EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

APPENDIX A: 

FY2005 Technical 

Support Document 

(TSO) 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table of Contents 

A 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1-1 

Al.I Overview of Methodology for Energy Consumption and Savings EstimatesI-2. 

Al.2 Calculation Approach for Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates ... I-3 

Al.2.1 Device Annual Energy Consumption (AEC) Estimates ............................. 1-3 

Al.2.1.1 Power draw by mode, Pm··········································································· 1-4 

Al.2.1.2 Annual Usage, Tm······················································································· 1-4 

Al.2.1.3 Product Installed Base, 8 ........................................................................... 1-5 

Al.2.2 Cumulative Energy 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 Test Procedure 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 Test Procedure 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 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence ........................... 5-2 

A5.2.1 Motor Types ............................................................................................... 5-2 

A5.2.2 Motor Design Efficiency Measures ............................................................ 5-3 

A5.2.3 Regulations and Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programs .......................... 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 .......................... 6-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 Test Procedure 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 

Market Presence ........................................................................................................... 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 Test Procedure Status ............................................................................... 11-3 

Al 1.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations ............................................ 11-5 

A 11.5 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 Test Procedure 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 

ii 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 Unit Heaters ..................................................................................... 13-1 

Gas Duct Furnaces .................................................................................. 13-2 

Test Procedure 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 Market Presence ......................... 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 

Test Procedure 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 Market Presence ......................... 16-2 

Test Procedure Status ............................................................................... 16-4 

Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations ............................................ 16-5 

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

Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards ........................ 16-6 

Residential Furnace Fans .................................................................... 17-1 

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

Product Technology Description and Market Presence ........................... 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 Market Presence ......................... 18-1 

Test Procedure 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 

iii 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 

iv 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

List of Figures 

Figure Al-1: The Development of Product 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 

v 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

List of Tables 

Table Al-1: Products Addressed in Technical Support Document ............................................................................. 1-1 

Table Al-2: Product Priority-Setting Criteria ............................................................................................................. 1-2 

Table A 1-3: 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 of Technology/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 Dishwasher Technology Levels and Energy Factor Values ................................................. .4-1 

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

Table A5-1: Industrial Sector Motors, 1-200HP Background Data ............................................................................. 5-1 

Table A5-2: Commercial Sector Motors, 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 A 7-1: Standard Refrigerator, Freezer, and Compact Refrigerator Background Data ........................................ 7-2 

Table A7-2: Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Technology Levels and UEC Values ............................................. 7-4 

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

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

Table A7-5: Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Retail Prices ................................................................................... 7-5 

Table A7-6 Freezer Retail Prices ................................................................................................................................ 7-5 

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

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

Table A8-l: Room Air Conditioner Background Data ............................................................................................... 8-1 

.Table A8-2: Room Air Conditioner Technology and UEC 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 and Power Supply Savings Potential Estimate ............................................................. 9-6 

Table A 10-1: Installed Base Data for Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers .......................................... 10-1 

.Table A 10-2: Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers - Energy Saving Potential Estimates ...................... 10-4 

Table A 11-1: Ceiling Fan Background Data ............................................................................................................. 11-1 

Table Al 1-2: Ceiling Fan Lighting UEC .................................................................................................................. 11-1 

Table Al 1-3: Ceiling Fan Motor UEC ...................................................................................................................... 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 Data for Reach-In Freezers and Reach-In Refrigerators .............................................. 12-2 

Table A12-2: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Freezers .................................................................. 12-5 

vi 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

List of Tables (continued) 

Table Al2-3: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Refrigerators .......................................................... 12-7 

Table A 12-4: 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 Heater UEC 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/BR Background 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 Al 5-4: 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 Air Conditioner Technology levels and UEC Values ................................................... 16-2 

Table Al 6-3: 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 Al 6-4: 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 

Table Al 7-1: Residential Furnace Fan Background Data ......................................................................................... 17-1 

Table Al 7-2: Residential Furnace Fan Technology Levels and UEC Values ........................................................... 17-2 

Table Al 7-3: Residential Furnace Fan Retail Prices ................................................................................................ 17-2 

Table Al 7-4: Residential Furnace Fan Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates ......................... 17-4 

Table Al8-l: Torchiere Background Data ................................................................................................................ 18-1 

Table Al 8-2: 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, and Usage Data .................................................................... 19-3 

Table Al9-5: Traffic Signals Sign AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates ..................................................... 19-4 

Table Al9-6: California Energy Efficiency Standards for Traffic Signal Modules .................................................. 19-4 

vii 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 1 Introduction 

The primary goal of this 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 of the analysis contained in the FY2003 priority-setting TSD and also includes 

analysis for products not contained in the FY2003 TSD. In anticipation of the possible passage 

of new federal energy legislation in 2004, the Department decided to prepare data sheets for 

products identified in the draft legislation. Should legislation be enacted, these products could be 

prioritized along with the products already in the Appliance Standards Program (or in the 

coverage process). 

Table Al-1: Products Addressed in Technical Support Document 

Existing Products Products in Coverage and/or Other, Previously Unevaluated 

Pending Legislation Products 

Cooking Products - Gas & Electric Battery Chargers I External 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 Unit Heaters I Gas Duct 

Furnaces 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator- Illuminated Exit Signs 

Freezers, Freezers, and Compact 

Refrigerators 

Room Air Conditioners Lamps, Incandescent Reflector -

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 in varying degrees in setting the proposed 

priorities. 

1-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al-2: Product Priority-Setting Criteria 

Criteria 

Energy savings potential 

Potential economic benefits I burdens 

Potential environmental or energy security benefits 

Applicable deadlines for rulemakings 

Incremental DOE resources required to complete rulemaking process 

Evidence of market-driven or voluntary efficiency improvements 

Status of required changes to test procedures 

Impact of potential regulation on product innovation 

Fuel neutrality 

Impact on peak demand for electricity 

Impact of potential regulation on small businesses 

Cumulative regulative burden on products, related products manufactured by the 

same manufacturers 

Sections Al.1 and Al.2 provide an explanation of the general methodology used to calculate 

energy consumption and savings for most products. Sections A2 through Al 9 provide productspecific information for each product listed in Table Al-1. 

A1.1 Overview of Methodology for 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 of data, and the 

development of energy 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 

evaluated product. If possible, the products' Annual Energy Consumption (AEC) and Energy 

1-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Savings Potential calculations are based upon data from previous detailed studies. "Bottom-up" 

engineering analyses are particularly useful in this process, as they provide a detailed breakdown 

of energy consumption (e.g., by usage mode), which improves the energy savings calculations. 

In cases where detailed studies could not be found, the energy estimates were developed from a 

range of sources including: prior building energy consumption reports, industry data sources, and 

industry contacts. 

In general, the ABC and energy savings estimates do not address several market dynamics that 

would impact future energy consumption or savings (see Table Al-3). 

Table Al-3: Market Dynamics not Considered in Annual Energy Consumption and Energy Savings Estimates 

Market Dynamic Example 

Future increases or decreases in device installed Pool Heaters, Gas - The market's preference for 

base solar pool heating devices may lead to a decrease in 

the installed base of gas pool heaters. 

Future market penetration of technologies without Traffic Signal Modules - LED traffic signal 

regulatory actions modules are displacing incandescent modules in 

the absence of regulatory actions. 

Future evolution of products, including additional Smart Appliances - Refrigerators equipped with 

product features · flat screen televisions. 

A 1.2 Calculation Approach for Energy Consumption and Savings Estimates 

A1.2.1 Device Annual Energy Consumption (AEC) Estimates 

Figure Al-2 illustrates the basic methodology used to develop the annual energy consumption 

(ABC) estimates for a device or product. Deviations from this methodology are explained in the 

product-specific sections. 

The unit energy (or electricity) consumption (UBC) denotes the energy consumed by an average 

device over the course of a year. The UBC equals the sum of the products of the power draw in 

each mode, Pm, and the approximate number of hours, Tm, that each device operates in a 

particular mode, m, in the course of one year: 

UBC=L UBCm =L Pm* Tm 

An estimate of the stock of the device, S (or installed base), was obtained or developed. The 

product of the installed base and the device UBC equals the total annual energy consumption, 

ABC, for a particular product: 

ABC=S *UBC 

1-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Devices and products can operate in up to four different modes: active, standby, suspended or 

sleep, and off. For example, 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 can be adapted and applied to products that operate in fewer modes (e.g., 

active and off only). 

Usage Annnal Usage, Power, 

Mode by Mode by Mode 

Active 

Standby 

Sleep 

Off 

Device Annual Unit 

Electricity Consumption, 

by Mode 

Device Unit 

Electricity 

Consumption Stock 

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

Device Annual 

Electricity Consumption 

For devices powered by electricity, electric energy can be converted to primary energy via the 

factor of 10,958 Btu/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 draw by mode, Pm 

Energy consumption estimates for a given product incorporate power draw data for each mode of 

operation. It is assumed that for a given product in a given mode, there is no variation in power 

draw. The power draw by mode, Pm, is based on industry data or studies. 

Moreover, whenever possible, the power draw levels reflect actual power draw measurements for 

the 'active' power draw, as opposed to the device rated power draw. Rated power draws 

represent the maximum power that the device's power supply can handle and do not equal the 

actual power draw. The improper use of rated power draws to estimate energy consumption 

usually leads to gross over-estimation of energy consumption. 

A1.2.1.2 Annual Usage, Tm 

The device usage pattern refers to the number of hours per week that, on average, a device 

operates in a given mode. In general, the energy consumption model uses up to four typical 

1-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

usage modes (see Table Al-4) and different devices may have different combinations of these 

modes. For example, computer monitors, powered by external power supplies (see Section A9), 

operate in all four modes, while functioning exit signs (see Section A14) have just one mode -

active. The annual usage, Tm, in each mode is extrapolated from the weekly usage. 

Table Al-4: Usage Pattern Mode Definitions 

Mode Description Example 

Type 

Active Device carrying out intended Computer monitor displays image. 

operation. 

Stand-by Device ready to, but not, carrying out Computer monitor displays screen 

intended operation. saver. 

Suspended Device not ready to carry out intended Computer monitor powered down, but 

or Sleep operation, but on. turned on. 

Off Device not turned on but plugged in. Computer monitor off, but plugged 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 of time, ranging from days to several weeks. 

A1.2.1.3 Product Installed Base, S 

The installed base, S, of a device denotes the number of devices in use in commercial buildings, 

industries, residential buildings etc., or a combination of these, 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. 

A 1.2.2 Cumulative Energy Savings Estimates 

Using the above methodology, estimates of the AEC for representative technology levels such as 

"current new," "typical new," and the "best available" products are made. AEC estimates may 

also be made at potential standard levels other than "typical new" and "best available." 

Definitions of these technology/standard levels are provided in Table Al-5. 

1-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al-5: Definition of Technology/Standard Levels 

AEC Estimates Explanation Example 

Current Device Based on the product most Traffic signal modules with 

representative of the installed incandescent lamps. 

base (stock). 

Typical new Based on the product most Traffic signal modules with 

representative of new 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 in the following sections typically assume that the installed base of each product 

type in the standard year (e.g., 2010) does not increase from its current level. 

The cumulative energy savings from the standard year (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 of the device (as illustrated in Figure Al-3). The area 

under the shaded portion 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 = standard year · 

T = average product lifetime 

For this approximation, the annual energy savings represents the annual energy saved by 

replacing the entire installed base of the product (assumed to consume energy at the "typical 

new" level) with product consuming energy at the new technology/standard level. 

1-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

lOO'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 standard year of2010 and a terminal year of2035. 

Ideally, all data sheets would be consistent with the use of these dates. For data sheets 

completed in previous years that reference existing reports, the standard and terminal years vary. 

1-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A2 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). 

NAECA required only that gas cooking products having an electrical supply cord not be 

equipped with standing pilots. Cooking products include: (1) gas ovens, cooktops, and ranges, 

(2) electric ovens, cooktops, and ranges, and (3) microwave ovens. As established by DOE's test 

procedure, the energy efficiency descriptor for cooking products is the Energy Factor. The 

Energy Factor is expressed as a percent and is the ratio of the 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 

consumed by other features such as a clock, standing pilot, electric ignition system, or selfcleaning cycles. Because DOE does not require minimum Energy Factor requirements for 

cooking products, cooking products currently are not labeled or tested for energy consumption. 

