaches, as the ADL (1996) savings assume a 70°F ambient temperature, as well as a 65% duty cycle. The other approaches base their savings calculation on the ASHRAE 117 test conditions, which assume a slightly higher (i.e., 75°F) ambient temperature and specifies a certain quantity and duration ofdoor openings. In tum, this likely leads to a lower duty cycle than used for the ADL (1996) energy consumption and savings potential. In sum, these differences require further study, butbecause the ambient temperatures assumed are similar, the energy savings potential calculations shouldbe broadly comparable. Table A12-5 summarizes the information presented in this sub-section.

12-9Table Al2-5: Total Savings Potential for Reach-in Freezers, Reach-in Refrigerators, and Reach-in RefrigeratorFreezers

Technology I AnnualEnergy Energy Saving Savings Potential Potential (2010

- 2035) StandardLevel (auad) (quads) Combination 1 0.051 1.04 Combination 2 33 0.036 0.74 Combination 3 34 0.043 0.89 CEC Tier 1 35 0.005 0.11 CEC Tier2 36 0.013 0.27 ENERGY STAR® 0.029 0.59 37

A12.4 Regulatory Action
Reach-in freezers, refrigerators, and refrigerator-freezers do not currently have a minimum energy efficiency standard in the United States, but do fall under the voluntary ENERGY STAR® program. The ENERGY STAR® programbegan qualifying reach-in refrigerators, freezers, andrefrigerator-freezers on 1 September, 2001. In addition, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has promulgated energy efficiency standards for all reach-in freezers and refrigerators sold in California. The Canadian Standards Association also has energy efficiency standards for reach-in freezers, refrigerators, and refrigerator-freezers. The ENERGY STAR® program only qualifies soliddoorrefrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers. The energy efficiency level depends on the internal volume ofthe case and onthe reach-in type, i.e. freezing orrefrigerating temperatures. Since all reach-in refrigerators and freezers use a vapor compression cycle, most manufacturers have contended with the elimination ofozone-depleting CFC refrigerants from newproducts imposedby the Montreal Protocol. Ifthe U.S. ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or adopts other legislation to reduce emissions ofgreenhouse gases, then the makers ofcommercial refrigeration equipmentmay also have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. Most manufacturers produce more than one type ofcommercial refrigeration equipment, so that regulation ofrefrigeration equipment as an equipment class would impact a broadrange of products for many manufacturers. In addition, some commercial refrigeration manufacturers have other divisions that manufacture othertypes ofequipmentthat have come under energy efficiency regulations, e.g., unitary air-conditioners. Hence, most manufacturers ofreach-in refrigerators and freezers have already borne the cumulative burden ofCFC elimination and

33 Reach-in refrigerators only. 34 Reach-in refrigerators only. 35 Reach-in refrigerators and reach-in freezers only. 36 Reach-in refrigerators and reach-in freezers only. 37 Reach-in refrigerators and reach-in freezers only. 12-10previous energy efficiency standards, and face the possible elimination ofglobal warming refrigerants.

A12.5 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards
The ASHRAE 117 test is a time-consuming (24-hour) and meticulous test standard. As a matter offact, the California Energy Commission has only qualified two laboratories to perform ASHRAE 117 tests. Therefore, the burden on manufacturers in adopting energy efficiency standards may be high ifASHRAE 117 continues to be the basis oftestprocedures.

12-11References
ADL, 1996, "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", Final Report to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, June. ADL, 2001, "Energy Consumption Characteristics ofCommercial Building HV AC Systems

- Volume I: Chillers, Refrigerant Compressors, and Heating Systems," Final Report to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, April. ADL, 2002a, "Energy Consumption by Commercial Office and Telecommunications Equipment in Commercial Buildings- Volume I: Energy Consumption Baseline", Final Report to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, January. ADL, 2002b, "Application ofBest Industry Practices to the Design ofCommercial Refrigerators

- Development ofa High Efficiency Reach-In Refrigerator," Arthur D. Little, Inc., Final Report, June 2002. ARI, 2002. "Commercial Refrigerated Display Cases", Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Standard 1200-2002. ASHRAE, 2002. "Method ofTesting ClosedRefrigerators", American Society ofHeating, Refrigeration, andAir-Conditioning Engineers Standard 117-2002. Appliance Magazine, 2002, "49th Annual Report",ApplianceMagazine, May. California Energy Commission, "Database ofEnergy EfficientAppliances". Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/. ENERGY STAR®website, "Energy Star Qualified Products". Available at: http://yosemite1.epa.gov/estar/consumers.nsf/content/refrigerator.htm. NSF

### I ANSI, 2001. "Commercial Refrigerators andFreezers", National Sanitation

. Foundation/ American National Standards Institute Standard 7-2001. Zabrowski, David, 2003, Personal Communication, PG&E Food Service Technology Center.

12-12A13 Gas Unit Heaters I Gas Duct Furnaces
A13.1 Background Gas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces bothbumnatural gas for space heating, typically in commercial and industrial buildings. Unitheaters usually hang from the ceiling and use a fan or blower to circulate room air through a heat exchanger (which transfers heat from the combustion gases), heating the air and distributing it to the room/space. Duct furnaces are installed in a ventilation duct system to heat moving air (a duct furnace does not have its own fan orblower). The approximately 3.9 million gas unit heaters inuse in the United States in 2001 consume about 0.65 quad ofenergy each year, while approximately 0.25 million gas duct furnaces consume about 0.10 quad (Table Al3-l). Table A13-1: Gas Unit Heater and Duct Furnace Data Type Data type Value Source Installed Base, millions (2001) 3.9 GAMA (2003) and calculation Gas unit heaters Equipment Lifetime, years 21.538 GRI (1997) AEC,quad 0.65 ADL (2001b) and calculation Installed Base, millions (2001) 0.25 GAMA (2003) and calculation Gas duct furnaces Equipment Lifetime, years 16.539 GRI (1997) AEC,quad 0.10 Calculation The installedbase and Annual Energy Consumption (AEC) estimates were derived from GAMA (2003), GRI (1997) and ADL (2001b) (see the Sub-Appendix for calculation details).
A13.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Information
A13.2.1 Gas Unit Heaters Gas unit heaters are self-containedunits thatusually hang from the ceiling ofa space, but can also be installed on floors orwalls. A gas supply line feeds fuel to the burner and combustion chamberwhere the gas is burned to release heat. The hot combustion gas then travels through the inside ofa metal heat exchanger and passes outthrough the vent where it is exhausted outdoors. A fan blows indoor air overthe hot outer surface ofthe heat exchanger and distributes the heated air throughout the space. Powerventedunits use a separate fan to draw combustionproducts through the combustion chamber. This configuration can improve combustion efficiency andreduce off-cycle flue losses. Powerventedunits with separated combustion bring in combustion air from the outside ·ofthe heated space. This configuration further reduces losses and improves the seasonal efficiency ofthese designs. At one time, pulse combustion unit heaters, thatutilize combustion pulses to enhance heattransfer, were offered to improve efficiency but are no longer onthe market. Condensing units (currently with very limited commercial availability) are designed to extract more energy from the combustionproducts to improve efficiency. Water vapor inthe exhaust gas condenses on the walls ofthe heat exchanger, improving efficiencyby extracting latentheat. 38 average oflifetimes (ranges between 17-26 years depending on type, capacity, and location). 39 average oflifetimes (ranges between 15-20 years depending on type, capacity, and location).
13-1Table A13-2 displays the steady-state efficiency and estimated Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) values for currently available gas unit heater technologies. AFUE considers cycling and other seasonal effects on efficiency while steady-state efficiency is a measurement at full-load operation. Minimum efficiencies for gas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces as prescribedby ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (as ofOctober 29, 2001) are set at 80% combustion efficiency. These levels have notbeen changed in subsequent versions ofASHRAE 90.1 to date. Inprevious versions ofASHRAE 90.1, a thermal efficiency requirement was prescribed. However, for products ofthis type, thermal and combustion efficiency are virtually identical. A review ofcurrentproduct literature reveals that nearly all unit heaters and duct furnaces onthe market today meetASHRAE 90.1. This reflects the situation that ASHRAE 90.1 requirements have been adoptedbymany building codes throughout the U.S. Seasonal efficiency values, used in this analysis to calculate unit energy consumption and design option savings potential, are not currentlyprescribed in ASHRAE 90.1 and therefore are estimated. Table A13-2: Gas Unit Heater Efficiency Technology/Standard Level Steady-State AFUE Comments/Source Efficiency Efficiency Stock Efficiency 78% 72% ADL (2001b) and estimates Typical New Efficiency 80% 74% Product catalogs and estimates Minimum Efficiency ASHRAE 80% 

## -- Standard only specifies steady90.1-1999 (as of 10/29/2001) state combustion efficiency. PowerVented

- Separated 82% 80% Product catalogs and estimates Combustion Best Available (condensing) 93% 93% Product catalogs and estimates In 1995, the majority ofgas unitheaters sold**(~85%)** were simple gravity ventedunits. Powervented units claimed the rest ofthe market**(~15%).** Data are not available to estimate the current share ofpowervent or powervent-separated combustionunit heaters. Condensing units were introduced in 1999 and are available in the U.S. but apparently have not gained significant market share. A product search identified one condensing model, the Reznor SHE condensing unitheater.

A13.2.2Gas Duct Furnaces Gas duct furnaces are heating system components that are installed as a section in the supply ductwork ofa ventilation system (they do not have fans orblowers oftheir own). A gas supply line feeds fuel to the burner and combustion chamber where the gas is burnedto release heat. The hot combustion gas then travels through the inside ofa metal heat exchanger and passes out through the vent where it is exhausted to the outdoors. The ventilation system fan orblower blows air over the hot outer surface ofthe heat exchanger and distributes the heated air throughout the space. Power-ventedunits use a separate fan inthe venting system to draw combustionproducts through the combustion chamberto improve combustion efficiency andreduce flue losses (by restricting the flow ofwarm air out the vent when the unit is off). Separated combustion units are also available that further reduce seasonal losses by using outside air for combustion. Pulse

13-2combustion is no longerviewed as a viable design option to improve efficiency. Condensing units are designed to extract more heat from the combustion gases to the point where the water vapor inthe combustionproducts condenses onthe walls ofthe heat exchanger (improving efficiency by extracting latent heat). ASHRAE 90.l minimum efficiency requirements are the same for duct furnaces as for unitheaters (see earlier discussion). Table A13-3 displays the steady-state efficiency and estimated Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) values for gas duct furnace technologies.

Table A13-3: Gas Duct Furnace Efficiency Technology/Standard Level Steady-state AFUE Comments/Source Efficiency Efficiency Stock Efficiency 78% 72% ADL (200lb) and estimates Typical New Efficiency 80% 74% Product catalogs and estimates Minimum Efficiency Standard only specifies steadyASHRAE 90.1-1999 (as of 80%


### -- state combustion efficiency. 10/29/2001) PowerVented-Separated 82% 80% Product catalogs and estimates Combustion BestPossible (condensing) 93% 93% Product catalogs and estimates .While the exactnumbers are notknown, in 1995 the majority ofgas duct furnaces sold and installed were simple gravity ventedunits. Power-ventedunits claimed the rest ofthe market. No condensing duct furnaces are currently available inthe U.S. market, but several U.S. manufacturers market condensing warm air furnaces, indicating that condensing duct furnaces are technologically feasible.
A13.3 Test Procedure Status Gas unitheaters and duct furnaces, primarily commercial/industrial products, do nothave a DOE testprocedure, but do follow an ANSI test procedure. Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 establishes minimum steady-state combustion efficiency levels for gas unit heaters and duct furnaces based onthe ANSI Z83.8 (CSA 2.6) testprocedure. The ANSI test procedure establishes a uniform experimental setup andprocedure (atmaximum steady-state operation) to measure the heating value ofthe natural gas burned and the heat lost through the vent in the form ofhot combustion gases and watervapor (flue losses). The combustion efficiency calculation equals 100% minus the flue losses. The test standard and efficiency determination do not include the electricity consumed. Steady-state efficiency may notbe the most accurate wayto calculate annual energy consumptionbecause itdoes not account for losses due to equipment on-offcycling. Instead, a seasonal efficiency value such as Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) can betterpredict how much fuel the equipment consumes on a yearlybasis bytaking into account cycling losses (attributed to warm-up and cool-down) and when a standing pilot is used, pilot losses (gas consumedbythe pilotburnerwhen the unit is not operating). Existing DOE test procedures for NAECA coveredheating products, such as residential furnaces andboilers, describe the test

13-3procedure for determining AFUE, but an AFUE has notbeen prescribedbyASHRAE for unit heaters or duct furnaces.
A13.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations Table A13-4 and Table A13-5 present the Unit Energy Consumption (UEC) and the potential national energy saving estimates for the different technologies available for gas unit heaters and duct furnaces. All energy savings calculations use estimatedAFUE values to betterreflect expected annual energy consumption. Table Al3-4: Gas Unit Heater UEC and Potential Saving Estimates UEC(MM- Annual Energy Energy Saving Technology/Standard Level Savings Potential Potential Btu) (auad) (2010-2035, auads) Typical Device (current stock) 167 NA NA Typical New 162 NA NA Condensing 129 0.13 1.8 Power Vent-Separated Combustion 150 0.047 0.67 TableA13-5: Gas Duct Furnace UEC and Potential SavingEstimates UEC AnnualEnergy EnergySaving Technology/Standard Level (MM-Btu) Savings Potential (2010- Potential(auad) 2035), (auad) Typical Device (current stock) 419 NA NA Typical New 408 NA NA Condensing 324 0.021 0.34 PowerVent-Separated Combustion 377 0.008 0.13 Condensing technology has overtwice the energy savings potential ofpowervent-separated combustion because it offers both much higher steady-state and seasonal efficiencies. Some uncertainty exists in the calculation ofnational energy savings potential for gas unit heaters because assumptions were necessary when deriving the AEC estimate for the installed base. ADL (2001b) provided an estimate ofthe AEC ofgas unitheaters in the commercial building sector, butno data couldbe found for the AEC in industrial buildings. Instead, based on the widespread application ofthe unitheater in the industrial sector, it was assumed that gas unit heaters consume 85% ofthe natural gas heating energy consumption in the industrial sector. The UEC calculation assumed that shipments for the years before 1992 equaled the mean of shipments during the 1992 to 2001 period. Depending on actual sales figures before this period, the gas unitheater installedbase.could be eitherhigher or lower. This treatment ofshipment data could also affect energy estimates for duct furnaces (see the Sub-Appendix for more information).

13-4A13.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden The DOE has not regulated gas unitheaters orgas duct furnaces for energy efficiency. A provision in the newNational Energy Bill wouldrequire, ifpassed, thatunitheaters have an intermittent ignition device and eitherpowerventing or an automatic flue damper. As discussed above, unitheaters and duct furnaces are coveredbyASHRAE Standard 90.1, which has been adopted as part ofmany municipal andregional building codes and which sets a minimum efficiency requirement. Some manufacturers ofgas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces also manufacture air-conditioning equipment and furnaces for which the DOE has established minimum efficiency levels. The extent to which otherregulations impact gas unit heaters and duct furnaces, including health and safety, was not determined.

A13.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards
Commercial furnaces have been subjected to efficiency standards (byASHRAE 90.1 and DOE standards published in the Federal Register

- January 2001), which, ifsimilarly promulgated for ·gas unit and/or ductheaters, could force manufacturers to abandon certain designs and/or technologies. Examples ofpossible prescriptive standards (such as being considered inthe National Energy Bill) include requiring vent dampers and banning pilots. The current ASHRAE 90.1 standard for gas unitheaters and duct furnaces is a performance-based standard that sets the minimum steady-state efficiency level and allows the manufacturer flexibility in execution. An AFUE efficiency level standard is also performance based, andprescribing a minimum AFUE level (ratherthan steady-state efficiency) for these products would further impact equipment design. A new testprocedure would also benecessary to measure AFUE. In addition, the electricity consumed bythis equipment could be regulated by future efficiency standards (e.g., electricity consumed bythe fan orblower ofunitheaters orthe power venting system ofduct furnaces). A broaderissue when setting efficiency standards for heating equipment is quantifying how effectively heaters deliver warm air to building occupants. Forexample, manyunit heaters are installed nearthe ceiling oftall spaces; in which case, a portion ofthe heat generatedmay not reach the occupants at floor level. Duct furnaces couldbe impactedbyventilation system distribution inefficiencies, such as duct leakage. Itis not clearhow to best address such "system" effects and whether future equipment efficiency standards can effectively address installation issues.

13-5References
ADL, 2001, "Energy Consumption Characteristics ofCommercial Building HVAC Systems

- Volume I: Chillers, Refrigerant Compressors, and Heating Systems", Final Reportby ArthurD. Little, Inc.to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, April. Available at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/hvacvolume1 finalreport.pdf

. ANSI/CGA, 1996, Standard for Gas Unit Heater and Gas-FiredDuctFurnaces, American National Standard Institute 

### I Canadian Gas Association Standard, Z83.8-1996/CGA2.6-M96. ASHRAE, 1999,ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 -1999, EnergyEfficientDesign of New BuildingsExceptLow-RiseResidentialBuildings, ASHRAE Press: Atlanta, GA. GAMA, 2003, Statistical Highlights, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, March4. GRI, 1995,BaselineProjectionDataBook, 1995Edition, Gas Research Institute. GRI, 1997, "Commercial Space Heating Equipment Market," Gas Research Institute Report, GRI-97/0100.

13-6Sub-Appendix. Gas Unit Heaters and Duct Furnaces Calculation Details
Installed Base Calculations A literature search did not yield gas unitheater and duct furnace installedbase estimates, nor shipment data spanning the entire lifetime ofthe devices. Instead, the installedbase estimates utilize shipment data from GAMA (2003) for the period of 1992-2001 (Table A13-Al). The average annual shipment volume for thatperiod and the device lifetime were used to estimate installed base. Table A13-Al: Gas Unit Heaters and Duct Furnaces Annual Shipments (Source: GAMA 2003) Year GasUnit heaters Gas DuctFurnaces 1992 130,884 15,114 1993 147,338 15,378 1994 167,187 15,718 1995 171,256 16,812 1996 184,670 16,201 1997 202,350 16,692 1998 206,185 15,845 1999 209,195 14,033 2000 216,141 12,908 2001 166,137 11,049 Average, 1992 to 2001 180,134 14,978
Thus, the installed base estimate equals the product ofthe average lifetime and the average annual shipments from 1992 to 2001. The drawback ofthis approach is that the backward extrapolations may not capture sales trends.

AEC Calculations The AEC estimate for unit heaters was based on an earlier study performedbyADL in 2001 using shipment data from 1991 through 1995. To account for the increase in the installed base from 3.2 million in 1995 to 3.9 million in 2001, the AEC estimate was increasedproportionally to the increase in installedbase, approximately 20%. Theresult is a change from the 1995 AEC of0.54 quad to an AEC based on 2001 data of0.65 quad. The following three paragraphs describe the analyses performed to produce the original 0.54 quad estimate. The AEC includes energy consumedby devices in both the commercial sector and industrial building sectors. ADL (2001b) provides an estimate ofcommercial sectorunitheaterAEC; however, no estimate for the AEC ofunit heaters in the industrial sector couldbe found. Instead, the gas unit heater AEC estimate was derived from gas space heating energy consumption data for buildings in the manufacturing sector (see Table A13-A2).

13-7Table A13-A2: Gas Unit Heaters AEC Calculation Tvue Data Source Commercial sector gas unitheater consumption 0.20 ADL (2001b) (quad) Total Manufacturing sectortotal gas 0.40 MECS (1998) consumption (quad) % in Manufacturing sector consumed bygas 85% ADL Estimate unit heaters Manufacturing sector gas unitheater 0.34 Calculation consumption (quad) Total sector gas unit heater consumption (quad) 0.54 Sum ofCommercial and Manufacturing sector Because the stock split ofcommercial-size unit heaters between the two building sectors was unknown, the industrial/manufacturing sector energy consumption was estimated assuming that gas unit heaters account for a large percentage (85%) ofgas heating inthe manufacturing sector. This yields an estimate that gas unitheaters consume about 0.54 quad ofprimary energy per year. As a check, another gas unit heater AEC was developed, using the same procedure as used for the duct furnaces, i.e., based on the average unitheater output, the installedbase, average duty cycle and the seasonal efficiency data. Using this method yields an AEC**of~**1.0 quad, a value that is clearly too high. The 1998 MECS (EIA) survey estimates that industrial space heating consumed a total ofabout 0.4 quad ofgas. Even ifunitheaters consume all ofthis heat, the total gas consumption estimate wouldbe 0.6 quad (0.2 for the commercial consumptionplus 0.4 for the industrial consumption), much less than the above estimate**of~**1 quad. The high estimation may occur for a variety ofreasons, including widespread equipment over-sizing and unutilized equipment. The above estimate of0.54 quad seems to be a more accurate estimate. The gas duct furnace AEC estimate is derivedby estimating the total installed capacity ofduct furnaces and multiplying itbythe average annual duty cycle for duct furnaces: Average unitsize(output) AEC

## = ·8760 ·installedbase·average duty cycle, seasonalefficiency(typicalnew) where the duty cycle equals the ratio ofthe annual heating load to the peak-heating load: Averageheatingload average duty cycle= -----"'---.::..___

__ Peakheatingload Warehouse duty cycle data from DOE-2 computermodel runs (see Table A13-A3) performed for representative warehouses in two climates(LBL, 1990) were used to model duct furnace duty cycles, as these products are often deployed in buildings similarto warehouses.

13-8Table Al3-A3: Gas Duct Furnaces Load Data Type Annual Heating Load PeakHeatingLoad Approximate (Btu/ft2) (Btu/hr-sq. ft) DutyCycle (%) Warehouse, FortWorth, TX 7902 13 6.8 Warehouse, New York City 28,226 22 14.6 Average NA NA 10.7 The average gas duct furnace size (output in kBtu/hour), is assumed equal to the approximate shipment-weighted aveage over the years 1991 to 1995. Table Al3-A4 presents the dataused in the calculations, resulting in an ABC estimate of0.10 quad.

Table Al3-A4: Gas Duct Furnace AEC Calculation Type Data Source Average unit size (output, kBtu/hr) 321 Calculation based on data from GRI (1997) Seasonal efficiency (average installed) 72% GRI 1995 Average duty cycle 10.7% Calculation , Table A13-A4 AEC(quad) 0.1 Calculation

Energy Savings Potential Calculations For a given heating load, energy consumption is proportional to the inverse ofthe seasonal efficiency, in this case AFUE. Thus, the energy savings potential ofan advanced technology equals one minus the ratio ofthe 'typical new' AFUE to that ofthe technology:


### S . p . 

### l l 

### AFUE(Typical New)

avmgs otentza 

## = - ( ) AFUE Tech.Level This yields the savings potentials displayed below (Table A13-A5). Table A13-A5: Gas Unit Heaters and Duct Furnaces Savings Potential Seasonal Savings AFUE Type Efficiencies Potential Source (%,AFUE) (%) Current Stock 72 NA GRI (1995) Typical new 74 NA ADL (2001b) Condensing 93 20% Product Literature and Powervent 80 8% Estimates

13-9A14 Illuminated Exit Signs

A14.1 Background An exit sign is an internally illuminated sign that is permanently fixed in place andused to identify the exit from a building. An internal light source illuminates the sign orletters spelling "EXIT". The sign is connected to only one source ofpower at a time (normal or emergency), and is designed to remain illuminated via an emergency power source upon failure ofthe normal power supply (EPA, 2004a). Exit signs inthe U.S. consume 0.0282 quad ofenergy peryear (see Table A14-1). The total installedbase ofexit signs is approximately 33 million units, with LED, compact fluorescent and incandescentrepresenting 26.4, 5.0 and 1.6 million units respectively (NCI, 2003).