Updated minimum standards for cooking products were proposed in 1994 (DOE 1994). Because 

NAECA did not establish product classes for cooking products, 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 of an electric and gas range, consisting of an oven, 

cooktop, and occasionally a microwave oven, would have been required to meet the applicable 

component proposed 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 of standing pilots for all gas cooking 

products. 

Table A2-l provides background data on the installed base, annual shipments, lifetime, and 

national annual energy consumption of cooking products. 

2-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A2-l: Cooking Product Background Data 

I !l 'yz~~('iL ::~ ~' ,";/ hat~ tYI>~ ·. <. ' < .. .:.yll1~~ ··•.· . .;.1,~ <~ .• ~.,r;::_/1 • i· .. N • ''z;~>;<~'s.()sc·~~~ ,:~: ',, "', ,,,' :,,/, >' '',J 

Gas Cooking Products2 

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 installed based and stock annual 

energy use 

Electric Cooking Products2 

Installed Base, million 64.1 Based on historical shipments and 19 year 

equipment lifetime 

Annual Shipments, million 4.56 (AHAM2003) 

Equipment Lifetime, years 19 (DOE 1996) 

AEC, quad 0.18 Based on installed based 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 

energy use 

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 by treating one Oven 

and one Cooktop as a single Range. 

A2.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence 

Coil element electric cooktops typically consist of two six-inch (1250 watt) and two eight-inch 

(2100 watt) elements. Improving the contact conductance of the elements and using reflective 

surfaces are means in which to improve the efficiency of the coil elements. Neither design was 

found to be cost-effective by DOE (DOE 1998). 

Smooth element electric cooktops typically consist of two six-inch (1500 watt) and two eightinch (2000 watt) solid disk elements. Other smooth type 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 by DOE (DOE 1998). Radiant 

elements are actually less efficient than solid disk elements (DOE 1996). 

2-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The efficiency of non-self-cleaning and self-cleaning electric ovens can be improved by using: 

improved insulation in the cabinet walls, improved door seals, reducing the vent rate and 

conduction losses, utilizing oven separators, utilizing forced convection, and incorporating the 

features of a bi-radiant design. Bi-radiant ovens were developed in the late 1970's and had three 

features for reducing energy use: highly reflective cavity walls, highly absorptive finish, and 

lower-temperature heating elements. Although all of the above design features improve 

efficiency, DOE found that none were cost-effective (DOE 1998). 

Microwave ovens can be improved through the use of more efficient power supplies, fans, 

magnetrons, and reflective surfaces. But like conventional electric ovens, DOE found that none 

of the above design features for microwave ovens were cost-effective (DOE 1998). 

Gas cooktops typically consist of four open 9000 Btu/hr burners. Efficiency can be improved 

through the use of sealed burners, reflective surfaces, and thermostatic burners. DOE determined 

that all of the above designs are not cost-effective for consumers (i.e., the designs resulted in 

increased consumer life-cycle costs) (DOE 1996). 

With the exception of the bi-radiant design, all design features available to improve the 

efficiency of electric ovens can also be used to improve the efficiency of non-self-cleaning and 

self-cleaning ovens gas ovens. But DOE found none of these 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 of standing pilot ignition systems through the use of 

electric or electronic ignition systems seem to be cost-effective. Standing pilot systems are only 

utilized by gas cooktops, ovens, and ranges without electrical cords. Note that because selfdeaning gas ovens and ranges require electricity to operate, all are required by NAECA to use 

non-standing pilot systems. Because gas cooking products without power cords do not require 

electricity to operate, the incorporation of an electric or electronic ignition device requires 

electrical service to be brought to the unit. As a result, costs associated with the installation of 

electrical service would be incurred by consumers that do not have electrical outlets already in 

their kitchens. In addition, based on data from the mid-1990's, electronic or electric ignition 

systems also incur greater maintenance costs than standing pilot systems (DOE 1997). Finally, if 

electric-based ignition systems are used, a significant amount of electricity is used by the 

appliance to operate the hot surface ignition device, thereby partially offsetting the reduction in 

gas consumption realized by eliminating the pilot. Electronic ignition systems utilizing spark 

igniters consume negligible amounts of electrical energy. 

A DOE analysis demonstrated that electric and electronic ignition systems are cost-effective for 

those consumers that do not require the installation of an electrical outlet. For consumers that 

need to install an electrical outlet, only electronic ignition systems in gas ranges are costeffective (DOE 1997). But the same DOE analysis demonstrated that, based on historical 

shipment trends, only 25 percent of consumers 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. 

2-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A2-2 summarizes the UECs corresponding to various efficiency levels for cooking 

products. The UEC data in Table A2-2 are based on analyses performed by DOE (DOE 1996; 

DOE 1997). The gas cooking product UECs in Table A2-2 are weighted-average values taking 

into account the market share of non-self-cleaning and self-cleaning ranges as well as the market 

share of products with electric and electronic ignition devices. Based on historical 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 cooking products UECs are weighted-average values 

taking into account the market shares of coil-type and smooth-type cooktops and non-selfcleaning and self-cleaning ovens. Based on historical market share data, coil-type cooktops are 

assumed to capture 85 percent of the electric cooktop market while it is assumed that 73 percent 

of the electric range market is comprised of self-cleaning units (DOE 1997). 

Table A2-2: Cooking Product UEC Values 

Gas Cooking Products1 

Baseline 3.2 33 (DOE 1997) 

Electronic or Electric Ignition 2.8 33 (DOE 1997) 

Design Option Combinations2 2.4 53 (DOE 1996) 

Electric Cooking Products1 

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) 

1 Represents the UEC for ranges. 

2 Design options include: Gas cooktops - electronic ignition, sealed burners, reflective surfaces, 

thermostatic burners; Gas ovens -electronic ignition, improved insulation, improved door seals, forced 

convection, reduced vent rate, 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 vent rate, 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 cooking products. 

Baseline price data were provided by the 2003 AHAM Fact Book (AHAM 2003). Retail prices 

are generated for more efficient products from the percentage price increases indicated by the 

price versus efficiency relationship in DOE's 1996 and 1997 analyses on cooking products (DOE 

1996; DOE 1997). 

2-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A2-3: Cooking Product Retail 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 and represent the 

weighted-average cost to consumers taking into account the percentage of consumers that already have 

electrical outlets (DOE 1997). 

A2.3 Test Procedure Status 

The Department adopted a Final Rule of the test procedure 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 or burden to consumers for each 

efficiency level. Note that none of the efficiency levels with the exception of electric or 

electronic ignition for gas cooking products result in economic benefits to consumers. Consumer 

national utility bill savings for a given year are derived by taking the national annual energy 

savings and multiplying it by the corresponding electricity price from the DOE-Energy 

Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (DOE 2004). Consumer national 

equipment cost increases are derived by taking the per unit change in equipment cost and 

multiplying it by the annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost increases are 

2-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

summed over the time period 2010-2035 with the net benefit or burden being the difference 

between the two values. 1 

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

Gas Cooking Products 

Baseline 3.2 33 NA NA 

Electronic or Electric 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 of standing pilot ignition systems. Thus, the moderate national energy savings 

currently estimated may be significantly diminished in the near future. 

Also with respect 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 longer be 

representative of electronic devices currently being used. Because manufacturers have had 

additional years to improve the reliability of electronic ignition systems since the mid-1990' s, the 

1 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 

2-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

maintenance costs associated with these systems may be equivalent to those associated with 

standing pilot systems. As a result, electronic ignition systems may be more cost-effective as a 

means in which to reduce the energy use of gas cooking appliances than shown by this analysis. 

2-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 2003. "Fact Book 2003." Chicago, IL. 

.National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1994. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rule." Federal Register 59 

(43): 10464-10532. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Codes and Standards, 1996. "Draft Report on 

Potential Impact of Alternative Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products." 

Washington, DC. April, 1996. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Codes and Standards, 1997. "Supplemental 

Analysis for Cooking Products." Washington, DC. April, 1997. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy. 1997a. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Kitchen Ranges, 

Cooktop, Ovens, and Microwave Ovens." Federal Register 62 (192): 51976-51991. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy 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 of Energy (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 of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy 

Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 

2004. 

2-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A3 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 of gas-fired products whose flue products are vented 

outdoors and deliver heated air to the conditioned space without the use of ducts. The energy 

efficiency descriptor for direct heating equipment is the Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency 

(AFUE), which accounts only for the gas consumption of the appliance. But because over 90 

percent of shipped direct heating equipment products currently only utilize gas, the AFUE is an 

adequate measure of the overall performance of an overwhelming majority of equipment. 

Minimum efficiency standards for direct heating equipment vary based on physical configuration 

(i.e. wall furnaces, floor furnaces, or room heaters), 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 percent AFUE while standards for fan type equipment range from 73 to 74 percent 

AFUE. 

During the mid-1990's, vented hearth products became popular and product sales grew at a rate 

of 20 to 35 percent. Because these systems are at least partially used to provide space heat (as 

opposed to being purely decorative) and their venting systems are similar to conventional direct 

heat equipment, existing minimum standards for direct heating equipment also apply to hearth 

products. Hearth products consist of vented fireplaces, fireplace inserts, stoves, and log sets. 

Updated minimum standards for direct heating equipment were proposed in 1994 but the 

proposed standards were never finalized by DOE (DOE 1994). Table A3-1 provides background 

data on the installed base, annual shipments, lifetime, and national annual energy consumption of 

direct heating equipment. Separate data sets for conventional products (wall furnaces, floor 

furnaces, and room heaters) and hearth products are provided in Table A3-l. 

3-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A3-1: Direct Heating Equipment Background Data 

; · cnat:a tYile :: :·!:\ ...... 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 installed based 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 equipment has two common characteristics: (1) heat is conveyed 

without ducts and (2) flue products (i.e., products of combustion) are vented outside. In 

conventional systems, combustion products pass through the inside of a heat exchanger. Air 

passes over the outside of the heat exchanger either through natural convection, as used by 

gravity-type units, or forced convection through the use of air-circulation fans, as used by fantype units. Flue products are typically either vented: (1) up though the roof utilizing B-vents or 

(2) through-the-wall utilizing direct vents. In direct vent systems, flue products are vented 

through the center of the vent while outdoor air for combustion is aspirated through the outer 

ring of the 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 on the wall as a 

free-standing unit or recessed within the wall. A majority of wall 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 over the 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 efficient than gravity-type units. Floor furnaces are suspended from 

the floor of the heated space within an unconditioned crawl space. All floor furnaces are sold as 

gravity-type units. 

3-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Vented hearth products are sold either as fireplaces, fireplace inserts, gas stoves, or log sets. Flue 

products are either vented through the use ofB-vents or direct-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 whether the minimum efficiency standards for direct heating equipment apply 

.to these products. DOE in the past has required decorative hearth products to meet the efficiency 

requirements if the appliance either has a thermostat or if the manufacturer promotes the 

appliance's efficiency or heating function. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all 

vented hearth products had to meet the applicable existing minimum efficiency standards. 

The primary method for reducing gas consumption in both conventional and hearth product 

direct heating equipment is by eliminating the standing pilot through the use of electronic 

ignition. But most direct heating equipment are gravity-type units that do not require electricity 

to operate. As a result, the incorporation of an electronic ignition device requires electrical 

service to be brought to the unit resulting in higher installation costs. Electronic ignition systems 

also incur greater maintenance costs than standing pilot systems. In addition, electronic ignition 

systems use electricity. Thus, the reduction in gas consumption realized by eliminating the 

standing pilot is partially offset by the electricity consumption of the electronic ignition device. 

Table A3-2 summarizes the efficiency improvements for direct heating equipment. In addition 

to the electronic ignition efficiency measure, a combination of design options was also 

considered for conventional direct heating equipment. The efficiency and UEC data in Table 

A3-2 are based on analyses performed by the Gas Research Institute (GRI 1994; GRI 1997; GRI 

1997). Rather than providing efficiency data for every direct heating product type, 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 of all product classes, including fan-type units. 

Because fan-type units consume electricity to drive the fan, electrical energy is consumed in the 

baseline design. For hearth products, almost 70 percent of products surveyed by GRI utilize 

electronic ignition (GRI 1997). As a result, the baseline hearth product design also consumes 

electricity. 