TableA14-1: Exit Signs Background Data Data type Value Source Installed Base, million (2002) 33.0 NCI, 2003. Equipment Lifetime, years 11 Calculated, based onNEMA, 2003 and the estimated installedbase. AEC,quad 0.0282 NCI, 2003; Calculation

A14.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence Table A14-2 presents the technology level and wattage levels for several types ofexit signs (incandescent, CFL, and LED). Table A14-2: Exit Sign Technology Levels and Wattage Values Technolo!!V Level Wattae:e Comments/Source Stock Efficiency 8.9 Weighted average wattage from installedbase and product class average wattages. NCI, 2003. Typical New (LED) 6 Estimated average. NCI, 2003. Minimum Efficiency No national energy standard, however Californiahas NA passed standards that are consistentwith ENERGY STAR® (CEC, 2003). Incandescent 32 Weighted average wattage. NCI, 2003. CompactFluorescent 17 

### I Weighted average wattage. NCI, 2003. Light Emitting Diode 6 Weighted average wattage. NCI, 2003. BestAvailable Efficiency < 1 Some ENERGY STAR® Exit Signs are listed that consume (LED light source) less than one watt. EPA, 2004b. ENERGY STAR® Efficiency SWper ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Exit Signs. face Eligibility Criteria. EPA, 2004a. MaximumEfficiency <l Electroluminescent and some LED panels alreadyuse 1 (Future Technology) W or less.

14-1LED exit signs have considerably lower operating costs than other types ofsigns and last much longer. According to E-Source, LED signs typically cost less than $5 a year to operate, depending on the model and local utility costs (E Source, 2002). Total costs over a ten-year period, including first cost, energy, and maintenance will be approximately $380 for incandescent signs and about $65 for LED signs. Even on a first costbasis, which canbe an importantpurchasing determinant, LEDs have become competitive. While incandescent signs withoutbattery backup are still marginally less expensive than LED signs, the price for both types ofsigns with batterybackup is aboutthe same because the incandescent system requires a much largerbattery. LED first costs have fallen inpart due to the red LED being a relatively mature andwell-understood technology (NCI, 2003). Currently, exit signs do not have a national minimum efficiency standard, butthey do fall under the voluntary ENERGY STAR® program (see Table Al4-3). The ENERGY STAR® requirement for exit signs requires 5 watts or less per face. In addition, certain luminance specifications that are consistentwith National Fire Protection Association requirements mustbemet (EPA, 2004a). Some key performance characteristics are presented in Table Al4-3.

Table Al4-3: ENERGY STAR® Requirements for Exit Signs Selected Performance Characteristics ENERGY STAR® Specification (summarized) Inputpower demand :S 5 W per face Luminance contrast Greaterthan 0.8 Average Luminance Greaterthan 15 candelas/meter2 (cd/m2) measured at normal (0°) and 45° viewing angles Minimum Luminance Greater than 8.6 cd/m2 measured at normal (0°) and 45° viewing angles ·Maximumto Minimum Luminance Less than 20:I measured at normal (0°) and45° viewing angles Due to favorable economics, betterperformance, enhanced safety capabilities, and marketing programs such as ENERGY STAR® Exit Signs, LED exit signs have already captured a significant share ofthis market. With an 80% market share, the installedbase ofLED exit signs is already more than 26 million compared to about 1.6 million for incandescent signs (NCI, 2003).
A14.3 Test Procedure Status The Department ofEnergy does not have a testprocedure for Exit Signs. The draft Energy Bill states that the "Testprocedures for illuminated exit signs shall bebased on the test method usedunderVersion 2.0 ofthe ENERGY STAR® program ofthe Environmental Protection Agency for illuminated exit signs." This testprocedure draws on several industry standards and methods, including the National Fire ProtectionAssociation document 101 Life Safety Code and the Underwriters Laboratory 924 Standard for Safety: EmergencyLightingand PowerEquipment.

14-2The inputpower ofthe exit sign model is measured with an appropriate true root-mean square watt meter at the input voltage representing normal operation. For an exit sign model that includes a battery, the battery circuit shall be connected and the batteryfully chargedbefore any measurements are made. The luminance measurement positions are to be measured in accordance withNFP A 101, Life Safety Code, figure A-7-10.6.3. The positions where the luminances are to bemeasured are detailed in figure 40.9 ofUL 924, Standard for Safety: EmergencyLighting andPower Equipment.
A14.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations The energy savings calculation for exit signs assumes an installed base of33 million units nation-wide, which operate 24 hours perday (NCI, 2003). The energy savings scenario is based onthe standard level included in the draft Energy Bill, requiring all new exit signs to be ENERGY STAR® compliant products. Table Al4-4 presents data for the baseline scenario, including installedbase, wattage, andusage data for exit signs in 2002. The proportions oftechnologies shown inthe table for the baseline scenario were held constant overthe analysis period. This was done to be consistent with the methodologies followed in otherpriority setting analyses, and because even though more than 90% ofexit signs sold today are based onLED technology, incandescent and CFL units are still being sold (NCI, 2003).

Table Al4-4: Exit Sign Installed Base, Wattage, and Usage Data Exit Sign Type Installed Wattage Hours of References Base/Stock use/dav Light Emitting Diode 26.5 million 6 24 NCI, 2003. CompactFluorescent Lamp 4.9 million 17 24 NCI, 2003. Incandescent 1.6 million 32 24 NCI, 2003.

As discussed earlier, approximately eightypercent ofthe installedbase ofexit signs have already converted to ENERGY STAR® complianttechnology. Thus, the energy savings estimate is based on converting the remaining 20% ofexit signs, which includes both compact fluorescent and incandescent technology signs. Forthis analysis, itwas assumed thathalfofthe replacement incandescent and compact fluorescent exit signs have two faces andthat halfhave one face, meaning the average energy consumption is reduced to 7.5 watts perunit, based onthe threshold for ENERGY STAR® certification (less than 5 watts per face). The annual energy savings that would result from this conversion is approximately 0.008 quad. On a cumulative basis over the analysis time period of2010-2035, the energy savings totals 0.16 quad (see Table A14-5).

14-3Table A14-5: Exit Sign AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates Technology/ AEC Annual Energy % Energy Energy Saving StandardLevel (quad) Savings Potential Savings Potential (2010-2035), (quad) (quad) Baseline 0.0282 NA NA NA Scenario 1(ENERGY STAR®) 0.0200 0.008 29% 0.16

A14.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden Exit signs are not subject to regulatory action on energy consumption, howeverthere are considerable regulations associated with dimensions andvisibility, operating hours and other safety-related attributes. Indicative ofthis is the fact that the ENERGY STAR® test method for qualification includes notjust a method for measuring the energy consumption, but also the safety, battery life operating hours, and othernon-energyrelated aspects that are critical to the safe operation ofexit signs (EPA, 2004a). The State ofCalifornia adopted energy standards for exit signs such that inputpower, luminance

. contrast, minimum luminance, average luminance and maximum to minimum luminance ratio of illuminated exit signs manufactured on or afterMarch 1, 2003 mustmeetthe requirements ofthe ENERGY STAR® program.
A14.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards There is good availability ofENERGY STAR® compliant products on the market already, and the trend is toward LED-based technology due to its savings onboth energy and maintenance.

14-4References CEC, 2003.CalifomiaEnergy Commission,ApplianceEfficiencyRegulations. P400-03-0I6, Sacramento, California. EPA, 2004a. ENERGY STAR® ProgramRequirements for Exit Signs, Eligibility Criteria; PDF posted onthe EPA website, available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/eligibility/exit_signs_elig.pdf EPA, 2004b. Exit Signs Product List, Current as ofFeb. 27, 2004. PDF posted onthe EPA website, available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod _lists/exit_signs _prod _list.pdf NCI, 2003. Energy Savings Estimates of LightEmittingDiodes in Niche LightingApplications, prepared for U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies ProgrambyNavigant Consulting, November 2003. NEMA, 2003. Email from Kyle Pitsor, Lighting DivisionManager, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Roslynn, Virginia. June 2, 2003.

14-5A15 Lamps, Incandescent Reflector - ER/BR
A15.1 Background The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 92) established minimum average lamp efficacy standards (LPW) for incandescentreflector lamps, although ellipsoidal reflector (ER) andbulge reflector (BR) shaped lamps were exempted. EP ACT 92 defines an ERincandescentreflector lamp as "areflector lamp with an elliptical sectionbelow the bulb's major diameter and above its approximate baseline as shown in Figure 1 (RE) onpage 7 ofANSI C79.l-1994 (see 10 CFR430.22) and a finished size and shape as shown in ANSI C78.21-1989 including the referencedreflective characteristics in part 7 ofANSI C78.21-1989." EPACT 92 defines an BRincandescentreflector lamp as "areflector lamp with a bulged section below the bulb's major diameter and above its approximate base line as shown in Figure 1 (RB) on page 7 ofANSI C79.l-1994 (see 10 CFR430.22). A BR lamp has a lamp wattage of85 or less than 66 and a BR40 lamp has a lamp wattage of 120 or less" (10 CFR430.2(c)(16)). Atthe time ER/BR lamps were exempted, they constituted a very small percentage oftotal reflector lamp shipments. However, since that time, market forces have expanded the proportion ofER/BRlamps so thatthey now represent more than 50% ofall reflector lamp sales inthe United States. ER/BR lamps have a lower first-cost than regulatedreflector lamps, buttheyhave higher operating costsbecause oftheir lower relative efficacy. There are approximately 165 million ER/BRlamps in service in the United States. This estimate was preparedby looking at national shipments supplied bythe National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and then deriving a national installedbase using estimates ofoperating hours and lamp lifetimes. These reflector lamps (ER/BR) consume approximately 0.166 quad peryear (see Table A15-1).

Table Al5-1: ER/BRBackground Data Datatype Value Source Calculated estimate, based on NEMA, Installed Base, millions (2003 165 2003; NCI, 2002; and Manufacturer Catalogues, 2003. Annual Shipments, millions (2003) 108 NEMA,2003. Weighted average lifetime ofER/BR Equipment Lifetime, years 1.57 lamps in residential and non-residential applications (NCI, 2002). AEC,quad 0.166 Calculation, all sectors

A15.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence Two energy savings scenarios were considered for ER/BR lamps. The first scenario evaluates a lamp efficacy standard in which ER/BRlamps are subject to a halogen standard (approximately

15-118% increase in lamp efficacy). This first scenario is approximately equivalent to the EPACT 92 standard for reflector lamps (removing the exemption for ER/BR). The second energy savings scenario evaluates a higher efficacy standard in which incandescentreflector lamps shift to the halogen infraredreflector (HIR) technology (54% increase in lamp efficacy). This higher standard level is commercially available, but lamps incorporating HIRtechnology are only starting to enterthe market. Only efficacy levels were used for this energy savings analysis; dimming capability orusage was not considered.