Table A3-2: Direct Heating 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) 

1 Design options include: electronic ignition, 20% de-rating, and burner box or stack dampers. 

3-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 performed by GRI (GRI 1994; GRI 1996) and inflated to 2002 

dollars using consumer price index data from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL 2004). 

Table A3-3: Direct Heating 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 

1 Installation 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 of the test procedure for direct heating equipment on May 

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 or burden to consumers for each 

efficiency level. Note that none of the 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 of the ignition 

device. Consumer national utility bill savings for a given year are derived by taking the national 

annual energy savings and multiplying it by the corresponding electricity price from the DOEEnergy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (DOE 2004). Consumer 

national equipment cost increases are derived by taking the per unit change in equipment cost 

and multiplying it by the annual shipments. Cumulative bill savings and equipment cost 

3-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

increases are summed over the time period 2010-2035 with the net benefit or burden being the 

difference between the two values. 2 

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

Conventional Equipment 

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-priority product (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 air pollution. In the western 

U.S., atmospheric inversions are common: warmer air above traps cooler air below, resulting in a 

highly stable atmospheric condition where pollutants disperse slowly. Because of such "brown 

cloud" inversions, many western states have restricted wood burning. Restrictions are also in 

place in parts of the northeast. Usually the restrictions amount to levying fines for wood burning 

on certain days. Although the laws are seldom enforced, they do affect consumer behavior. Due 

to the restrictions placed on wood-burning fireplaces, many consumers are turning to gas-fired 

hearth products as an alternative. Because gas-hearth products are being used by consumers in 

response to air quality regulations, it may not be wise to impose efficiency regulations on these 

products, especially if such regulations significantly increase the retail price of the equipment 

and dissuade consumers from purchasing these products. 

2 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 

3-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

With respect to gas ignition systems, the maintenance costs associated with the electronic 

ignition system assumed for this analysis (based on early 1990's data) may no longer be 

representative of electronic devices that can now be used by direct heating equipment. Because 

manufacturers have had additional years to improve the reliability of electronic ignition systems 

since the early 1990's, the maintenance costs associated with these systems may be equivalent to 

those associated with standing pilot systems. As a result, electronic ignition systems may be 

more cost-effective as a means in which to reduce the energy use of direct heating equipment 

than shown by this analysis. 

3-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

Appliance Magazine. 2003. "Statistical Review." May, 2003. 

Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1994. "Assessment of Technology for Improving the Efficiency of 

Gravity Direct Heating Equipment". Chicago, IL. GRI-94/0342. 

Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1996. "Gas Hearth Products Market Fact Base". Chicago, IL. 

GRI-96/0013. 

Gas Research Institute (GRI). 1997. "Hearth Products 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 of Energy (DOE)-Office of Codes 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, 

Volume H. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1994. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rule." Federal Register 59 

(43): 10464-10532. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Conservation 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 of Energy (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 of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy 

Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 

2004. 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Consumer Price Index-All 

Urban Consumers. Available online: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ 

3-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A4 Dishwashers {Residential) 

A4.1 Background 

Dishwashers use heated water and dishwashing detergent to clean and dry dishes. Collectively, 

the installed base of approximately 61.7 million residential dishwashers consumes about 0.26 

quad of energy per year (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 DOE BREN FEMP 

AEC, quad 0.26 Meyers et al. (2002), modified to use an updated estimate 

of215 average cycles/year, rather than 250 cycles/year, 

based on CFR 2004. 

A4.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence 

For energy consumption considerations, dishwashers are categorized by two metrics-I) 

whether equipped to sense the amount of soil 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 of water needed to clean the dishes. The 

energy used to heat the water is the main component of dishwasher energy use, so any feature 

that saves water will also reduce energy consumption. Standard size dishwashers are units with a 

dish load capacity of 8 or more place settings. Compact dishwashers are units with a dish load 

capacity of less than 8 place settings. 

The stock unit energy consumption (UEC) levels (see Table A4-3) include dishwashers at and 

below the current minimum efficiency standard. ENERGY STAR® qualified dishwashers use 

25% less energy than the federal standard for energy efficiency. The federal minimum 

efficiency standard remains unchanged. However, Energy Factor values (Table A4-2) for the 

Stock and particularly, the Typical New level are dated. These values do not consider the effect 

ofrestating Energy Factor values for soil-sensing dishwashers in light of the new dishwasher 

procedure, nor do they consider the relative quantity of higher efficiency I soil-sensing 

·dishwashers in the mix of shipped and installed units. It is expected that much of this 

information will be compiled within the year when all manufacturers must make their annual 

statements to the Federal Trade Commission. 

Table A4-2: Residential Dishwasher Technology Levels and Energy Factor Values 

Technology Level Energy Factor Comments/Source 

[cycles/kWhl 

Stock 0.41 Meyers et al. (2002) 

Minimum Efficiency 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-sensing units 

listed at http://www.energystar.gov 

Best Available 1.19 http://www.energystar.gov 

4-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The Energy Factor associated with best available technology is taken from the latest data 

available at the ENERGY STAR® site. However, there is some question whether these 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 of the energy level specified in 

the minimum efficiency standard and approximately 49% of the energy level specified in the 

ENERGY STAR® rating. The primary factor in dishwasher energy consumption is water use -

the less water used the more energy saved. 

A4.3 Test Procedure Status 

On August 29, 2003 the Department of Energy published its final rule for the "Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Dishwashers" (10 CPR 430 Subpart. B, App. 

C). This update to the dishwasher test procedure presents several significant additions and 

revisions, including: 

• Addition of three-point test method, specifically for soil-sensing dishwashers 

• Addition of a test method to measure standby power for all dishwashers-both soilsensing and fixed-cycle machines, and 

• Reduction of the number of average-use cycles per year 

Soil-sensing dishwashers must now be tested with soiled dishware to more accurately reflect 

their energy and water consumption (effective 2/25/04 ). A review of dishwasher survey data has 

shown that relative to the level of soil on dishware in dishwashers, U.S. households distribute 

into three levels of soil--Light-62%, Medium-33%, and Heavy-5% (ADL, 2001). Further, the 

review finds survey data to define the mass of food soil at each of these three levels of soil and 

expresses the masses of food soil in terms of the 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 of specific food soils, such as egg, oatmeal, preserves, potatoes, ground 

meat, coffee, etc. Based on the findings of the review, the amount of food soil at each soil level 

IS: 

Light - 112of1 soiled place setting (15.65 grams), 

.Medium - 2 soiled place settings (62.6 grams), and 

Heavy - 4 soiled place settings (125.2 grams). 

Based on the recommendations of the review, the energy factor for soil-sensing dishwashers is 

now determined from a weighted average of energy consumption tests conducted at each of the 

three soil levels. For example, of the eight place settings used in the energy consumption test, 

the heavy soil level has four of those place settings soiled per DW-1. The weighting of the 

average of the energy consumption tests results from the distribution of U.S. households relative 

to the level of soil on the dish ware in their dishwashers. Therefore, the calculation of the energy 

factor of a soil-sensing dishwasher (EFsoil-sensing) is: 

3 KWh/cycle is the inverse of the Energy Factor value presented in Table A4-2. Thus, the best available technology 

uses 0.46/1.19 = 39% of the energy used by a product meeting the minimum efficiency standard. 

4-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

EFsoil-sensing = 1/ (0.62 * EnergyLight Soil Level+ 0.33* EnergyMedium 

Soil Level+ 0.05 * EnergyHeavy Soil Level) 

The dishwasher test procedure is the first test procedure to include the measurement of standby 

power for all dishwashers. However, a dishwasher's standby power is not included in its 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 of average-use cycles per year for a dishwasher has been reduced to a value of 215 

(264 was the value used prior to FY2003). This average-use number represents a midpoint in a 

range of average-use numbers determined from a review of five surveys of consumers' usage 

habits, including the 2001 RECS data (ADL 2001). 

In addition to these major modifications, other updates included the addition of definitions to 

support the soil-sensing test method, and modifications to improve the clarity and repeatability of 

the test procedure. 

A4.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

Table A4.3 presents the estimates of the current energy consumption and potential energy 

savings for residential dishwashers. The energy savings calculations assume that the entire 

installed base of dishwashers consume energy at the "typical new" level. 

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

UEC Annual Energy Energy Saving 

Technology/Standard Level (MMBtu/yr) Savings Potential Potential, 2010-

(quad) 2035 (quads) 

Typical Dishwasher (Current Stock) 4.05 NA NA 

'Typical New' 3.28 NA NA 

ENERGY STAR® 2.83 0.028 0.52 

Soil-Sensing 2.73 0.034 0.63 

Best Available 1.40 0.12 2.17 

The energy savings potential between ENERGY STAR® and best available dishwasher 

technology shows a wide range of potential energy savings. However, as noted above the data 

on best available dishwasher technology may not reflect testing against the new test procedure. 

Further there is a relatively low saturation level, ~60%, of homes 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 if consumers' habit of pre-treating 

dishes with water can be avoided. It is well documented that approximately 70% of households 

with dishwashers pre-treat dishes with water before putting them into the dishwasher (ADL 

4-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

2001). Estimates of water consumption vary widely and little information is available on the 

amount of hot water used. Therefore, estimating this potential energy savings is currently 

difficult and likely to be uncertain. 

A4.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

Dishwashers are regulated for energy efficiency under NAECA 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 that have been 

subject to past energy efficiency regulations under NAECA, including clothes washers & dryers, 

refrigerators, and freezers. 

A4.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

With increasing use of microprocessors to control the dishwashing cycle and improved electronic 

user interfaces (e.g., visual displays), the potential for standby losses increases. Standby energy 

consumption on the order of 5 Watts could increase typical new dishwasher AEC by 

approximately 10%. 

4-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ADL, 2000, "Guide for Evaluation of Energy Savings Potential". Report to the US Department 

of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS), February, 

2000. 

ADL, 2001, "Review of Survey Data to Support Revisions to DOE's Dishwasher Test 

Procedure", Report to U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Office of Building Technology, State and Conimunity Programs, December 18, 2001. 

Appliance Magazine, 2004, appliance industry statistics, page 16 

Appliance Magazine, March. 

Appliance Magazine, 2001, "Appliance Statistical Review: 481

h Annual Report". Appliance 

Magazine, May. 

CFR, 2004, 10 Code of Federal Regulations - Energy, as of March 15, 2004. 

DOE, 2000, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN), Federal Energy 

Management Program (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 Berkeley National 

Laboratory Report, LBNL-49504, May. 

4-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

AS 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 Opportunity Assessment (OIT2002), a study published by the United States Department of Energy, electric motors used in 

industrial processes consumed 679 billion kWh (approximately 7.5 quads of primary energy) in 

1994. This accounts for 23 percent of all United States electricity consumption. (OIT-2002) 

Motors covered by the Energy Policy Act (EP Act) account for 50-70 percent of all integral 

horsepower motors sold, and 23-32 percent of annual energy consumed by integral horsepower 

motors. (OIT-2002) Table A5-l shows background data on industrial sector motors in the size 

range covered by EP Act. Industrial motors in the size range covered by EP Act consumed 380 

billion kWh site energy, or 4.2 quads of primary 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 of the total industrial sector energy consumption subject to EPAct. 

Table A5-2 shows the same data for commercial sector motors. 

Table A5-1: Industrial Sector Motors, 1-200HP Background Data 

Data Type 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 Motors 5 

Table A5-2: Commercial Sector Motors, 1-200HP, Subject to EPAct, Background Data 

Data Tvpe 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 Act Motors6 

· 

4 This figure is actually the total number of shipped motors in the size range; it is not restricted to industrial motors only. 5 This figure assumes that the distribution of motor 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 of the 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. 

5-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Commercial sector motors are much more numerous than industrial motors, and tend to be 

smaller: in 1995, there were 123 million commercial sector motors total; approximately 70 

percent of those (87 million) are smaller than lHP, and thus not subject to EPAct. About 36 

million commercial motors fall in the EP Act size range. The number of commercial sector 

motors greater than 200HP is very small. The Annual Energy Consumption for commercial 

sector motors in 1995 was 356 billion kWh. Of that, 31 percent was consumed by fractional 

horsepower motors, and 7 percent by motors greater than 200HP. About 220 billion kWh was 

consumed by commercial motors in the 1-200HP range. 196 billion kWh (55 percent of the 

total) was consumed by motors in the range 1-20HP. (ADL-1999) Despite these apparently 

large numbers, most energy in the commercial sector is consumed by refrigerant compressors 

and other motors that are considered special purpose and thus not subject to EPAct. 

A5.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence 

A5.2.1 Motor Types 

For the purpose of efficiency standards, motors designed for use under usual service conditions 

without restriction to a particular application or type of application 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 higher power/size ratios than corresponding single phase motors, and thus are the norm 

for industrial applications. (LINCOLN-1995) 

AC Polyphase motor types 

The most common form ofpolyphase induction motor (again because of simplicity) is the 

squirrel cage, so-named for the appearance of its rotor. The other types of AC polyphase motors 

are the wound rotor induction motor, and synchronous motor. The existing EP Act standards 

apply just to 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 

If the power source driving the motor can only supply a fixed voltage and frequency, it is 

described as a single speed drive. If the source can vary the supply voltage or frequency in order 

to control the motor speed, it is termed an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD), or Variable Speed 

Drive (VSD). Some motor applications, such as pumps and blowers, can match flow 

requirements by operating at different speeds appropriate to each application. Although ASDs 

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 of motors at reduced speed. For example, an ASD can reduce the 

5-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

energy consumed by a central station air handler by approximately 40% (ADL-1999). Most 

induction motor ASDs are not integral parts of the motor; thus, they do not impact the tested fullload motor efficiency (see the "Test Procedure" section). 

Enclosure 

The most common types of industrial motor enclosures are Open Drip-Proof (ODP), and Totally 

Enclosed Fan-Cooled (TEFC). ODP motors have open vents, but are designed to tolerate drops 

of liquid falling on them from angles within 15 degrees of vertical. TEFC motors are more 

protected than ODP motors, as an enclosure completely covers the motor internals. Cooling is 

provided by fan-driven airflow over the exterior of the 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, but these are far less common than 

ODP or TEFC enclosures.) 

Existing regulations apply to ODP and TEFC motors. The efficiency regulations for the two 

types of enclosed motors are different. 

A5.2.2 Motor Design Efficiency Measures 

The efficiency of induction motors can be improved in several ways. In practice, all represent a 

balance between performance gain and cost. Better quality core materials for the motor rotor 

and stator can reduce eddy current and hysteresis losses (collectively known as "iron losses"). 

Increased winding slot fill increases the amount of material (typically copper) in the stator 

windings, which reduces resistance to electric flow in the stator windings and associated resistive 

"copper" loss. Reduced rotor bar conductor resistance reduces losses from motor slip by 

switching the conductor material to copper or a different aluminum alloy. Improved 

manufacturing quality encompasses several potential measures that decrease motor losses (e.g., 

reduced lamination edge shorts on the stator and rotor to improve suppression of eddy currents, 

improved motor design and manufacturing processes to reduce stray load losses, improved rotor 

bar-lamination isolation to reduce resistive losses). Increasing the stack length enables 

attainment of required torque and power ratings with lower flux and current loadings thereby 

lowering iron and copper losses, but requires a greater expenditure of material and perhaps an 

increase in motor frame size. Improved bearings and lubricants could reduce bearing friction 

loss. Improved fan designs and other aerodynamic improvements could reduce windage loss. 

Other motor technologies, such as permanent magnet and switched reluctance motors, have the 

potential to realize higher motor efficiencies than EPAct-level induction motors, particularly at 

smaller motor sizes. 

Increasing the efficiency of motors may require changes to other motor parameters such as 

inrush current, startup torque, and slip. In certain applications, motor efficiency cannot be 

increased beyond a certain point without altering other motor parameters beyond what is feasible 

for the application. 

A5.2.3 Regulations and Voluntary Energy Efficiency Programs 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EP Act) requires that general purpose, polyphase, single speed, 

squirrel-cage induction motors rated from 1-200hp manufactured for sale in the US from 

5-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

October, 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 by the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA). 

Specifically, EP Act dictates that the nominal full load efficiencies for open and enclosed motors 

of 3600, 1800, and 1200 rpm are consistent with the energy efficiencies listed in NEMA 

Standard MGl, Part 12, (NEMA-1998) according to tests specified in IEEE Standard 112 

Method B (IEEE-1996), carried out by a NIST/NVLAP approved independent testing laboratory 

(NIST-1995). 

NEMA maintains a more stringent voluntary standard known as NEMA PremiumTM. 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 Protection Agency considered 

introducing the EnergyStar® label for integral horsepower electric motors, but decided not to, in 

part because the combined CEE I NEMA PremiumTM 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 of the US Department of Energy (DOE) was an effort to improve 

motor efficiency through education, rather than regulation. This program has been integrated 

into DOE's broader BestPractices program7

, which provides energy efficiency resources for a 

variety of industrial systems, not just motors. 

"Motor Decisions Matter" is a national campaign encouraging the use of sound motor 

management and planning as a tool to cut motor energy costs and increase productivity. The 

campaign is sponsored by a consortium of motor industry manufacturers and service centers, 

trade associations, electric utilities and government agencies. The campaign is sponsored or 

supported by CEE, NEMA, EPA, DOE, major motor manufacturers, utility and state energyefficiency programs, and other stakeholders. (DECISIONS-2004). 

The purpose of the Efficiency of Electric Motors (EEM) program of the National Institute of 

.Standards and Technology (NIST), part of the 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 of electric motors for EP Act 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 Proof motors at five representative 

motor size bands. Table A5-4 provides the same comparison for Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled 

Motors. The two standards differ in scope, that is, EPAct only applies to motors from 1to200 

HP, whereas the NEMA Premium standard is defined for motors from 1to500 HP. Also, 

7 More information is available at: http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors. 

5-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

NEMA Premium specifies an additional set of efficiency standards for medium voltage 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 

Table A5-3: Open Drip-Proof(ODP) Motor Full-load Efficiencies at Representative Levels (based on EPACT-1992, 

CEE-2001, NEMA 2001) 

Full Load 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 at Representative Levels (based on 

EPACT-1992, CEE-2001, NEMA-2001) 

Full Load 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 and NEMA tables differ in this entry. NEMA figure is shown. 9 CEE and NEMA tables differ in this entry. NEMA figure is shown. 

5-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table AS-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 (EP Act and NEMA I CEE) all rely on the 

same efficiency test procedures, the so-called "Method B" ofIEEE Standard 112, "IEEE 

.Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators." (IEEE-1996) 

Method B ofIEEE Standard 112 is described as "Input-output with segregation oflosses and 

indirect measurement of stray-load loss." In this 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 of the conventional losses 

(stator and rotor I

2

R loss, core loss, and friction and windage loss). The value of stray-load loss 

thus determined is plotted vs. torque squared, and a linear regression is used to reduce the effect 

of random errors in the test measurements. The smoothed stray-load loss data are used to 

calculate the final value of total loss and the efficiency." 

The specific test procedure for Method B consists of a series of measurements that must be 

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 Test under load 

6.4.1.3 No load test 

6.4.2.1 Friction and windage loss 

6.4.2.2 Core loss 

6.4.2.3 Stator I

2

R loss 

6.4.2.4 Rotor I

2

R loss 

6.4.2.5 Apparent total loss 

5-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

6.4.2.6 Stray-load loss determination (indirect method) 

6.4.2. 7 Smoothing of the 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 loaded by means of a mechanical brake or dynamometer (see 4.3.1). 

Readings of electrical power, current, voltage, frequency, slip, torque, ambient temperature, and 

stator winding temperature or stator winding resistance shall be obtained for four load points 

approximately equally spaced between not less than 2 5% and up to and including 100% load, and 

two load points suitably chosen above 100% load but not exceeding 150% load (IEEE-1996) 

The nominal efficiency, i.e., the efficiency listed on the 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 on typical motor loading levels. 

The relative error resulting from this approximation should be small, as efficiency of partially 

loaded motors does not drop off drastically until below 50%. Please see (ADL-1999) Figure 2-2 

(after NEMA-1994) for a characterization of efficiency as a function of loading. 

As of 1998, just 9 percent of industrial motors had ASDs; these motors were responsible for just 

4 percent of total 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 Act to NEMA Premium standards. The table shows that the proposed change in 

regulation could save 0.06 quad per year of primary energy (5.4 billion kWh per year). 10 

In a scenario in which the market penetration ofNEMA PremiumTM level industrial motors 

ramps linearly from 0 in 2010 to 100% in 2025, and then remains at 100% through 2035, the 

total benefit resulting from mandating the NEMA PremiumTM efficiency standard instead of 

EPACT would be approximately 1.0 quad, as shown in the third column of the table. 

10 This calculation is based on the fonnulaAEC (kWh) =Motor Size (HP) x 0. 746 x Operating Hours x Loading x Installed Base I 

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. 

5-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A5-7: AEC Savings from Increasing 1-200HP EP Act Motor Efficiency Levels to NEMA Premium Levels, 

Industrial Motors 

Size Class (HP) AEC Savings [quad] Total AEC Savings, 

2010-2035 rquad1 

1 to 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 motor Annual Energy Consumption could be reduced by 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 mature proven efficiency technologies and practices were employed, in the 

manufacturing sector alone. (OIT 2002) This estimate includes savings from both motor 

efficiency upgrades, and system efficiency upgrades. 

Table A5-8: AEC Savings from Increasing 1-200HP EPAct Motor Efficiency 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 of uncertainty in this 

calculation is the estimate of installed base efficiency. Also, this calculation includes energy 

consumption from just a few motor applications that account for most of the consumed energy 

that is subject to EP Act. 

Estimates of motor operating hours are another significant source of uncertainty 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 of a few 

percentage points, it seems plausible that the 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 =AECoEFAULT x EFFoEFAULT I EFFEPACT- Similarly, 

AECNEMA PronUum =AECoEFAULT X EFFoEFAULT I EFFNEMA Prom/um· 

5-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

the same estimate of operating hours appears in both the EP Act and the NEMA Premium 

scenario calculations. 

In a scenario in which the market penetration ofNEMA PremiumTM level commercial motors 

ramps linearly from 0 in 2010 to 100% in 2025, and then remains at 100% through 2035, the 

total benefit resulting from mandating the NEMA PremiumTM efficiency standard instead of 

EPACT would be approximately 0.28 quad, as shown in the third column of Table 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 

NEMA Premium levels: approximately 1.3 quads of primary energy. 

Table A5-9: AEC Savings from 2010-2035 from Increasing 1-200HP EPAct Motor Efficiency Levels to NEMA 

Premium Levels 

Motor Type Total AEC Savings, 

2010-2035 rquadsl 

Industrial 1.0 

Commercial 0.28 

Total 1.3 

A5.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

EP Act regulates the full-load efficiency of 50-70 percent of all integral horsepower motors sold. 

(OIT-2002) In addition, many 1-200HP motors- both those covered EPAct and special-purpose 

motors not covered by EP Act - are major components of equipment regulated by EPAct, e.g., 

unitary A/C compressors and blowers. 

Two main kinds of motor manufacturers exist. Some motor manufacturers primarily manufacture 

motors and do not produce significant quantities of other products that face energy efficiency 

regulations. Most remaining motor manufacturers are a motors-focused division of a parent 

company. In the second case, other divisions of the parent may produce 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 of ASDs will increase 

their market share. Other (non-induction) motor technologies may achieve greater market share, 

particularly at the lower end of the 1 to 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 not represent an issue for the contemplated change in efficiency 

standards. 

5-9 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Premium Efficiency motors are not feasible for all applications, because the high efficiency 

levels would require changes to other motor parameters that would be inconsistent with 

application requirements. 

Because of their higher cost, Premium Efficiency motors tend to be economical, in the sense of 

providing payback within two years, if they are run for 4000 hours or more per year. Premium 

Efficiency motors that are run for 2000 or fewer hours per year tend not to yield a timely 

payback. (CEE-1999) For motors that are run for a small number of annual operating hours, the 

dollars invested in an efficiency upgrade might yield more energy savings if applied elsewhere. 

5-10 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ADL, 1999, "Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with 

High-Efficiency Electric Motors'', Final Report by Arthur D. Little, Inc., to the U.S. Department 

of Energy, December. Available at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/doemotor2 2 00.pdf. 

ADL-2000, "Guide for Evaluation of Energy Savings Potential". Report to the US Department of 

Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs (BTS), February. 