Table Al5-2: ER/BR Technology Levels and Efficacy Values

Technology Level Value Comments/Source Stock Power Consumption 71 

## w Shipments estimate and average wattages, NEMA, 2003. Typical New 71 

## w Unregulated lamp. Minimum Efficiency None No known standard. IncandescentEfficiency 12LPW Efficacy ofa 75-watt reflector lamp. Halogen Efficiency 14.2 LPW Halogen reflector lamp ofequivalent light output. Halogen IREfficiency 18.5 LPW Halogen infrared reflector lamp ofequivalent light output. Maximum Efficiency (Future 18.5 LPW No known method ofimproving performance of Technology) incandescent technology without changing technology (e.g., CFL, LED) ER/BR lamps are being consideredbecause the volume ofthese lamps shipped has been increasing since the exemption was made in EPACT 1992. By 2001, 57% ofall reflector lamp shipments were ER/BRlamps (NEMA, 2003), and these lamps accounted for an estimated 77% ofall reflector lamp shipments to the residential sector (NEMA, 2003 and NRCan, 2002). All major NEMA lamp manufacturers now produce this lamp. Thus, more than halfofall reflector lamp sales are now exempt from EPACT. Shipments ofparabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) lamps, which are regulatedby and are compliantwith EPACT, showed no growth from 1999-2002. In contrast, shipments ofBRlamps continue to increase overthat same time period at about 6% a year. This trend is primarily due to two factors: 1) an increase in the prevalence oflow-cost fixtures thatuse reflector lamps (e.g., recessed ceiling and track lighting), and 2) BRlamps are the lowest first-cost reflector lamp, although they do have higher life-cycle costs. Recent shipment information onER lamps do not show an increasing trend like BR, however, the Department is concernedthat ifstandards were promulgated for BRlamps and not ER, the ER-shape lamp may expand its market share, as it may then become the lowest first-cost reflector lamp. Forthis reason, the Department is considering ER/BR lamps as a group ofreflector lamps.

A15.3 Test Procedure Status The Department ofEnergyhas a test procedure for reflector lamps that already covers ER/BR lamps (10 CFR430 Subpart B, Appendix R, 4.3). This testprocedure applies to all reflector

15-2lamps, and incorporates appropriate test methods promulgatedby the Illuminating Engineering Society ofNorth America (IESNA) and ANSI.
A15.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations The energy savings calculation for ER/BR lamps is based on a calculated installedbase of 165 million lamps, including ER, BR, andbulgedparabolic aluminum reflector (BPAR) units. The estimated installedbase ofER, BR, andBP AR lamps is 1.5 million, 157.6 million, and 5.6 million respectively. The shipment-weighted average wattages for ER lamps is 87W, for BR lamps is 68.8W, and for BPARlamps is 135.9W (NEMA, 2003). Operating hours are 2.4 hours per day in the residential sector and 9.7 hours per day in all other sectors (NCI, 2002). Two energy savings scenarios are considered (see Table A15-3). The first evaluates a lamp efficacy standard in which incandescentreflector lamps (12 LPW) shiftto halogen technology (14.2 LPW). This first energy savings scenario is approximately equivalent to the standard already in place for regulatedreflector lamps. The second energy savings scenario evaluates a lamp efficacy standard in which incandescentreflector lamps shift (12 LPW) to the HIR · technology (18.5 LPW). Forthe first scenario, the annual energy savings potential is 0.0304 quad, a savings of 18.3%. Overthe cumulative analysis period 2010-2035, these savings total 0.74 quad. Forthe second scenario, the annual energy savings potential is 0.09 quad, a savings of54.2%. Overthe cumulative analysis period 2010-2035, these savings total 2.17 quads (see Table A15-4). Table AlS-3: ER/BR Efficacy and Usage Data Hours of Hours ofuse/day Scenario Efficacy use/day Commercial References Residential Industrial, Outdoor Baseline 12LPW 2.4 9.7 NCI, 2002. Scenario I (Halogen, EPACT 92) 14.2LPW 2.4 9.7 NCI, 2002. Scenario 2 (HIR technology) 18.5 LPW 2.4 9.7 NCI, 2002.

15-3Table A15-4: ER/BRAEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates Annual Energy Energy Saving Technology/ AEC Savings Potential %Energy Potential Standard Level (quad) Savings (2010-2035) (quad) (quads) Baseline 0.166 NA NA NA Scenario 1 (Halogen, EP ACT 92) 0.136 0.030 18.3% 0.74 Scenario 2 (Halogen Infrared) 0.076 0.090 54.2% 2.17
A15.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden Basedonthe definition ofincandescent reflector lamps in EPACT 92, ER/BR lamps were exempted from standards. EPACT 92 states "Incandescent reflector lamp (commonly referred to as a reflector lamp) means any lamp in which light is produced by a filament heated to incandescence by an electric current, which is not colored or designed for rough orvibration service applications that contains an innerreflective coating on the outerbulb to direct the light; has an R, PAR, or similarbulb shape (excluding ERorBR) with an E26 medium screw base; has a rated voltage orvoltage range that lies at leastpartially in the range of 115 and 130 votes; has a diameter that exceeds 2.75 inches; and is either low(er)-wattage reflector lamp that has a rated wattage between 40 and 205; or a high(er)-wattage reflector lamp thathas a rated wattage above 205." (see 10 CFR430.2(c)(16)). The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set the following standard for incandescent reflector lamps: "Each ofthe following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after November 1, 1995 shall meet or exceed lamp efficacy standards shown in the table in this paragraph.

TableAl5-5: IncandescentReflector Lamps Nominal Lamp Wattage Minimum Average Lamp Efficacy (Watts) (LPW) 40-50 10.5 51-66 11.0 67-86 12.5 86-115 14.0 116-155 14.5 156-205 15.0 (10 CFR430.2(n)(2)). ER/BR lamps are notpart ofthe draft Energy Bill. Ifthe Energy Bill becomes law, the Department must decide whether to continue attempting to coverthis product orreprioritize ER/BR lamps for a later date.

15-4A15.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards One issue that has beenraised withrespect to the regulation ofER/BR lamps is the consumer demand for low-first-costreflector lamps. IfER/BRlamps were forced to comply with the EPACT 92 standard for reflector lamps, consumers may start installing general incandescent lamps (A-type) orother shapes ofthese lamps (e.g., K-type director lamps which do nothave aluminized reflectors oroptics designed for recessed fixtures) intheir fixtures designed for reflector lamps. This type ofsubstitution could be problematic because when installed in a recessed lighting fixture or track-lighting housing, the system efficiency (lamp+ fixture) could be lower when compared to the same fixture operating with an ER/BR lamp, which directs light more efficiently.

15-5References NEMA, 2003, ER/BR Reflector Lamp Shipment andMarket Share Data, providedbyNEMA in a meeting with the Department ofEnergy on April 2003. NRCan, 2002, Reflector Study byNavigant Consulting, Inc. for Natural Resources, Canada, March2002. NCI, 2002, "U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate", preparedbyNavigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. September 2002. Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/lmc _volI_ final.pdf.

15-6A16 Large Unitary Air Conditioners**(~** 240 kBtu/hr)
A16.1 Background Large unitary air conditioners (A/C) (i.e., those with more than 240 kBtu/hr ofcooling capacity) heat, cool, and ventilate commercial buildings. This section focuses on coolingperformance. The heating function maybe provided by a gas-fired warm air furnace section, electric resistance heat, or, less commonly, a heat pump cycle. Electric resistance tends to be used in those areas of the U.S. that have mild winters and low heating degree-days. Gas-firedheat generally has an Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) within a couple ofpercentage points of80%. The most common large unitary A/C configuration is the single package horizontal rooftop configuration (cooling only or so-calledyear-round with cooling and heating), but split systems are also used in this capacity range. Altogether, the installedbase ofapproximately 421,000 large unitary air conditioners consumes approximately 0.32 quad for cooling (see Table A16-l).
TableA16-1: Large Unitary**(~240kBtu/hour)** Background Data for Major Unit Classes

Tvne Data tvne Value Source Installed base, units 122,000 U.S. Census Bureau (1988-2002) Single package Annual shipments (2002), units 10,950 U.S. Census Bureau (2002) Equipment lifetime, years 15 DOE (2003) for Unitary cooling only >65kBtu/hourto <240kBtu/hour AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.12 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 Installedbase, units 182,000 U.S. Census Bureau (1988-2002) Single package Annual shipments, units 14,790 U.S. Census Bureau (2002) Equipment lifetime, years 15 DOE (2003) for Unitary year-round >65kBtu/hour to <240kBtu/hour AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.12 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 Installed base, units 101,000 U.S. Census Bureau (1988-2002) Annual shipments, units 7,140 U.S. Census Bureau (2002) Split systems Equipment lifetime, years 15 DOE (2003) for Unitary >65kBtu/hourto <240kBtu/hour AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.08 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 Installedbase, units 406,000 U.S. Census Bureau (1988-2002) All Large Annual shipments, units 32,880 U.S. Census Bureau (2002) Unitary (above Equipment lifetime, years 15 DOE (2003) for Unitary categories) >65kBtu/hourto <240kBtu/hour AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.32 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 *All AEC values based on fraction oftotal shipments tonnage, all units**~240kBtu/hour** Shipments ofall large unitary air conditioners in 2002 totaled 33,265 units. In 1993, what was then a record level of 18,860 large unitary air conditioners, were shipped. Without analyzing the capacity distribution ofeither 1993 or 2002 shipments, shipments grew over that nine-year period at a compound annual growth rate of6.5 %. The often-predicted slow-down to a mature industry unit volume growth rate has yet to materialize.

16-1A16.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence The majority oflarge unitary air conditioners are single package systems. Table Al6-2 summarizes efficiency levels.

TableAl6-2: Large UnitaryAir Conditioner Technology levels and UEC Values EERBtu/Watt-hr TechnologyLevel 240-760 >760 Comments/Source kBtu/hr kB tu/hr Stock -8.5 -8.2 Meet ASHRAE 90.1-1989 Typical New -9.5 -9.2 Meet ASHRAE 90.1-1999 Minimum Efficiency Standard 9.5 9.2 ASHRAE (1999) ASHRAE 90.1 (1999) EnergyStar® NIA NIA ENERGY STAR® (2003) CEE Tier2 10.0 10.0 CEE (2003) Maximum Available 11.0 9.2 Lennox (2003) for 240 to 360 kBtu/hr Carrier (2004) for >760 kBtu/hr. Higher efficiencies achievable with. some custom packages Table A16-3 summarizes current DOE and ASHRAE 90.1 standards and minimum efficiency levels for unitary air conditioners that fall under the voluntary Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) and EnergyStar® programs. Minimum efficiency levels decrease with increasing capacity, which is somewhat counter intuitive, given thatthe effects oflarge scale usually favor increased efficiency. Some unique circumstances account for this situation in large unitary. First, space and size constraints become more acute with increasing size ofunitary equipment, making it necessary to reduce duct and coil face areas relative to capacity. In the largest sizes, the need to fit a single package on a standard flat bedtruck is a size constraint. The ARI 340/360 test procedure also recognizes that larger capacity systems covermore floorspace and require longer duct runs.

16-2Table A16-3: EnergyEfficiency Levels

- Standards and Voluntary Efficiency Programs for Electrically Operated Air-Cooled Air-Conditioners and Heat-Pumps (in Cooling Mode Only) Minimum EER* Standard <65 65-135 135-240 240-760 >760 kBtulhr kBtu/hr kBtulhr kBtulhr kB tu/hr 10 SEER

(split ASHRAE 90.1-1989 system) 8.9** 8.5** 8.5 8.2 9.7 SEER

(single package)**

10 SEER ASHRAE 90.1-1999*** (split (Baseline level for system) 10.3 9.7 9.5 9.2 ongoing rulemaking) 9.7 SEER (single package) EnergyStar® 13 SEER 11.0 10.8 NIA NIA CEE Tier 1 (obsolete) 12 SEER 10.3 9.7 9.5 9.5 CEE Tier2 11.3 11.0 (13 SEER) 10.8 10.0 10.0 LEED Requires that minimum standardbe met, creditpoints based on2::20% energy savings relative to minimum efficiency standard *Minimum EER: Steady-state energy efficiency ratio, as determined byARI 210/240 or 340/360 test procedures at ARI Standard Conditions **Current DOE/EPAct, as ofJanuary, 1992 ***Deduct 0.2 EER from units with heating other than electric resistance heat.
The CEE Tier I level was discontinued as of31 December, 2002 "inresponse to increasing Federal standards" (CEE 2003). In 2001, about 43% ofunits (presumably for all size ranges) met or exceeded the Tier 1level, while 16% ofunits (all size ranges) met the Tier 2 level (CEE 2003). Table A16-4 shows the external static pressure requirements (accounting for distribution duct pressure loss) for the indoor airside, as specified in the unitary testprocedure, ARI-340/360. The increasing external static pressure increases the blowerpower. Since indoor air moving power typically equals 15 to 20% ofunitpower draw, a 25% to 40% increase in air moving power decreases EERby4 to 8%. This accounts for a large part ofthe difference between the minimum efficiency levels for small and large unitary.

16-3Table Al6-4: Minimum External Static Pressure for Testing Unitary Products (from ARI 2000) StandardCauacitv Ratin2s Minimum External kBtu/hour ForTons Resistance [in H20] 135 to 210 11.3

- 17.5 0.35 211to280 17.5

- 23.3 0.40 281to350 23.2

- 29.2 0.45 351 to 400 29.2-33.3 0.55 401to500 33.3-41.7 0.65

501 + 41.7 and over 0.75 Thebasic options for increasing the full load, standard conditions EER are to specify more efficientrefrigerant compressors, increase condenser and/or evaporator coil face area and heat transfer area, and to specify high efficiency fans, blowers, ormotors. Application ofone ormore efficiency measure is a design-specific cost-benefit tradeoffthat is constrainedbytotal unit cost for each manufacturer, including aforementionedunit size. Some large unitary products may also include one ormore technologies that canreduce annual cooling energy consumption and/or improve seasonal energy efficiency. Whenthe unitary AC supplies outdoorventilation air mandatedbyASHRAE Standard 62, energy recovery heat and/or enthalpy exchange between the ventilation make up air and exhaust air canreduce energy consumptionby a significant amount (10% or more) under standardtest conditions (per ANSI/ARI 340/360). This approach can also reduce seasonal energy consumption. Airside economizers, which are prescribed byASHRAE 90.1-1999 under several circumstances, can also realize significant reductions in seasonal energy consumption. Variable air volume (VAV) operation ofthe indoor blower, coupled with compressor capacity modulation (typically through the use ofmultiple compressors) is another approachthat can appreciably reduce seasonal energy consumption. One difficulty in applying VA V is the needto deliver a constant flow ofoutdoor airto complywith ASHRAE 62. Onthe otherhand, ifa separate blowerbrought in the outdoor air (and anotherblowerrecirculated additional air for cooling andheating purposes), varying the recirculated indoor airflow rate would have minimal impact on outdoor air delivery rates. Large unitary AC with demand control ventilation (DCV) allows reductions in outdoor air delivery in response to building occupancy, for which measurements ofC02 levels in occupied zones serve as a proxy (per ASHRAE Standard 62). Thus, DCV canreduce annual HV AC energy consumption inbuildings by decreasing the quantity ofoutdoor airthatrequires conditioning; it does notimpact unitary equipment efficiencyperformance (TIAX 2002).
A16.3 Test Procedure Status A DOE energy efficiencytest procedure has notbeen instituted for commercial unitary air conditioners. Industry (ANSI/ ARI) testprocedures are used instead. ASHRAE 90.1 minimum efficiency requirements for large unitaryproducts are specified in terms ofEER. The efficiency oflarge unitary air conditioners is tested according to ANSI/ARI standard 340/360. The standardprovides for determining the EER at a standard condition, analogous to the EER atthe DOE A test condition in the NAECA test procedure for residential

16-4central air conditioners. Italso determines Integrated PartLoadValue (IPLV) as an approximation ofseasonal average performance. In addition, ANSVARI 340/360 enables performance evaluation for units that have a separate pre-cooling coil for outdoor ventilation air. In general, the IPL V procedure inARI 340/360 does not appear to correlate well with actual seasonal performance (based on discussions with majorunitary equipmentmanufacturers). The ARI 340/360 Engineering Committee is beginning to work on an improvedmethod for determining part-load performance and seasonal energy consumption. Furthermore, ARI 340/360 does not account for the seasonal energy impact ofVAV, DCV, oreconomizers on seasonal energy use. It also does not considerthe energy performance ofefficientmethods of preconditioning outdoorventilation air (e.g., heat or enthalpy recovery exchange). ASHRAE guideline V, however, addresses this configuration.
A16.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations All energy savings calculations assume that the entire installedbase oflarge unitary air conditioners operate at the ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999 minimum EER levels. Table A16-5 summarizes the potential energy consumption and energy savings for new technologies, along with anticipated annual energy savings from 2008-2030. Table A16-5: Energy Savings Potential Associated with Various Efficiency Improvements UEC Savings Energy Savings Technology/Standard Level Potential [2010-2035; Potential[%] quads] Typical NewDevice (9.5 EER)

- - CEE Tier 2 (10.0 EER) 5% 0.25 Best Available (11.0 EER) 14% 0.7* Typical New Device with VA V -30%** 1.1 Typical New Device with ERV -40%*** 1.6 *Calculated as if 11.0 EER is available across the entire capacity range. However, 11.0 EERproducts are generally not available atthe upper end ofthe capacity range. **From ADL (1999) ***Includes the savings from VAV. Does not include heating-season savings. Savings can vary, depending on climate, ventilation rates, and other factors. From TIAX (2003).
A16.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden A significant fraction ofall large unitary air conditioners are producedby manufacturers who produce smaller commercial unitary and residential central air conditioners. Commercial unitary equipment :2::65 kBtu/hr and <240 kBtu/hr have been subject to minimum EER since the provisions ofthe Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) took effect. Residential central air conditioners and heatpumps have been subjectto minimum SEER and HSPF standards since 1990. Standard levels were increased in 1993 and in 2004 with the end ofthe rulemaking litigation on residential central air conditioners andheatpumps.

16-5The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) first established minimum efficiency levels for commercialunitary based on the recommended minimum efficiency levels for unitary in ASHRAE 90.1-1989. ASHRAE 90.1-1999 raised the minimum efficiency. An ongoing DOE rulemaking for unitary equipmentwith capacity ::?:65 kBtu/hr and <240kBtu/hr is considering whether to adopt 90.1-1999 efficiency levels orto setmore stringent levels. Several states are considering setting standards at the state level. To avoidhaving to manage multiple state-level standards, ARI is developing a proposal for a federal performance standard. More information should be available in earlyApril onthe status ofARI's proposal.
A16.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards As discussed in Section A16.2 above, space constraints (forboth shipping and installation) become more acute with increasing equipment capacity. Some efficiency improvement measures (such as increasing coil size or adding energy recovery/enthalpy exchange) tend to increase unitphysical size, so unitphysical size constraints may limit efficiency improvements. Also, the industry faces the phase out ofHCFC refrigerants. Switching to HFC alternatives (such as HFC-410a) may impact efficiency.

16-6References
ADL, 1999, "Energy Consumption Characteristics ofCommercial Building HV AC Systems

- Volume II: Thermal Distribution, Auxiliary Equipment, and Ventilation'', Final ReportbyArthur D. Little, Inc. to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, October. Available at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/comhvac.pdf. ADL, 2001, "Energy Consumption Characteristics ofCommercial Building HV AC Systems

- Volume I: Chillers, Refrigerant Compressors, and Heating Systems", Final Reportby ArthurD. Little, Inc.to US Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, April. Available at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/ documents/pdfs/hvacvolume1 finalreport.pdf. ARI, 2000,ARIStandard3401360, 2000, Standard for Commercial andIndustrial UnitaryAirConditioning andHeatPump Equipment, The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute: Arlington, VA. ARI, 2003, "Guideline V: 2003 Guideline for Calculating the Efficiency ofEnergy Recovery Ventilation and Its Effect onthe Efficiency and Sizing ofBuilding HVAC Systems," The AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute: Arlington, VA. ASHRAE, 1989,ASHRAEIIESStandard90.1-1989, Energy EfficientDesign of NewBuildings ExceptNewLow-RiseResidentialBuildings, ASHRAE Press: Atlanta, GA. ASHRAE, 1989,ASHRAE/IESNA Standard90.1 -1999, Energy EfficientDesign of New BuildingsExceptLow-RiseResidentialBuildings, ASHRAE Press: Atlanta, GA. Carrier, 2004, Telephone conversation between Dick Lord ofCarrier andBob Zogg ofTIAX, March 15, 2004. CEE, 2003, "Fact Sheet: High-Efficiency Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps," Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Available at: http://www.ceel.org/resrc/facts/hecac-fx.php3

. DOE, 2003, "DOE Rulemaking: Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps," Documentation available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/commercial/ac hp.html

. ENERGY STAR®, 2004, "EnergyStar® Program Requirements for Light Commercial HV AC

- Eligibility Criteria," Downloaded on 9 March, 2004, from: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product specs/eligibility/lchvac elig.pdf. Lennox, 2003, Engineering Data, L Series®

- LCA.C

- 60 Hz, 13 to 60 Ton, Packaged Cooling. Available at: http://pirl.lennox.com/C03e7o141/ehb_lcalcc

_ 13to30

_0309.pdf

16-7TIAX, 2002, "Energy Consumption Characteristics ofCommercial Building HV AC Systems

- Volume III: Energy Savings Potential," Final ReportbyTIAX LLC to US Department of Energy, Office ofBuilding Technology, State and Community Programs, July. Available at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/hvacvolume3finalreport.pdf

. TIAX, 2003, "Energy EfficientRooftop Air-Conditioner-Design, Development and Field Testing'', Final Technical Report byTIAXLLC to US Department ofEnergy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE Cooperative AgreementNumberDE-FC26-99FT40640, June. U.S. Census Bureau, 200240

, "Current Industrial Reports -Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm AirHeating Equipment: 2002," Issued July.

40 Reports were also used for the years 1988 through 2001, in which case the title changes to reflect the actual year, e.g., for 2001 the title is: "Current Industrial Reports

- Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air Heating Equipment: 2001."

16-8A17 Residential Furnace Fans
A17.1 Background
Residential gas-fired furnaces use electricity for the circulating air fan as well as for other electrical components. In many applications, the furnace fan is also the airhandler for the air conditioner. The electricity use for non-weatherized furnaces is shown in Table Al7-1. Since one circulating airblower is included in every residential furnace, the installedbase and equipment lifetime are the same as for residential furnaces.

Table Al7-1: Residential Furnace Fan Background Data 

### Datiltype Installed Base, millions 48.9
Annual Shipments, millions 3.20 3.38 (year2006 forecast) EquipmentLifetime, years 20 AEC,quad 0.58 Basedonhistorical shipments and equipment lifetime of20 years (Kendall 2002) (Appliance 2004) (Appliance 2004) Based on installed based and stock annual energyuse 1 Installed base, annual shipment, and AEC values are for the year2002 except where noted.