BESTPRACTICES-2003. Website: http://www.oit.doe.gov/bestpractices/motors/. 

CEE-1999, "Efficient Motors: 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.cee l .org/ind/motrs/motrs-main.php3. 

CENSUS-2002, "Motors and Generators: 2002." US Census Bureau report, MA335H(02)-l. 

Published by Information Services Center, MCD, Washington, D.C, 1993. 

CFR-1999, 10 Code of Federal Regulations - Energy, Revised as of January 1, 1999. 

DECISIONS-2003. Motor Decisions Matter program web site: http://www.motorsmatter.org/ 

EP ACT-1992, Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Test Procedures, Labeling, and Certification Requirements for Electric Motors; Final Rule. 10 

CFR Part 431. Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 192, October 5, 1999. 

EPA-2001, Kathleen Hogan, Director, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Office of Air 

and Radiation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Letter to all interested parties," 

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. Published by 

IEEE, New York, 1997. 

LINCOLN-1995, "Fundamentals of polyphase electric motors," Published by Lincoln 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 by NEMA, Rosslyn, VA, 1999. 

5-11 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

NEMA-2001, "Information Guide for General Purpose Industrial AC Small and Medium 

Squirrel-Cage Induction Motor Standards." A condensation ofNEMA-1998. Published by 

NEMA, Rosslyn, VA, 2002. 

NIST-1995 Handbook 150-10, Efficiency of Electric Motors (EEM). A publication of the 

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. Published by US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 

1995. 

NIST-2004 Directory of Accredited Laboratories, Efficiency of Electric Motors. Website: 

http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/210/214/scopes/eemot.htm. Most recent update as of this writing 

January 2004. 

OIT-2002, "United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment," 

Published by the US Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (EERE) and its Office oflndustrial Technologies {OIT), Washington, D.C., 2002. 

I 

5-12 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Sub-Appendix: Detailed calculations 

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

Annual Enen :v Consumption, Default scenario 

Size Class Unit Loading Efficiency Unit Energy 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 Unit Energy 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 

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

Annual Eneri :y Consumption, NEMA Premium scenario 

Size Class Unit Loading Efficiency Unit Energy Number of 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 

5-13 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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, "Loading by Horsepower," OIT-2002, p. 46. 

This table provides a 'distribution' ofloading levels: within each horsepower class, it lists 

the fraction of motors loaded less than 40%, 40-120%, or above 120%. The values we 

used are the expected value of the loading, assuming that the distribution is uniform 

within each of the three load level classes. Also, we assumed that motors were never 

loaded beyond 130% of their 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 of our HP size classes. 

(4) Efficiency standards for 4 pole (1800 RPMS) ODP motors. The EPACT efficiencies for 

the low and high end of the HP ranges were averaged to produce the EPACT efficiency 

number. 

(5) Efficiency standards for 4 pole (1800 RPMS) ODP motors. The NEMA PremiumTM 

efficiencies for the low and high end of the HP ranges were averaged to produce the 

NEMA PremiumTM 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 of 6.79E+ll (OIT-2002, p. 1), and (b) 

we can apply distribution of motor system energy with respect to horsepower size for 

manufacturing sector motors (OIT-2002, p. 40) to all industrial motors. 

5-14 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A6 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-fired pool heaters. As defined by 

NAECA, a pool heater is "an appliance designed for heating non-potable water contained at 

atmospheric pressure, including heating water in swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and similar 

applications" (NAECA 1987). This definition is limited to residential gas-fired pools and spas by 

the general application of NAECA to consumer products only. Pool heaters are a covered 

product. The energy efficiency descriptor for pool heaters is thermal efficiency. As prescribed 

by NAECA, all pool heaters must meet a minimum thermal efficiency of 78 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 of pool heaters. 

Table A6-1: Pool Heater Background Data 

·,',,,,. ·):'',•,' . J>atlitype. • (•' .. . .. ·Value1 ... ; 

.sourc~zc~Dimeiits' •·· • 

'.<''</· ~iii; ; .. ~;·c; ) . .,I . ; • ·.;' •. .. . .

Installed Base, million 2.5 Based on historical shipments and 

equipment lifetime of lr years 

Annual Shipments, million 0.205 (DOE 1993) 

Equipment Lifetime, years 15 (DOE 1993) 

AEC, quad 0.082 Based on installed based and stock 

annual energy use 

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 water through 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. After the pool water reaches the desired 

temperature, the heater is turned off. 

The majority of pool heaters being manufactured consist of finned copper tube heat exchangers 

in a rectangular combustion chamber. Most pool heaters are designed for outdoor installation. 

The venting is directly out of the combustion chamber, with some extra baffling on the vent for 

protection from the elements. Baseline pool heaters have a standing pilot. Electronic ignition can 

be used 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 considered to have a thermal efficiency of 80 percent. Two condensing levels were also 

analyzed. Table A6-2 summarizes the various efficiency levels considered by DOE in 1994 when 

updated minimum efficiency standards were being considered (DOE 1993). 

6-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A6-2: 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 

Table A6-2. Retail price data were taken from DOE's 1993 Technical Support Document and 

inflated to 2002 dollars using consumer price index data from the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL2004). 

Table A6-3: Pool Heater Retail 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 of the test procedure for gas-fired pool heaters on May 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 or burden to consumers for each 

efficiency level. Note that the condensing designs do not yield an economic benefit to 

consumers. Consumer national utility bill savings for a given year are derived by taking the 

national annual energy savings and multiplying it by the corresponding electricity price from the 

6-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

DOE-Energy Information Administration's Annuai Energy Outlook 2004 (DOE 2004). 

Consumer national equipment cost increases are derived by taking the per unit change in 

equipment 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 net benefit or 

burden being the difference between the two values. 12 

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

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-fired pool heaters, DOE actively promotes the use of solar 

pool heating. In particular, there is a DOE program called "Million Solar Roofs" which has 

resulted in increased use of solar pool heating (DOE 2004b ). DOE also provides consumer 

guides detailing the benefits of solar pool heating (DOE 2004c ). For example, DOE states in 

their Energy Smart Management website for solar pool heating systems: "The most costeffective use of solar 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 of solar pool heating is growing, it will tend to reduce the savings from 

gas-fired pool heater standards below what are provided here (Table A6-4). 

12 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 prioritv setting spreadsheets.zip 

6-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), 1987, Pub. L. 100-12 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Codes 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 of Energy (DOE)-U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 1994. "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed 

Rule." Federal Register 59 (43): 10464-10532. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Conservation 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 of Energy (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 of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Consumer Price Index-All 

Urban Consumers. Available online: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004a. "Annual Energy 

Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 

2004. 

U.S. Department of Energy (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 of Energy (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 

6-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A7 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 of food products. A refrigerator consists of a refrigerated cabinet designed 

for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 0°C (32°F) and below 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 of food at temperatures below 0°C (32°F), but does not provide a 

separate low temperature compartment designed for freezing and storage of food at temperatures 

below -13.3°C (8°F). A refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet which consists of at least one 

compartment designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 0°C (32°F) and 

at least one other compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures 

below -13 .3 °C (8°F). A freezer consists of a cabinet for the storage and freezing of foods at -

17.8°C (0°F) or below. Compact refrigerators are defined by the 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. For twelve product classes, NAECA specified the maximum allowable energy in 

kilowatt-hours per year for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1990 (NAECA 1987). 

Subsequent to the NAECA requirements, a new set of minimum efficiency standards became 

effective first in 1993 then again in 2001 (DOE 1997). The new minimum efficiency standards 

in 1993 eliminated 99 percent of the models and increased efficiency by 25 to 30 percent relative 

to the NAECA requirements. The minimum efficiency standards that became effective on July 

1, 2001 increase the efficiency of the most popular product class, top mount refrigerator-freezers 

· with auto-defrost, by approximately 30 percent relative to the 1993 standards. 

Table A7-1 provides background data on the 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 and refrigerator-freezers, freezers, 

and compact refrigerators. 

7-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A7-1: Standard Refrigerator, Freezer, and Compact Refrigerator 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 installed base and stock 

annual energy use 

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 energy use 

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 of fans, using smart defrost technology to 

minimize the amount of defrost that is needed and adding insulation. 

The saturation ofrefrigerators/refrigerator-freezers was 96 percent in 2001, based on the number 

of households with at least one refrigerator (AHAM 2003). The sales of compact refrigerators 

have increased appreciably in the last several years. While most seem to 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. For example, for topmount refrigerator-freezers with auto-defrost, the specified annual energy use reduction target is 

four percent lower than the current minimum standard. FEMP is in the process of revising its 

purchasing recommendations for refrigerators, in order to be in alignment with ENERGY 

ST AR® specifications. The difference between FEMP and ENERGY STAR® will be that while 

7-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

ENERGY STAR® specifies an efficiency curve, FEMP divides recommendations into bins 

based on capacity and reports their recommendations in kWh/year rather 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 compact refrigerators respectively. CEE targets 

only standard-size refrigerator-freezers. CEE specifies three tier levels specifying annual energy 

use reduction targets of 20, 25, and 30 percent relative to current minimum efficiency standards. 

The market presence of higher efficiency refrigerators and freezers can be gauged somewhat by 

the number refrigerators meeting the ENERGY ST AR® specifications and CEE tier levels. The 

AHAM 2003 Fact Book reports that 25 percent of sales of refrigerator products over 6.5 cu. ft. in 

capacity meet ENERGY STAR® levels (AHAM 2003). On January 1, 2004, the ENERGY 

STAR® criteria changed for all full size refrigerators (above 7.75 cu. ft in capacity). For topmount 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 in the 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 compact refrigerators. According to information compiled by 

ENERGY STAR®, several refrigerator-freezer models meet the CEE tier levels. Over 50 

refrigerator-freezer models lie between the first two CEE tier levels (i.e., energy use of 20 to 25 

percent lower than existing minimum standards), five models lie between the second and third 

CEE tier levels (i.e., energy use of 25 to 30 percent lower than existing minimum standards), and 

six models have lower energy consumption than the third CEE tier level (ENERGY STAR® 

2004). 

Tables A 7-2 through A 7-4 provide the UEC values corresponding to various efficiency levels of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compact refrigerators. 

7-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A 7-2: 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 ST AR® 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 of all 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 of revising 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 their recommendations 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) 

1 UEC values are a shipment-weighted average of all freezers. 

Table A7-4: Compact Refrigerator Technology Levels and UEC Values 

iJEc1·· 

• ..(kWh/year) .... 

Typical New 300 (AHAM 1996) 

ENERGY STAR® (20% decrease) 240 (ENERGY STAR® 2004) 

1 UEC values are a shipment-weighted average of all 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 provided by AHAM 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 indicated by the price versus efficiency relationships in DO E's 1995 

refrigerator Technical Support Document (TSD) (DOE 1995). 

7-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A7-5: Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer Retail Prices 

:'',,''. ',', '?~::, ,'>:' , ''·:, ..•. · Retau t>rice •· . Techn~logyLeyel • ($20Q2) .. 

Typical New $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. 

Table A7-6 Freezer Retail Prices 

{J:Ec . • .. ·.Retail Price 

(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. 

Table A7-7: Compact Refrigerator Retail Prices 

Typical New 

ENERGY STAR® (20% 

decrease) 240 

R.~taiIPrice 

• ($2()02)' . 

$125 

$131 

(W alMart 2004) 

(DOE 1995)1 

1 Price vs. efficiency relationship, compact manual defrost refrigerator, Table 4.9. 

A7.3 Test Procedure Status 

Standard-size refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compact refrigerators are all 

covered under the same DOE test procedure. They are tested at an ambient temperature of 90°F 

while internal volume temperatures are kept within specified temperature conditions. DOE has 

recently taken action on a couple of issues regarding the test procedure. Also, there have been 

recent actions to improve AHAM's test standard. The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) has investigated the possibility of harmonizing the U.S. test procedure with 

international test standards. All of these recent actions are described in more detail below. 

7-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Credit for a more efficient defrost system 

DOE issued a direct final rule, which became effective in May 2003, amending the calculation of 

the test time period for "long-time" automatic defrost units (DOE 2003). This change gives 

credit for a control capable of detecting frost so that the defrosting occurs other than during a 

compressor-on cycle, thereby saving energy by taking advantage of the natural warming of the 

evaporator during the compressor-off cycle. 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 of wine coolers requested exemptions from the refrigerator energy 

efficiency standards. Some wine coolers are made with glass front doors, which make them less 

energy efficient than standard refrigerators. As a result, the DOE amended the definition of 

"electric refrigerator", effective December 19, 2001, to include a maximum temperature of the 

fresh food storage compartment, and to exclude certain appliances whose physical configuration 

makes them unsuitable for general storage of perishable foods. The purpose of the revised 

electric refrigerator definition was to exclude wine coolers from the energy efficiency regulation 

(DOE 2001). This rule may also affect other compact refrigerators designed to store and cool 

beverages other than wine. For example, since the time of the test procedure revision, a new 

product has entered the market that is both a compact refrigerator and wine cooler whose 

performance cannot be rated by the existing test procedure. 

Repeatability issues for testing compact refrigerators 

Because of inconsistencies in test results for compact refrigerators, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) investigated repeatability and reproducibility issues and 

published a report entitled "Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for Compact 

Refrigerators". In addition, NIST participated in a task force formed by the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to revise their AHAM HRF-1 test procedure. The 

latest version of AHAM's test procedure is now AHAM HRF-1, 2003. But the existing DOE 

test procedure still references an older version of the AHAM test procedure, AHAM HRF-1, 

1979. DOE may need to amend the test procedure to reference the most recent version of 

AHAMHRF-1. 

Harmonizing with international standards 

NIST has done comparisons between ISO's international test standards and the North American 

.test standard. The two test procedures are similar but not identical. Differences include the 

ambient temperature at which the refrigerators are tested and the ISO specified test load. There 

is some interest in harmonizing and unifying the two test procedures by manufacturers interested 

in international trade. Recently, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have harmonized their 

test procedures. 

7-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A7.4 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 or burden to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that only the FEMP 

and ENERGY STAR® efficiency levels yield an economic benefit to consumers. Consumer 

national utility bill savings for a given year are derived by taking the national annual energy 

savings and multiplying it by the corresponding electricity price from the DOE-Energy 

Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (DOE 2004). Consumer national 

equipment cost increases are derived by taking the per unit change in equipment 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 net benefit or burden being the difference 

between the two values. 13 

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

.·• / .. ······ 

UEC..·•······ . •.. · Tech110Iogy Leyel • 1 (k\Vhlyr)•· 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-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 

Compact Refrigerators 

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 

7-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A7.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

For full line manufacturers of white goods, consideration needs to be given to what other 

regulatory actions are in effect for other products. 

Also, refrigerator manufacturers had to recently comply with U.S. EPA regulations on the 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 of minimum efficiency requirements that the industry has faced since 

1990. The first set of standards took effect in 1990 and the second set in 1993. 

Wine cooler and beverage centers as well as combination refrigerator/beverage coolers, need 

definitions and possible test procedures and standards. 

Compact refrigerators are a fast growing part of the overall refrigerator market. Thus, due to 

their increased national energy consumption, potential energy savings could become greater in 

the future. 

7-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

Appliance Magazine. 2004. "Healthy Times Ahead." January, 2004. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1996. Data on compact refrigerators. 

Chicago, IL. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 2003. "Fact Book 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 of Energy (DOE)-Office of Codes and Standards, 1995. "Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, & Freezers." Washington, DC. DOE/EE-0064. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1997. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers; Final Rule." Federal Register 62 (81): 23102-

23116. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2001. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Amendment to the Definition of Electric 

Refrigerator; Final Rule." Federal Register 66 (223): 57845-57848. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2003. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator-Freezers; Direct Final Rule." Federal Register 68 (45): 10957-10961. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy 

Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 

2004. 

WalMart. 2004. Retail price for a Haier 4.2 cu.ft. compact refrigerator. March, 2004. 

www.walmart.com 

7-9 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

AS Room Air Conditioners 

AS.1 Background 

A room air conditioner is an encased assembly designed as a unit to be mounted in a window or 

through a wall that provides cool or warm 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 of the cooling capacity (in Btu/hr) to the input power (in Watts). 

Minimum EER standards were first prescribed by NAECA and went into effect on January 1, 

1990 ranging from 8.0 to 9.0 EER depending on the product class. A total of twelve product 

classes were established by NAECA based on the cooling capacity of the unit, the presence of 

louvered sides (to enhance air flow over the outdoor coil), and the presence of a reversing valve 

(to allow the unit to provide space-heating through heat pump operation). 

A second set of revised minimum efficiency levels went into effect on October 1, 2000 raising 

the minimum efficiency standards for the most popular product classes to 9.7 or 9.8 EER (DOE 

1997). The most popular product classes are cooling-only units equipped with louvered sides 

and ranging in capacity from less than 6000 Btu/hr to 20,000 Btu/hr. The second set of standards 

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 of room air conditioners. 

Table AS-1: Room Air Conditioner Background Data 

Dafatype Value1 

Installed Base, millions 57 

Annual Shipments, millions 6.15 

6.06 (year 2006 forecast) 

Equipment Lifetime, years 13 

AEC,quad 0.33 

Based on historical shipments and 

equipment lifetime of 13 years 

(Appliance 2004) 

(DOE 1997a) 

Based on installed based and stock 

annual energy use 

1 Installed base, annual shipment, and ABC values are for the year 2002 except where noted. 

8-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A8.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence 

Higher room air conditioner efficiencies are typically achieved by improving the performance of 

the heat exchangers, compressor, fan motor, and fans. 

Heat exchanger performance is improved by one or more of the following methods: increased 

frontal coil area, additional refrigerant tube rows, increased fin density, improved fin design, 

improved tube design, and adding a sub-cooler to the outdoor condenser coil. Most, if not all 

room air conditioners, collect the condensate that drips off the indoor evaporator coil into a pan 

beneath the outdoor condenser coil. The condensate is sprayed on to the condenser coil via a 

slinger ring attached to the circumference of the condenser fan to improve the heat exchanger 

performance of the condenser coil. 

Room air conditioners typically use rotary-type compressors with efficiencies of up to 11.0 EER 

at standard rating conditions. Most units utilize a permanent split capacitor (PSC) fan motor to 

drive both the evaporator blower and condenser fan. 

Designs that improve the seasonal or cyclic performance of the 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 of the unit. Therefore, these types of 

designs are typically not utilized in room air conditioners. 

ENERGY ST AR® and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) specify voluntary EER 

requirements for room air conditioners (ENERGY STAR® 2004; CEE 2004). CEE's efficiency 

targets of greater than 11. 0 EER seem to be quite aggressive, as according to the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers' (AHAM) 2003 Directory of Certified Room Air 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 EER for 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 of operation per 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). 

8-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table AS-2: Room Air Conditioner Technology and UEC Values 

Typical New 

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) 

Based typical new cooling capacity of 9800 Btu/hr and 533 hours of operation. 2 Corresponds to units with cooling capacities less than 20,000 Btu/hr. 

Table A8-3 provides retail price information corresponding to the EER levels specified in Table 

A8-2. Retail price data for a typical new unit is provided by AHAM in their 2003 Fact Book. 

Retail prices are generated for high EER levels from the percentage price increases indicated by 

the price 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). 

Table AS-3: Room Air Conditioner Retail Prices 

Typical New 9.75 $322 (AHAM2003) 

(DOE 1997)1 ENERGY STAR® 10.7 to 10.82 

(10% efficiency increase) $357 

CEE Tier 1 (DOE 1997) 11.2 2 to 11.32 

(15% efficiency increase) $460 

CEE Tier2 

11.6 to 11.82 

(20% efficiency increase) $520 (DOE 1997)2 

Price vs. efficiency relationship, 8000 to 14,000 Btu/hr with louvered sides, without reversing valve, 

Table 4.4, 9.3 to 11.0 EER efficiency range. 2 Price vs. efficiency relationship, 8000 to 14,000 Btu/hr with louvered sides, without reversing valve, 

Table 4.4, greater than 11.0 EER efficiency range. 

8-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A8.3 Test Procedure Status 

The DOE test procedure for room air conditioners references ASHRAE Standard 16-69, Method 

of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners. While the ASHRAE Standard has been revised in 

1983 and reaffirmed in 1999, the DOE test procedure 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 Department recognizes 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 current test procedure cannot measure the benefits of designs that 

. improve seasonal or cyclic performance, the Department has 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 or burden 

to consumers for each efficiency level. Note that only the ENERGY STAR® efficiency level 

yields an economic benefit to consumers. Consumer national utility bill savings for a given year 

are derived by taking the national annual energy savings and multiplying it by the corresponding 

electricity price from the DOE-Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 

2004 (DOE 2004). Consumer national equipment cost increases are derived by taking the per 

unit change in equipment 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 net 

benefit or burden being the difference between the two values. 14 

14 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 

8-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A8-4: Room Air Conditioner Potential 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 heat pump industry is also faced with the 

same environmental regulation. As a result, this industry has identified two replacements: R410a and R-407c. Although R-407c can be used as a "drop-in" replacement, it tends to degrade 

the efficiency of the equipment. Thus, R-410a seems to be the likely choice by central air 

conditioning and heat pump industry. But because R-410a has properties that result in higher 

compressor discharge pressures, equipment may have to be redesigned to accommodate this 

refrigerant. It is still uncertain which refrigerant the room air conditioner industry will choose to 

replace R-22. Regardless of the 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 likely need to redesign their units to accommodate the new refrigerant while 

preventing any degradation in equipment efficiency. 

8-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

Appliance Magazine. 2004. "Healthy Times Ahead." January, 2004. 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 2003. "Fact Book 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 of Energy (DOE)-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 1997. 

"Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Conservation Standards for Room Air 

Conditioners; Final Rule." Federal Register 62 (185): 50122-50150. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Codes and Standards, 1997a. "Technical Support 

Document for Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners, Volume 2 - Detailed 

Analysis of Efficiency Levels (Docket Numbers EE-RM-90-201 & EM-RM-93-801-RAC)." 

Washington, DC. September, 1997. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration. 2004. "Annual Energy 

Outlook 2004 with projections to 2025." Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). January 

2004. 

8-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A9 Battery Chargers I External Power Supplies 

A9.1 Background 

External power supplies and battery chargers are used by many types of consumer electronic and 

electrical devices. In some products, the battery charger and power supply are integrated within 

the electronic or electrical device. For other products, 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 collected by Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and Ecos Consulting. The table shows products used in 

both the residential and commercial sectors. 

Table A9-1: 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: Other Powered 10.27 5 1.47 

Phone: Wireless 140.80 2 57.00 

CFL Desk Lamp 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 Equipment Portable 2.70 6 0.45 

.Computer Speakers 59.62 4 20.08 

External Modems 5.16 4 1.29 

LCD Computer Monitor, 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 

Broadband Internet Devices Hubs in Ports, External PS 35.81 4 8.95 

Broadband Internet Devices LAN 8.31 4 2.08 

Broadband Internet Devices Routers, External PS 1.56 4 0.39 

·Source: All data is extracted from a draft spreadsheet bemg developed by Ecos Consultmg and LBNL. Pnmary 

sources include Appliance Magazine, technical reports, and internal/professional estimates. 

9-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A9.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence 

The distinction between external power supplies and battery chargers is not well defined because 

for many products, such as cell phones, the power supply's function is to charge the battery. For 

purposes of this analysis, ifthe power supply is physically separated from the battery charger, it 

is referred to as an external power supply. Also for purposes of this 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 of reducing primary voltage from 115 volts to a lower voltage. Most often 

this is also converted to a direct current (DC) voltage. In other cases, the voltage is simply 

reduced to a lower alternating current (AC) voltage. For this assessment, only external AC to 

DC power supplies are being considered. Draft legislation currently being 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 of power supply was the linear type. Linear power 

supplies use a coil of wire (similar to a transformer) to lower voltage. Recently, a new type of 

power supply using electronic circuitry, called a switch mode power supply (SMPS), entered the 

market. SMPSs are designed to be more efficient than linear power supplies. SMPSs are 

typically lighter and smaller in size and can be 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 of SMPSs is marginally higher than 

that for linear power supplies. However, because SMPSs are lighter and smaller in size, their 

cost may be comparable to linear types after factoring in shipping costs. Future road map 

analyses sponsored by the Power Sources Manufacturers Association (PSMA) presented at the 

Applied Power Electronics Conference (APEC) in February 2004, foresees little or no cost 

difference between linear and SMPS power supplies. 