A17.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence The baseline design for the furnace circulating-airblower is a centrifugal design with a forwardcurved impellor in a sheetmetal scroll poweredby a permanent split capacitor (PSC) induction motor. The forward-curved impellor is made ofstamped sheetmetal. The airhandlers are sized to move air for the air conditioner with which the furnace is installed. Nominal motor sizes are less than 1horsepower (hp) and operate at about 1075 rpm. Usually, Y3 hp motors are used in furnaces designed for a three-ton air conditioner and 

### Yz hp motors for a four-ton air conditioner. The motors are built with multiple electrical taps, usually three or four, which connect to different windings inthe motor for different speed settings. The lower speeds are much less efficient than the higher speeds. The motor is usually set to the highest speed setting when the air conditioner is operating. Forfurnace operation, a lower motor setting is used. About 95 percent offurnaces are sold with a PSC motor and centrifugal-type blower. The combined efficiency ofthese motor andblowers is typically 10 to 15 percent. Another motor technology that is also used in furnaces is the brushless permanent magnet (BPM) motor. This variable speed motor technology is more efficient and more expensive than PSC motors. The variable speed capabilities ofthese motors are used in as much as 20 percent of condensing furnaces. The primary selling point is the extra consumer utility ofbeing able to operate the furnace air handler at a reduced airflow, thereby improving consumer comfort and reducing noise. This motor is currentlyused with standard forward-curved centrifugal blowers.

17-1With DOE assistance, General Electric has developed a prototype backward inclined blowerwith a smaller BPM motor. The different geometry ofthis blowerrequires itto operate at a higher speed, but allows the motorto be smaller in size. Improvements to the aerodynamics ofthe blower inlet cone were also included. This prototype blowerhas about double the efficiency of the baseline blower andblower-motor design. The impellor is likely to bemore expensive, because it is more difficult to make, butthe motor will likelybe less expensive than current BPM motor designs because it is smaller. Table Al7-2 provides the UEC values corresponding to the furnace fans discussed above.

Table A17-2: Residential FurnaceFan Technology Levels and UEC Values

PSC motor, fmward-curved blower

BPM motor, forward-curved blower

BPM motor, backward-inclined blower 1,085

645

566 Based on metered data from condensing furnaces with air conditioners in Wisconsin. (Pigg 2003) Based onmetered data from condensing furnaces with air conditioners in Wisconsin. (Pigg 2003) Based on laboratory comparison with baseline blower and blower-motor. (Walker et.al. 2003)

Table Al7-3 provides the change in retail price for the two BPM designs listed inTable Al7-2. The BPMretail price is based on a cost estimate from the Sachs and Smith (Sachs and Smith 2003) multipliedby a manufacturer cost-to-retail price markup estimatedbyDOE (DOE 2002). The additional price ofthe backward-inclinedblower is based on a DOE estimate for the blower alone (DOE 2002).

Table A17-3: Residential Furnace Fan Retail Prices TechnologyLevel PSC motor, forward-curved blower

BPMmotor, forward-curved blower

BPM motor, backward-inclined blower >J)elta.Retail Price

. ($2002) NA
$174

$275 NA Manufacturer cost estimatedby Sachs and Smith multiplied by a retail price markup estimated byDOE (Sachs and Smith 2003; DOE 2002) Motor same as above. Blowerprice from DOE (DOE 2002)

17-2A17.3 Test Procedure Status
The current DOE test procedure for furnaces measures Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE), which does not include electricity. The test procedure does specify how to calculate Annual Auxiliary Electricity Use (EAE). However this parameter is not an efficiency descriptor and itincludes electricity from other furnace components as well. EAE is measured during furnace testing. It does notmeasure air-handling performance and it does not include the impact ofstandby power or airhandler operation during air conditioning. The AirMovement and Control Association International (AMCA) andASHRAE have developed Laboratory Methods for Testing Fans for Aerodynamic Performance Rating that could be adapted for use as the basis ofa test for furnace air handler efficiency (ANSI/ AMCA 210-99; ANSI/ASHRAE 51-1999).

A17.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations
Table Al7-4 presents the energy savings potential for the efficiency levels specified in Table Al7-2. Also provided in Table Al7-4 is the economic benefit orburden to consumers for each efficiency level taking into accountbothutilitybill savings and the increased equipment costs. Consumer national utility bill savings for a givenyear are derivedbytaking the national annual energy savings and multiplying itbythe corresponding electricityprice from the DOE-Energy Information Administration'sAnnualEnergy Outlook2004 (DOE 2004). Consumernational equipment cost increases are derived bytaking the perunit change inequipment cost and multiplying it by the annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost increases are summed over the time period 2010-2035 with the netbenefit orburden being the difference between the two values.41

41 Economic calculations are performed with a spreadsheet tool which is available onthe DOE Building Technologies Program, Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards web site. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance standards/docs/fy05 priority setting spreadsheets.zip
17-3Table Al7-4: Residential Furnace Fan Potential Energy Savings and Economic ImpactEstimates

PSC motor, forward-curved blower BPM motor, forward-curved blower BPM motor, backwardinclined blower 1,085
645
566 Energy Saving ·Potential,**2010~2Q3S** 

### (quads)·

NA
5.02
5.92

A17.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burdens 

### . ··.·

• •.·.·**P~tellti~I*~6ri~mi<** 

### .·.••...··..**•.B~11efits/)Jl1J:d~ns; ~;** 

### ...·· ·**Cm11~1~tive,~Py,2~~0~**

2035·.(1>,illi()n.sof$,2002) NA
6.19
5.44

The AFUE offurnaces are regulated for energy efficiency underNAECA. Furnace manufacturers currently measure and publish the airflow performance offurnaces for a range of static pressures. These are guidelines for contractors to use when installing furnaces.
A17.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards Perhaps the largest issue impacting potential efficiency standards is energy legislation currently being consideredby Congress. Ifapproved and enacted, DOE would be allowed to regulate the electricity consumption offurnace fans. DOE has not adopted a testprocedure to rate the efficiency ofresidential furnace fans. This will have to be done before any standards are adopted. The current test procedure includes, but doesn'trequire certification of, EAE· However this parameter is not an efficiency descriptor and it includes electricity from other furnace components as well. EAE is measured during furnace testing. Itdoes not measure air-handling performance and it does not include the impact of standby power or airhandler operation during air conditioning. The type ofmotor-blower combinations used in residential furnaces fans is also used inheat pumps. IfDOE decides to pursue the regulation offurnace fan efficiency, the Departmentwill needto determine ifheatpump airhandlers are also coveredunderresidential furnace fans. Finally, as noted earlier, the backward-inclined blower is a prototype design. Thus, the energy and costimpacts may change significantly iftheblower goes into mass production. The effectiveness ofbackward-inclinedblowers has been confirmed through theiruse in large commercial equipment. Butuntil backward-inclined blowers have been mass-produced for residential applications, their cost and energy impacts will be to some degree uncertain.

17-4References Appliance Magazine. 2004. "Healthy Times Ahead." January, 2004. Kendall, Mark. 2002. Appendix A- Furnace Shipments; Appendix B

- Boiler. Comment# 24 submitted to DocketNumber: EE-RM/STD-01-350 Shipments. Arlington, VA: GAMA. Pigg, Scott. 2003. "ElectricityUse byNew Furnaces: A Wisconsin Field Study, Appendices." Madison: Energy Center ofWisconsin. Sachs, H.M. and S. Smith. 2003. "Saving Energy with Efficient Residential Furnace Air Handlers: A Status Report and ProgramRecommendations," American Council for anEnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), Washington DC A033, April 2003. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technology Program, "Engineering Analysis, Furnaces and Boilers Standards Rulemaking, DraftReport for Review". September 19, 2002. http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance

_standards/residential/pdfs/furnace _engineering _analysis.pdf U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 2004. Walker, LS., M.D. Mingee, and D.E. Brenner. 2003. Improving Air HandlerEfficiency in Residential HV AC Applications. LBNL 53606. Berkeley: Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory.

17-5A18 Torchieres

A18.1 Background Torchieres, lighting fixtures that operate a halogen, incandescent or compact fluorescent light (CFL) source, are a subcategory ofresidential lighting. These fixtures are used to illuminate living spaces with indirect, ambient light. Torchieres are popularbecause oftheir function

- illuminating a large space from one fixture, often with an adjustable lighting level. Newer living spaces typicallyrequire more portable (i.e., plug-in-the-wall) lamps because there is a general trend away from 'hard-wired' fixtures, such as chandeliers or decorative wall sconces. Newly constructed homes and apartments tend to be builtwith switched electrical outlets rather than hard-wired.fixtures because builders allocate less than 1 % oftheir constructionbudgetto lighting fixtures (DOE, 2002). This increases the demand for plug-in-the-wall lamps, including torchieres. There are approximately 69 million torchieres in the U.S. that consume approximately 0.238 quad ofenergy peryear (see Table Al8-1). Total annual shipments oftorchieres are approximately 12 millionunits, with halogen, incandescent, and compact fluorescent accounting for 1.3, 10.0, and 0.9 million units respectively (Ecos Consulting, 2003). Table A18-1: Torchiere Background Data Datatype Value Source Installed Base, millions (2003 69 Ecos Consulting, 2003 Annual Shipments, millions (2003) 12 Ecos Consulting, 2003 Equipment Lifetime, years 4.5 Ecos Consulting, 2003 AEC,quad 0.238 Calculation, installed base

A18.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence Two efficiency levels for torchieres were examined

- one limiting the wattage to 190 watts per fixture (i.e., the California standard andthe level in the pending federal energy bill) and one limiting the wattage to 70 watts perfixture, approximately equivalent to the ENERGY STAR® standard (see Table Al8-2). Only wattage levels were considered; dimming capability orusage was notconsidered.

18-1Table A18-2: Torchiere Technology Levels and Wattage Values Technolo2y Level Wattage Comments/Source Stock Efficiency 253 Average installed base efficiency; Ecos Consulting, 2003. Typical New 225 Incandescent torchiere wattage; Ecos Consulting, 2003. MinimumEfficiency 190 DraftEnergy Bill Standard; CEC maximum effective March 1, 2003. Incandescent 225 Ecos Consulting, 2003. BestAvailable 55 Assume light output ofenergy star light source held constantwith Efficiency 225 W incandescent (3500 lumens) (CFL light source) ENERGY STAR® 70 Assume light output ofCFL source equivalent to halogen baseline. Efficiency Maximum Efficiency 40 Assume efficacy will improve to highest linear florescent tube (100 (Future Technology) LPW) and 4000 lumen output. Halogen and incandescent torchieres have a broad range in price due to differences in shades and metal fixture surface finishes, but generally the mostpopularunits are the least expensive, .ranging between $10 and $30. CFL torchieres require a ballast and fluorescent lamp, in addition to aesthetic costs such as shades and finishes. Generally, CFL torchieres costbetween $40 and $70. Operating costs tend to be about $18 less peryear for operating a CFL torchiere, with a simple paybackperiod.ofbetween 1.7 to 2.2 years. However, the majority ofthe residential torchiere market is first-cost sensitive, favoring the cheaper, but less efficient incandescent and halogen torchieres. Halogen torchieres accounted for about 11% oftorchiere sales in 2003, while lower-wattage incandescent torchieres captured 82% ofthe market. In 2003, CFL torchieres represented approximately 7% ofthe units shipped (Ecos Consulting, 2003). To promote the use ofCFL torchieres, several utilities anduniversity campuses have sponsored trade-in programs, where people can swap theirhalogen torchieres for more energy efficient and safer CFL torchieres. Utilities have also sponsored rebate programs for CFL torchieres. The maximum efficiency technology, which assumes that CFL technology efficacy will improve to that ofthe most efficient linear fluorescent tube currently available, is not commercially available in torchiere form at this time. Currently, torchieres do nothave a national minimum efficiency standard, butthey are included in the voluntary ENERGY STAR® program for residential light fixtures (see Table A18-3). The ENERGY STAR® Residential Light Fixture Program requires 60 LPW for indoor fixtures 24 inches or shorterthat consume 30 or more watts. The 60 LPWrequirement translates to an allowed wattage ofapproximately 67 W per fixture, assuming a 4,000-lumen output. ENERGY STAR® also specifies that torchiere style portable fixtures shall be dimmable from 100 percent to 30 percent or less ofmaximum light output, orbe switchable to three levels ofbrightness, not including the offposition (DOE & EPA, 2001).