Unit ~nergy consumption (UEC) and efficiency are affected by the operational mode of the 

battery charger or power supply. Types of operational modes include: no load (i.e., while 

plugged in a wall socket but not charging a device), active mode (i.e., actively charging a 

device), and low power or sleep mode. In many cases, even when the device is drawing full 

load, the power supply is operating at less than its full rated capacity. As exemplified by cell 

phones, operational modes are affected by how the device is used. In the case of cell phones, the 

power supply may be: (1) charging the cell phone battery, (2) connected to the cell phone even 

after the battery is fully charged, (3) left in the wall socket but disconnected from the cell phone, 

or (4) disconnected from the wall socket. Obviously, the amount of time the charger or power 

supply spends under a specific load condition affects its UEC. The output voltage also affects 

the efficiency of the power supply. A high efficiency power supply is more difficult to 

manufacture at lower output voltages. 

9-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

.ENERGY STAR® has proposed voluntary efficiency requirements for battery chargers and 

power supplies. It is estimated that approximately 12 percent of power supplies can meet the 

proposed ENERGY STAR® maximum limits for both no-load and active modes. 

The efficiency of power supplies ranges from 30 to 90 percent with most in the range of 60 to 70 

percent. Table A9-2 summarizes the typical UECs for the battery charger and power supply 

devices listed in Table A9-l. The UECs are based on a representative distribution of efficiencies 

for each device. 

Table A9-2: Battery Charger and Power Supply UECs 

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

·.· · .. .. Device ·· ... • .. ·• ·.·.··· 'vhic~i~2iK¥~~~f~,'.j' ····•· . . • 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: Other Powered 34.2 

Phone: Wireless 14.2 

CFL Desk Lamp 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 

Dictation Equipment Portable 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 Internet Devices Hubs in Ports, External PS 11.0 

Broadband Internet Devices 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 and LBNL. Pnmary 

sources include Appliance Magazine, technical reports, and internal/professional estimates. 

9-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A9.3 Test Procedure Status 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

DOE does not have a test procedure for either power supplies or battery chargers. Draft 

legislation being considered by Congress would specify that DOE prescribe by notice and 

comment, definitions and test procedures for the power use of battery chargers and external 

power supplies, within 18 months after the date of the legislation's enactment. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & California Energy Commission (CEC) 

The EPA and the CEC collaborated in developing a test procedure for external power supplies 

and battery chargers. Contractors developing the test procedures were Ecos Consulting and 

EPRI-PEAC. In November 2003, EPA vetted the test procedures of both external power 

supplies and battery chargers to interested parties. The battery charger test procedure had several 

issues that could not be resolved. EPA and the interested parties decided that emphasis should 

be placed on finalizing a test procedure for external power supplies. The test procedure 

measures energy use and efficiency under no-load conditions and at 25, 50, and 75 percent of 

rated current loading. 

At the Applied Power Electronic Conference in February 2004, EPA announced a draft test 

procedure and a draft ENERGY STAR® specification for external AC to DC power supplies. 

Battery chargers and power supplies with integrated battery charging circuitry are currently not 

included in the EPA specifications. 

A9.4 Pending Energy Legislation 

As noted above, draft legislation is currently being considered by Congress that would establish 

definitions and establish a schedule for the development of test procedures for external power 

supplies and battery chargers. 

The draft legislation defines an external power supply to be an external power supply circuit that 

is used to convert household electric current into either DC current or lower-voltage AC current 

to operate a consumer product. The draft legislation defines a battery charger to be a device that 

charges batteries for consumer products and includes battery chargers embedded in other 

consumer products. 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 other modes and assess the current and 

projected future market for battery chargers and external power supplies." 

9-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

.A9.5 International Test Procedures 

EPA issued a draft test procedure for external power supplies in February 2004. EPA has not yet 

issued a test procedure for battery chargers because testing battery chargers would be more 

complex than power supplies. Factors that need to be considered include the type of battery to 

be charged, the rates of charging and discharging and other factors that influence energy 

consumption. 

Recently, EPA distributed to its stakeholders a letter, co-signed by the CEC and representatives 

of Australia, Brazil, Canada and China, indicating strong international support for a single test 

procedure for single voltage external AC/DC power supplies. 

Other test procedure activities include voluntary specifications by the European Code of Conduct 

on testing devices at a 100 percent loading. Standby power test procedures affecting power 

supplies include the IEC test procedure on standby power (IEC 62301) and the U.S. Executive 

Order on standby power, recommending standby power consumption under one Watt. 

A9.6 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

The energy savings potential assessment was based on a distribution of power supply and battery 

charger efficiencies representing the range of efficiencies currently on the market. The 

assessment was based on the size of the power supply used by each device as well as a 

distribution of power supply efficiencies for each device. The distribution of efficiencies was 

based on a sample tested by Ecos Consulting. Energy savings estimates were based on the 

assumption that 80 percent efficient power supplies were used in all applications. 

Energy savings estimated in Table A9-3 are based on estimating the energy usage in four modes 

of operation: 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 of power supply efficiencies as measured by 

Ecos Consulting. Ecos sorted these power supplies into bins based on their rated output. The 

power supplies were tested at more than one loading (i.e., percent of rated output current). Based 

on the testing, efficiency was found not to vary significantly with load, except at very low loads 

(e.g., no load or light load conditions). The distribution of efficiencies is based on the models 

Ecos had available to them for testing and is not necessarily representative of a shipmentweighted average of all available power supplies. The lifetime of a power supply is assumed to 

be at least as long as the product it is used with. 

9-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 

Draft Energy Legislation 

Perhaps the largest issue impacting potential efficiency standards is the pending energy 

legislation currently being considered by Congress. If approved and enacted, battery chargers 

and power supplies will become covered products. Even if the draft legislation is signed into 

law, there are several issues that DOE will need to 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 legislation uses the term "consumer" to define power supplies and battery 

chargers. Clarification is needed whether use of the term consumer excludes commercial 

sector applications. 

• Power quality and power factor issues are not addressed. The power factor and power 

quality can be significantly lower for SMPSs. 

Data needs 

The high variability in power supply usage as well as the large number of applications greatly 

affects the certainty of estimated potential energy savings. Thus, additional data need to be 

collected to better define the overall energy use of power supplies and battery chargers and the 

savings potential associated with higher efficiency products. 

EPA actions 

EPA announced in February 2003 a design competition to take place over the next year. This 

competition will assist in making information available on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness 

of various external power supply designs. ENERGY STAR® specifications will also be useful in 

obtaining more information on efficient power supplies. 

California Energy Commission 

The CEC is interested in establishing efficiency standards for both power supplies and battery 

chargers. But ifthe pending energy legislation is not approved by Congress, states will not be 

pre-empted from taking action on issuing efficiency regulations for these products. 

9-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Stakeholder Comments and Concerns 

Some stakeholders have recommended that DOE wait until the outcome of the draft energy 

legislation is known before taking any action to cover and regulate these products. 

At the Technical Workshop on Power Supplies and Battery 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 on battery chargers. These memos ask the CEC, 

which is considering the regulation of these products, to consider a list of issues before 

addressing possible regulations. A sample of the issues listed for external power supplies 

include: 

• External power supplies are not an independent product. 

• Power supplies may be external for safety reasons and a regulation may encourage 

companies to put them inside a product. 

• Power supplies are used in a wide variety of applications. Some safety regulations may 

affect the power consumption. 

• Adding a power factor correction lowers the efficiency. 

Issues listed for battery chargers include: 

• Battery chargers are not a stand-alone, independent product. 

• Power requirements and stand-by characteristics are different for different products. 

• Chargers have different characteristics based on the type of battery they are charging. 

9-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A10 Beverage Merchandisers and Beverage Vending Machines 

A 10.1 Background 

Vending machines and beverage merchandisers are refrigerated cabinets that hold bottled or 

canned beverages at a cool temperature up until the time of purchase by the 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, bottled beverages, milk, and juice. Beverage merchandisers usually 

have a glass door to display the product to the customer. Often, vending machines are sited 

outdoors at schools, gas stations, etc. On the other hand, most beverage 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 

of a 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 of warm beverages loaded into the merchandiser. For example, one of the largest 

customers of beverage merchandisers requires beverage merchandisers to bring the temperature 

of the beverages down to the desired level in a specific amount of time. The glass door and the 

pull down requirement necessitate bigger refrigeration systems for beverage merchandisers than 

comparably sized reach-in refrigerators. 

Table Al0-1 presents the installed base data for vending machines and beverage merchandisers. 

There are approximately 3.7 million beverage vending machines and 800,000 beverage 

merchandisers installed in the US. The annual primary energy consumption of the vending 

machines and beverage merchandisers equals 0.122 and 0.052 quad, respectively. 

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

Equipment type Data type 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 

10-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A10.2 Test Procedure Status 

Neither vending machines nor beverage merchandisers have a DOE test procedure. Discussion 

is proviqed in the following two subsections. 

A 10.2.1 Vending Machines 

For beverage vending machines, energy use is typically expressed in terms of daily power 

consumption (kWh/day) per vendible capacity of the standard product. Two publicly available 

test procedures have been developed for rating refrigerated beverage vending machines, and they 

are widely used by manufacturers. There are also proprietary test procedures developed by 

bottling companies to evaluate energy consumption and performance of vending machines. The 

publicly available test procedures are: 

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

Vending Machines, and 

• American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 32.1-

1997 (ASHRAE 32.1-97) Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, 

Canned and Other Sealed Beverages. 

The CAN/CSA C804-96 prescribes standards as well as test procedures for a 24-hour steadystate energy consumption test. The standard rating conditions include an ambient temperature of 

90° F +/- 1.8° F and a relative humidity of 65% +/- 5%, which corresponds well to a vending 

machine installed in a hot environment. In addition, a product temperature of 34 ° F is specified 

for packaged beverages. The standard product used in the CAN/CSA C804-96 is a 12 oz. can, 

and the test procedure specifies that the machine be loaded to the minimum rated capacity, as 

specified by the manufacturer. 

The ASHRAE 32.1-97 test procedure is similar to the CAN/CSA C804-96 standard in that it 

includes a 24-hour steady-state energy consumption test that has the same ambient temperature 

conditions and a 2° F higher beverage temperature. The product temperature 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 properly represents 

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 test procedure specifies the same 

standard product as CAN/CSA C804-96, a 12 oz. can, but differs in specifying that the machine 

be fully loaded to capacity. In addition, the ASHRAE 32.1-97 test procedure includes a vend 

test, where the machine dispenses products at a regular frequency, and a recovery test, where a 

half empty machine is loaded with warm products. However, the recovery test does not include 

provisions for measuring the energy consumption during the test. The revised version of the 

ASHRAE 32.1-1997 test procedure has been recommended by the 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 at both 90° F and 

10-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

75° F. The energy consumption test is at steady state and does not include a recovery test. 

Bottles or cans 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 by bottling companies to evaluate energy use and 

performance of beverage vending machines. These test procedures include a recovery test 

specification that limits the amount of time required for a vending machine to cool down warm 

products introduced into the machine. 

Both the CAN/CSA C804-96 and the ASHRAE 32.1-97 are well-defined, ea·sy to implement, 

and have similar rating conditions. The CAN/CSA C804-96 is widely used in Canada, but not in 

the US. On the other hand, the ASHRAE 32.1-97 test procedure is widely accepted and used by 

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 of ASHRAE 32.1-97 can be addressed by 

including provisions to measure the energy consumption during the recovery test and specifying 

ambient rating temperatures that are consistent with conditions expected for the machine. 

A 10.2.2 Beverage Merchandisers 

No test procedures specifically target beverage merchandisers. However, the California Energy 

Commission classifies a beverage merchandiser as a glass door reach-in refrigerator, so it uses 

the ASHRAE 117 test with their specified product temperatures to test beverage merchandisers. 

Although the ASHRAE 117 test includes door openings, it does not include the energy required 

to pull down the temperature of warm beverages that have just been loaded into the 

merchandiser. 

It is unclear if the 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 other perishable merchandise" (CSA, 1998). 

Bottled and canned beverages may not fall under the definition of "food products" and are 

definitely not perishable. 