18-2Table Al8-3: ENERGY STAR® Requirements for Indoor Lights Selected Performance Characteristics ENERGY STAR® Specification (summarized) System efficacy (LPW) 2':60LPW All fixtures :S24 inches and 2':30W Powerfactor 2':0.5 Lamp current crest factor '.Sl.7 perANSI C82.11-5.6.1 Lamp colorrendering CRI 2': 80 for CFLs Dimming Torchiere style portable fixtures shall be dimmable from 100% to 30% orless ofmaximum light output, orbe switchable to three levels ofbrightness, not including the offposition. Safety Mustcomply withNFPA 70, NEC Other ANSI and UL standards apply to specific fixture types Despite concerted marketing efforts andmore than 30 different compliant models for consumers to choose from, ENERGY STAR® torchieres still representjust7% ofthe units shipped (Ecos Consulting, 2003). In fact, between 2001 and 2003, estimates oftorchiere sales increasedwhile the units sold and total shipmentpercentage ofENERGY STAR® CFLtorchieres declined. Generally, consumers have notresponded to the marketing efforts, bulkprocurements, subsidies and awareness raising initiatives conducted to increase the market share ofEnergy Star torchieres.
A18.3 Test Procedure Status The Department does notpresently have a testprocedure for measuring the energy consumption oftorchiere fixtures. However, industry-recognized testing procedures publishedby !ESNA are available whichprovide standardized test methods by which engineers can measure the energy consumption and light output ofa torchiere. This section is divided into three parts, each summarizing the test methodby which torchieres are evaluated in respective programs. The three sections are: (A) the draft Energy Bill; (B) the CaliforniaEnergy Commission standard; and (C) the ENERGY STAR®Torchiere program. A) DraftEnergyBill In the eventthat Congress passes the draft EnergyBill, a national standardwill be enacted for torchieres manufactured on or afterJanuary 1, 2005 that "(1) Shall consume not more than 190 watts ofpower; and (2) Shall notbe capable ofoperating with lamps thattotal more than 190 watts." The !ESNAhas a testmethod that can beused to measure the powerconsumption ofa fixture (!ESNA Guide for the Selection, Care, and Use ofElectrical Instruments in the Photometric Laboratory; LM-28-98), addressing the first criterion, i.e., thatthe torchiere consume not more than 190 watts ofpower.

18-3The second criterion

- that the torchiere shall notbe capable ofoperating with lamps that total more than 190 watts
- requires interpretation in order to develop an appropriate test method. There are two possible interpretations ofthis statement. First, it couldbe interpreted to mean the luminaire was not originally designed to operate atmore than 190 watts. This would require an inspection ofthe complete torchiere and lamp, as sold, to ascertain thatthe rated lamp wattage totals 190 watts or less. Second, a stricter interpretation ofthis clause wouldmean that the luminaire is not capable ofoperating at more than 190 watts. In order to ascertain whether a luminaire is capable ofoperating at more than 190 watts, a test method would need to be developed where lamps rated at more than 190 watts are installed into the fixture undergoing testing. In this scenario, the fixture may simply not operate ("not capable ofoperating"), or could operate, but only consuming 190 watts instead ofthe rated wattage ofthe test lamp(s). These issues would need to be resolved in order to develop an acceptable test procedure. BJ The California Energy Commission Standard The State ofCalifornia recently passed an energy consumption standard for torchieres. Amending the California Code ofRegulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter4, Article 4, Section 1605.3 (n), Californiamandated that torchieres manufactured on or after March 1, 2003 shall not consume more than 190 watts and shall notbe capable ofoperating with lamps that total more than 190 watts. This standard does notprovide or specify a test procedure, as itwas not recognized as being necessary. Rated out-of-the-box wattage is the metric by which regulators determine compliance. CJ The ENERGYSTAR® Torchiere Program The ENERGY STAR®program includes torchieres in its portfolio ofproducts. Rather thanbasing eligibility on a wattage limit, the Energy Starprogram sets a minimum efficacy (lumens oflight produced perwatt ofenergy consumed) requirement. The EPA has developed a test procedure bywhich manufacturers can demonstrate compliance. This procedure references IESNA standards documents LM-9 and LM-66 as the methods for measuring efficacy and demonstrating compliance. As presently written, this test procedure pertains to fluorescent-source torchieres, to the exclusion ofother light sources that could meet the minimum efficacy such as metal halide highintensity discharge lamps. Also, the testprocedure measures the efficacy ofthe source rather than overall system (fixture) efficacy. Expanding the testprocedure to incorporate fixture optics andthus measure the overall light output andperformance ofthe luminaire may be advantageous. The IESNA publishes methods for photometric testing ofluminaires (rather than simply light sources) that canbeused to determine torchiere systemperformance. Fortesting indoor luminaires using HID or incandescent filament lamps, the IESNA publishes LM-46-98. For indoor fluorescent luminaires, the IESNApublishes LM-41. These two publications canbe applied to torchieres onthe market today, and could form the basis ofa test procedure that canbe applied to aHtorchieres, irrespective ofthe light source used by the luminaire.

18-4A18.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations The energy savings calculation for torchieres assumes an installed base of69 million torchieres, including halogen, incandescent and compact fluorescent units. The average wattage, weighted byproportion ofthe installedbase, is 253 watts (Ecos Consulting, 2003). Operating hours are 3.4 hours per day (Horne Energy, 2001). Two energy savings_scenarios are considered (see Table A18-4). The first scenario assumes a standard of 190 W, which assumes thatthose torchieres that consume more than 190 watts will move to exactly that consumption level. The second scenario approximates an ENERGY STAR® Torchiere standard. Although ENERGY STAR® is an efficacy-based standard, to keep the scenarios in consistentunits, this standardhas been approximated as an energy consumption limit of70 watts (see Table A18-4). In the first scenario, energy savings are calculatedunder the assumption that all torchieres consume less than 190 watts. Thus, all shipments oftorchieres thathadbeen greaterthan 190 watts would become 190 watts. This first scenario approximates the energy savings potential of the torchiere standard inthe draft Energy Bill. In the second scenario, itwas assumedthat all torchieres must consume less than 70 watts. This assumption approximates the energy consumption standard for ENERGY STAR®, which has a residential fixtures efficacy threshold of 60 lurnens perwatt for torchieres. The typical source light output ofa 225 incandescent torchiere is approximately 3200 lumens. The typical source light output ofa 300 watthalogen torchiere is approximately 5400 lurnens. Therefore, the Department selected a source light output averaging these two products at 4300 lurnens. This level attempts to balance customer utility (light output), while recognizing the market is transitioning to a lower light output torchiere (incandescent). Atthe ENERGY STAR® standard of60 lurnens per watt, 4300 lurnens equates to 71.7 watts, orrounded down to 70 watts.

Table A18-4: TorchiereWattage and Usage Data Scenario Wattage Hours of References use/day Baseline (weighted average 253 3.4 Ecos Consulting, 2003; Home Energy Magazine, 2001. installed base, 2003) Scenario 1 (190 watt max) 225 3.4 Ecos Consulting, 2003; Home Energy Magazine, 2001. Scenario 2 (70 watt max) 70 3.4 Home Energy Magazine, 2001.
Forthe potential energy saving estimate calculation, a slight modification to the baseline torchiere was made. In Table A18-4, the weighted average installedbase oftorchiere lamps is reported as 253 watts. This represents approximately 50percent ofthe installedbase being halogen torchieres (300 watts), 44 percentbeing incandescenttorchieres (225 watts) and 6 percentbeing compact fluorescent torchieres (70 watts). However, it is clearthat shipments in 2003 were dominatedby incandescent torchieres, and halogen torchieres have been experiencing decreasing proportions ofshipments ever since the late 1990's, when several fires causedbythe halogen fixtures raised concern among consumers. In 2003, the proportional breakdown oftorchieres shippedwas approximately 11 percent halogen (300 watts), 82 percent incandescent (225 watts) and 7 percent compact fluorescent (70
18-5watts). This 2003 shipment-weighted average wattage corresponds to an average baseline wattage torchiere of222 watts, approximately 12 percent lower than the 253 watts for the installedbase weighted average wattage. Due to the relatively short operating lives ofthese fixtures (3.1

- 6.6 years) and the fact that the market shown a strong preference for incandescent technology, the Department calculated the energy savings potential for this productusing the 2003 shipment-weighted average wattage for torchieres. The Departmentbelieves thatthis adjustmentto the baseline would give a more accurate estimate ofthe energy savings potential, as itmore accurately reflects the dynamic qualities oftoday's torchiere market.

TableA18-5: Torchieres AEC and Potential Energy SavingEstimates Technology/ AEC Annual Energy %Energy Energy Saving StandardLevel (quad) Savings Potential Savings Potential (2010-2035), (quad) (quads) Baseline 0.238 NA NA NA Scenario 1 (190 watt max) 0.199 0.038 16% 0.87 Scenario 2 (70 watt max) 0.095 0.143 60% 3.25
A18.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden The State ofCalifornia passed an energy consumption standard for torchieres that took effect recently. Amending the California Code ofRegulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1605.3 (n), Californiamandatedthat torchieres manufactured on or after March 1, 2003 shall not consume more than 190 watts and shall not be capable ofoperating with lamps that total more than 190 watts. Safety concerns for halogen torchieres have instigated regulatory attention and consumer demand for halogen torchiere substitutes. Halogen torchiere bulbs operate at extremely high temperatures, (700 to l,000°F compared to 100 to 200°F for a comparable CFL torchiere) and thus present a fire hazard (DOE & EPA, 2001). Following multiple fires, Underwriters Laboratories banned halogen bulbs above 500W from UL listing in 1996. Manyuniversities have also banned halogen torchieres from dormitories for safety reasons (LBNL, 1999).
A18.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards Although not mandated, many manufacturers have responded to torchiere safety concerns by installing safety measures such as lower wattage bulbs and protective cages to avoid materials coming into contact with the bulb. Any future efforts made to reduce the bulb temperature and/or wattage (e.g., the 190W standard in California) will impact lighting technology options available to torchiere lamps. Concern also exists regarding residential consumer acceptance ofCFL light sources, specifically with respect to light quality, e.g., colorrendering index (CRI). CRI is a measure ofthe quality of

18-6color that a light source renders an object. Whereas incandescent and halogen light sources have a CRI index of 100, CFL light sources score a CRI ofapproximately 80-88.42 In the event that Congress passes the Energy Bill, a national standard will be enacted for torchieres manufactured on or after January 1, 2005 that "(l) Shall consume notmore than 190 watts ofpower; and (2) Shall notbe capable ofoperating with lamps that total more than 190 watts." Issues related to this national standard have beenraised, including the consideration of how to interpret and test the second clause ofthe standard.

42 The ENERGY ST AR® program mandates a minimum CRI of80 for compactfluorescent lamps. 18-7References
DOE, 2002, "The FY2003 Priority-Setting Summary ReportandActionsProposed," Appliance Standards Program ofthe Department ofEnergy, August 22, 2002. Ecos Consulting, 2003. Estimated Inventory ofTorchiere Lamps, prepared for the Department ofEnergy, Ecos Consulting, March 2003. DOE & EPA, 2001, "ENERGY STARProgram Requirement for Residential Light Fixtures Eligibility Criteria- Version 3.2," Energy Star, Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/ eligibility/fixtures_ elig.pdf. Home Energy, 2001 ,"CFL Torchiere Top Choice," Home Energy Magazine Online. July/August 2001. Accessed onMarch 30, 2004 at http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/Ol/010709.html LBNL, 1998, "Energy Efficient Torchieres: Fromthe Laboratory to the Marketplace," ACEEE 1998 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, August 23-28, 1998, Pacific Grove, California. Available at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/btp/papers/41648.pdf.

18-8A19 Traffic Signal Modules

A19.1 Background Traffic signals are illuminatedtraffic control devices bywhichpeople are warned ordirected to take a specific action. Traffic modules (or "balls") typically come in eight- and twelve-inch diameterround signals, consisting ofa light source and a lens. These modules communicate movement messages (stop, caution orprepare to stop, and go) to drivers through red, yellow, and green light signals. Traffic signals are an integral part ofthe transportation system in the United States, safely regulating the movement ofvehicles. In the United States, there are approximately 312,500 signalized intersections (NCI, 2003). Ateach intersection, up to three types oftraffic signals, including the three-coloredball, arrow, andbi-modal arrow, can be found for the purposes of controlling traffic flow. In addition, approximately 75%, or about 234,400 intersections, also have pedestrian crossing signals (NCI, 2003). Combining the inventories ofcolored ball, arrow, and pedestrian crossing signals, there are approximately 15.3 million traffic signal modules in the U.S. These modules, including both incandescent and light emitting diode (LED) types, consume approximately 0.0374 quad of energy peryear (see Table A19-1). Table Al9-1: Traffic Signals Background Data Datatype Value Source Installed Base, million units (2002 15.3 NCI, 2003 Equipment Lifetime, years 10 Estimate. AEC,quad 0.0374 NCI, 2003.
A19.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence Table A19-2 presents the technology level and wattage levels for two types oftraffic signals (incandescent and LED).

19-1TableAl9-2: Traffic Signal Technology Levels and Wattage Values Technolo2yLevel Watta2e Comments/Source Average energy consumption 95.2 Stockweighted average wattage, NCI, 2003. ofinstalled base (watts) Typical New (LED) 9.6 Assume LED. Estimated average. NCI, 2003. Minimum Efficiency None, No national energy standard, however Californiahas CEC: passed minimum efficiency standards that are consistent 2003 with ENERGY STAR®. Incandescent 126.9 Average of8-inch and 12-inch signals. NCI, 2003. LED 9.6 Estimated average LED. NCI, 2003. BestAvailable Efficiency 9.6 Assume LED, installedbase weighted average (LED light source) ENERGY STAR® Efficiency Variable See Table Al9-3 Maximum Efficiency (Future 5.0 Assume doubling ofLED system efficiency by 2020, Technology) relative to today's LED efficiencies (NCI, 2003). LEDs are emerging as the technology ofchoice for traffic andpedestrian control signals. Throughoutthe United States, municipalities are retrofitting and installing LED technology in these applications. These systems have a higher first-cost, howeverthe energy and maintenance savings benefits offset those initial costs in a reasonable time period,justifying the replacements. For example, a red LED traffic signal costs about $75 compared with $3 for an incandescent signal. However, when considering the lower energy consumption, extended operating life and associated maintenance savings, over a seven yearperiod, the cost ofownership ofred LED traffic signals is about one-third that ofincandescenttraffic signal (CEE, 2002). Currently, traffic signals do not have a national minimum efficiency standard, butthey do fall under the voluntary ENERGY STAR® program (see Table Al9-3). The ENERGY STAR® LED traffic signal modules include the following: LED vehicular traffic signal modules, including arrow modules and LED pedestrian signal modules. In addition, other (non-LED) technology products may be considered ifthey meet Institute ofTransportation Engineer's (ITE) Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads Part 1 or 2 (or other relevant future ITE specification), as well as consuming energy at orbelow the standards in Table A19-3. (EPA, 2004) Table Al9-3: Energy-Efficiency Criteria for ENERGY STAR® Qualified Traffic Signal Modules Module Type MaximumWattage NominalWattage (at74°C) (at25°C) 12 inch RedBall 17 watts 11 watts 8 inch Red Ball 13 watts 8 watts 12 inch RedArrow 12 watts 9 watts 12 inch Green Ball 15 watts 15 watts 8 inch Green Ball 12 watts 12 watts 12 inch Green Arrow 11 watts 11 watts K:;ombination Walking Man/Hand 16 watts 13 watts Walking Man 12 watts 9 watts brangeHand 16 watts 13 watts

19-2Due to their energy saving benefits and reduced maintenance costs ofLEDs, as well as market transformation programs highlighting these advantages, approximately 30-33% ofthetraffic signal market has already moved to LEDs. Red signal heads have seen the highest level of marketpenetration at 39%, while green signal heads are approximately 29% LED. Because of their low duty-cycle, yellow LED traffic signals have a much longerpaybackperiod. This, coupled with the stringent luminosity specifications for yellow LED signals results in a low marketpenetration, assumed to be around 2% (NCI, 2003).
A19.3 Test Procedure Status The draft Energy Bill states: "Testprocedures for traffic signal modules shall be based onthe test methodusedunder the ENERGY STAR® program ofthe Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signal modules, as in effect on the date ofenactment ofthis paragraph." The ENERGY STAR® program for traffic signals specification states that "The products must meetthe minimum performance requirements ofthe relevant ITE specification, andbetestedunderthe conditions presented in Section 6.4.2 ofthe Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads, Part 2."
.A19.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations The energy savings calculation for traffic signal modules assumes an installedbase of 15.3 million units (NCI, 2003). The energy savings estimate is based onthe standard contained inthe draft Energy Bill, which establishes an ENERGY STAR® efficiency standard. Thus, the remaining stock ofnon-LED traffic signals convertto ENERGY STAR® compliant LED modules. Although the Energy Star specifications allow for otherproducts that meet certain requirements (see A19- 3), only LED technology can currently meet these requirements (EPA, 2004). Table A19-4 presents data for the baseline scenario, including installedbase, wattage, andusage data for traffic signals in 2002 (NCI, 2003). TableAl9-4: Traffic Signals Installed Base, Wattage, and Usage Data

EquipmentType Installed StockAverage Hours of References Base/Stock Wattage* use/day Red 3,031,250 78 13.2 NCI, 2003. rThree Yellow 3,031,250 120 0.7 NCI, 2003. Colored-Ball Green 3,031,250 90 10.1 NCI, 2003. !Arrow Red 937,500 85 2.2 NCI,2003. Green 937,500 91 2.2 NCI, 2003. Bi-Modal Yellow 312,500 90 2.2 NCI, 2003. !Arrow Green 312,500 98 2.2 NCI,2003. 

### IWalking Man White 1,875,000 97 7.4 NCI, 2003. IHand Orange 1,875,000 97 7.4 NCI, 2003. *Note: StockAverage Wattage represents the weighted average wattage ofthe installedbase ofincandescent and LED traffic andpedestrian control signal heads.

19-3TableAl9-5: Traffic Signals Sign AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates Annual Energy Energy Saving Technology/ AEC Savings Potential %Energy Potential Standard Level (quad) (quad) Savings (2010-2035) (quad) Baseline 0.0374 NA NA NA Scenario 1 (Energy Star) 0.0086 0.029 77% 0.662 In this scenario, the annual energy consumption is reduced from 0.0374 quad to 0.009 quad, a 77% savings. Overthe time period 2010-2035 the cumulative primary energy savings is more than halfa quad, 0.66 quad (see Table Al9-5).

A19.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden Traffic signals are notbeen subject to national regulation for energy efficiency. However, traffic signals are included in the draftEnergy Bill currentlybeing considered in Congress. Ifthe Energy Bill is passed, the following standard will go into effect: "Traffic signal modules manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, shall meet the performance requirements usedunder the ENERGY STAR® program ofthe Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals, as in effect onthe date ofenactment ofthis subsection, and shall be installed with compatible, electrically connected signal control interface devices and conflict monitoring systems." The State ofCalifornia considered energy efficiency standards for traffic signals in its proposed revisions to California Code ofRegulations (CEC, 2002). In section 1605.3, the following revision is proposed to subsection (m) Traffic Signal Modules and Traffic Signal Lamps: (1) Energy Efficiency Standards for Traffic Signal Modules. The power consumption of traffic signal modules manufactured on or afterMarch l, 2003, shall be not greater than the applicable values shown in [Table A19-6] when tested at the temperatures shown.

Table Al9-6: California EnergyEfficiency Standards for Traffic Signal Modules Red Amber Green Type at25°C at74°C at25°C at74°C at 25°C at74°C (77°F) (165.2°F) (77°F) (165.2°F) (77°F) (165.2°F) 300mm 11 watts 17 watts 22 watts 25 watts 15 watts 15 watts circular 200mm 8 watts 13 watts 13 watts 16 watts 12 watts 12 watts circular 300mm 9 watts 12 watts 10 watts 12 watts 11 watts 11 watts arrow Lane control 9 watts 12 watts No No No No (X) requirement requirement requirement requirement Lane control No No No No 11 watts 11 watts (Arrow) requirement requirement requirement requirement

19-4(2) Energy Efficiency Standards for Traffic Signal Lamps. The power consumption of traffic signal lamps manufactured on or after March 1, 2003, shall be not greaterthan 25 watts. The California standard differs from the ENERGY STAR® standard intwo ways - first, it does not include all the product classes and second, it adds some new ones that do not appear in ENERGY STAR®. However, those product classes it does have in commonwith ENERGY STAR® have identical standard levels.

A19.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards Commercialproducts from a range ofmanufacturers are available, and many municipalities are already switching voluntarily to ENERGY STAR® LED technology because it is more costeffective. An issue that may impact the energy savings estimate for this product is the assumption holding the baseline technology mix constant (i.e., incandescent vs. LED). This assumption tends to increase the energy savings that would result from a possible standard, and may notbe an accurate representation oftoday's traffic signal market. In the late 1990's, a few municipalities initiated programs to graduallyreplace incandescenttraffic signals with LEDs as their capital budgets allowed. As LED signal heads became more affordable andthe EPA started its ENERGY STAR® awareness program, more andmore municipalities launched programs to upgrade their traffic signals. Municipalities are motivatedbyboth the energy andthe maintenance and labor savings associated with LED signals. The installed-base-weighted average percentage ofLED signal heads in the United States is 27%. Ifthis numberwere increased to 40%, the energy savings over the 2010-2035 analysis periodwould be reduced approximately 23%, to 0.50 quad ofsavings.

19-5References CEC, 2002. California Energy Commission Express Terms (15-day language) and Notice of Adoption Hearing for ProposedAmendments to California Code ofRegulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter4: Energy Conservation, Article 4: Appliance Efficiency Regulatoins, Sections 1601-1608 and California Code ofRegulations, Title 24: Part 6, Subchapter 2: Building Standards, Sections 110-111: DocketNo. Ol-AB970-APSTD, January 22, 2002. CEE, 2002. Consortium for Energy Efficiency, "LED Traffic Signals Provide Dramatic Energy Saivngs," 2002, PDF file location: http://www.ceel.org/gov/led/led-cost.pdf EPA, 2004. Accessed EPA website to review PDF document ofthe eligibility requirements for traffic signal energy star eligibility requirements: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/eligibility/traffic_ elig.pdf NCI, 2003. Energy Savings Estimates of LightEmittingDiodes in NicheLightingApplications, prepared for U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program byNavigant Consulting, November 2003.

19-6