The ASHRAE 117 test with specified beverage temperatures could be an appropriate test 

procedure for future energy efficiency standards. It includes energy consumption during standby 

mode and door openings, a frequent occurrence with beverage merchandisers. The 75°F ambient 

temperature used in the ASHRAE 117 test also is well-suited to represent the typical indoor 

.location of a beverage merchandiser. 

As for the reach-in freezers and refrigerators, the ASHRAE 117 test does not correlate closely 

with peak load conditions because of its moderate 75°F ambient temperature (relative to hotter 

temperatures encountered by outdoor units). 

10-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A10.3 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations, and Technology Description and 

Market Presence 

The potential energy saving estimates are shown in Table Al0-2. 

Table Al0-2: Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers - Energy Saving Potential Estimates 

Annual Energy 

Technology/ % Energy Saving 

Equipment Standard Level Energy Savings Potential Source Type Savings Potential (2010-

Potential (quad) 2035), 

(quads) 

Vending %Energy 

Savings 

Machines Energy Star Tier I 0 0 0 potential from 

Energy Star 

Website15 

%Energy 

Savings 

Energy Star Tier 2 13 0.016 0.33 potential from 

Energy Star 

Website16 

% Energy 

Savings 

CEC Design 14 0.017 0.35 potential from 

Requirements CEC Appliance 

Efficiency 

Regulations 17 

%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-l O _ 400-03-016.PDF 18 Available at: http://www.royalvendors.com/royal.html . 

10-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

<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 

Regulations 19 

%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 of efficiency levels for beverage vending machines. 

The first tier will take effect on April l, 2004, and the second tier is scheduled for January 1, 

2007. The ENERGY STAR® tier 1 level 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 design requirement states that the internal 

illumination shall only be T-8 flourescent lamps with electronic ballasts or a lighting system that 

has no fewer lumens per watt than a system using 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 of vending 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 off lighting 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-I O _ 400-03-016.PDF 

10-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

vending machine made by the same manufacturer that just meets the CEC efficiency levels 

(Royal Vendors, 2002). An ASHRAE 32.1 energy consumption test of a baseline 800 can 

capacity vending machine indicated 4.6 kWh/day. After retrofitting with "Econo-cool'', the unit 

consumed 4 7% less energy than the baseline. Assuming a 4 7% 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 of energy efficiency standards for beverage merchandisers. The 

first tier took effect on March 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 of 0.015 

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 of technologies presented in ADL ( 1996) consist of a high 

efficiency compressor and a brushless DC evaporator fan motor. Both the compressor and the 

evaporator fan motor are relatively simple to change and could be deployed on a retrofit basis. 

The energy savings potential for vending machines equals 28%, with simple payback periods of 

about 1 year for the high efficiency compressor and about 2 years for the brushless DC 

evaporator fan motor. The beverage merchandiser combination reduces energy consumption by 

3 5%, with simple payback periods of about 1 year 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 installed base of vending machines 

results in higher annual energy savings potential for vending machines. 

10-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 10.4 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 of beverage vending machines and has prescribed a design standard 

mandating the use of energy 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 developed by the Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency (CEE). The CEE has been monitoring the progress of the EPA on the ENERGY 

ST AR® program but has 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 of ozone-depleting CFC refrigerants from 

new products imposed by the Montreal Protocol. Most manufacturers produce more than one 

type of commercial refrigeration equipment, so that regulation of refrigeration equipment as an 

equipment class would impact a broad range of products for many manufacturers. In addition, 

some commercial refrigeration manufacturers have other divisions that manufacture other types 

of equipment that have come under energy efficiency regulations, e.g., unitary air-conditioners. 

Hence, most manufacturers of beverage merchandisers and vending machines have already borne 

the cumulative burden of CFC elimination and previous energy efficiency standards (and also 

face the possible elimination of global warming refrigerants). 

A 10.5 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 then put back 

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 now residential vending machines on the market that do 

not have coin mechanisms. 

The main issue impacting potential energy efficiency standards is the distinction between a 

beverage merchandiser and a glass door reach-in refrigerator. Specifically, the energy efficiency 

standards proposed by the CBC would require beverage merchandiser and glass door reach-in 

refrigerators to meet the same efficiency levels. Although both types of commercial refrigeration 

equipment can have similar physical dimensions and holding temperatures, a beverage 

10-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

merchandiser cannot be expected to meet the same energy efficiency standards as a comparablysized glass door reach-in. Beverage merchandisers usually have an oversized refrigeration 

system to "pull down" the temperatures of newly-loaded beverages in a short period of time. As 

a result, the beverage merchandiser will typically cycle (on-off) more often than a glass door 

reach-in refrigerator, reducing overall device efficiency. Moreover, the larger cooling loads 

imposed by the "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. 

10-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ACEEE, 2002a. "Commercial Packaged Refrigeration: An Untapped Lode for Energy 

Efficiency," American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Report No. A015, May. 

ACEEE, 2002b. "Packaged Commercial Refrigeration Equipment: A Briefing Report for 

Program Planners 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 of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, 

June. 

Appliance Magazine, 2002, "49th Annual Report", Appliance Magazine, May. 

ASHRAE, 1997. "Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned, and 

Other Sealed Beverages", American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers Standard 32.1. 

CEC, 2001. California Energy Commission Proposed Amendments to California Code of 

Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608: Appliance 

Efficiency Regulations. Docket No. OO-AB970-APSTD, April. 

CEC, 2003. California Energy Commission California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 

2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1601-1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations. Effective 

August. 

CSA, 1996. "Energy Performance of Vending Machines", Canadian Standards Association, 

C804-96. 

CSA, 1998. "Energy Performance for Food Service Refrigerators and Freezers", Canadian 

Standards Association, C8217-98, September. 

Energy Star®, 2003(?). "Energy Star® Program Requirements 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. 

10-9 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 11 Ceiling Fans 

A 11.1 Background 

Most often found in residences, ceiling fans move air to enhance occupant comfort. Used 

primarily during the cooling season, the installed base of about 192.8 million ceiling fans is 

weighted toward the Southern portion of the country. The vast majority (about 95%) of ceiling 

fan installations includes associated lighting, and the 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-half quad of energy per year, with associated lighting 

accounting for about 63% of the total. 

A11.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence 

All ceiling fans use blades driven by a motor to move air, but the efficiencies of different blademotor combinations vary substantially. For example, data collected in support of the ceiling fan 

ENERGY STAR® program showed that fan air-moving efficiency (quantified using a cfm/W 

metric) varied by more than a factor of two between models. 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 motor technologies, 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 unit power 

consumption, Calwell and Horowitz (updated 2003) 

Typical New UEC (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% 

of all ceiling fans have associated lighting. 

11-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table All-3: Ceiling Fan Motor UEC 

Description Value Comments 

Stock UEC (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 or permanent magnet 

motor 

Ceiling fans do not have minimum efficiency standards for either air moving efficacy or lighting 

efficacy, but do fall under the voluntary ENERGY STAR® program. The ENERGY STAR® 

ceiling fan requirement specifies that the ceiling fan motors should have an air moving efficiency 

that is about 49% lower than that for typical motors. As of February, 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 of ENERGY 

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 and noise requirements. 

The aerodynamic fan blade reflects efficiency gains attained via improved blade design (airfoil 

shape) to enhance its air moving efficiency. Specifically, the energy savings reflect test data 

measured for the Hampton Bay "Gossamer Wind"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 motor with a more efficient motor type, such as a permanent split capacitor (PSC) or a 

brushless DC motor,24 could easily double the efficiency relative to current motors (ADL, 1999). 

Both PSC and brushless DC motors are available in the size range used by ceiling fan motors. 

However, the effect of design constraints particular to ceiling fans, such as reversing the position 

of the rotor and stator, on motor feasibility has yet to be studied. It is also not known whether 

commercially-available ceiling fans incorporate either PSC or brushless 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 offer this 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 I Aeroenvironments CF-1 design; more information available at: 

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/-bdac/PROTOTYPE/CFAN.htm. . 24 Also known as an electronically commutated permanent magnet (ECPM) motor. 

11-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Economic cost-benefit analyses have yet to be performed for any of the technology options. In 

particular, the motor options require additional information about how motor design issues 

specific to ceiling fans - if any - impact motor selection and costs. 

A11.3 Test Procedure Status 

Ceiling fans do not have a DOE test procedure for a lighting or air moving efficiency. The air 

moving efficiency of ceiling fans is given in air volume (cubic feet per minute or cfm) divided 

by electrical input power (W), or cfm/W. There are a number of existing test procedures that 

have been developed to measure this efficiency, including: 

• National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standard Publication No. FMl-1951 

(NEMA FMl-51), 

• International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60879-1986 (IEC 60879-86) 

Performance and Construction of Electric 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 of Testing Air Circulator 

Fans for Rating, and 

• Hunter Fan Company Solid State Test Method. 

The test procedures listed above were all considered during the development of the EPA's 

ENERGY STAR® Program for Residential Ceiling Fans. During EPA's discussions with 

industry stakeholders, stakeholders concluded that the Hunter Fan Company's Solid State Test 

Method was the preferred test procedure for several important reasons: 

• the test method includes a specific set of standard 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 recommended by stakeholders to be used as the 

official metric for cfm determination in the ENERGY STAR® Program. 

The NEMA FMl-51 test procedure utilizes a mechanical anemometer instrument along with 

manual readings of air velocity along three-inch centers in a standard room. The equipment and 

·instrumentation used for this test procedure are inexpensive. However, because of the 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 by the Hunter Fan Company and Air 

Cool. 

The IEC 60879-86 test procedure is similar to the NEMA FMl-51 test procedure but utilizes 

controlled airflow in a standard room. The limitations for IEC 60879-86 are the same as NEMA 

11-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

FMl-51 with regard to the time needed to run the tests and lack of repeatability for the measured 

results. The test procedure was developed in Europe and is used extensively outside the U.S. 

Within the U.S., it is used by Home Depot (for its Hampton Bay ceiling fan products), Air Cool, 

King of Fans, Minka and CEI. 

The CAN/CSA C814-96 test procedure is similar to the IEC 60879-86 test procedure but uses 

hot wire velocity measurements and a different room configuration. The time needed to run the 

tests is slightly lower than the NEMA FMl-51 and the IEC 60879-86 test procedures. This test 

procedure is not widely used. 

The ANSVAMCA 230-99 test procedure uses a load cell to measure the downward thrust of the 

fan's air movement in an axial direction and specific room geometry. The thrust is used to 

calculate the amount of air movement. The test is inexpensive to conduct but it is very sensitive 

to ceiling fan wobble, vibrations, and the design of the ceiling fan blades, which contribute to 

inaccuracies in the test results. Because the load cell is set up to measure airflow in the axial 

direction, any airflow in the lateral direction is not accounted for. 

Because of the limitations with existing test procedures, the Hunter Fan Company internally 

developed an improved and refined method of measuring 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 and much greater 

accuracy. According to Hunter Fan Company, the measurements using this test method are 

typically within 3% of each other. 

The distinguishing feature of this 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 of the 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 

opposed to hanging from a down-rod pendant style, and subsequently move much less air 

because of the limited amount of space behind the fan blades. Airflow values from hugger fans 

tested with the Solid State Test Method 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 test procedure for certifying ENERGY 

STAR® compliant ceiling fans. Currently, the ENERGY STAR® Ceiling Fan program does not 

certify hugger fans because of the limitations of the method of testing. 

Because of the superiority of the Solid State Test Method over the other various test methods in 

terms of accuracy, repeatability, and short test duration, it is recommend as the basis for a 

uniform test method for measuring the energy efficiency of ceiling fans. The Solid State Test 

Method correlates well with ceiling fan motor energy consumption, energy savings potential, and 

11-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

peak demand impact because it directly measures power draw in all air-moving modes and most 

fans are expected to operate during (hot) peak demand periods. 

To address the problem in measuring hugger type ceiling fans, modifications would have to be 

made to the Solid State Test Method by either rearranging the configuration of the 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. 

A 11.4 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 of savings (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 

Standard Level (kW-h) Savings Potential Source 

Potential (2010-2035), 

(auad) (auads) 

Typical Device (current 164 NA NA Calwell and Horowitz 

stock) (updated 2003) 

'Typical New' 164 NA NA Assumed same as Stock 

UEC from_ Calwell and 

Best Available 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 of data differentiating energy consumption of fans by vintage, both the fan motor 

and lighting energy consumption analyses assume the same energy consumption levels for the 

installed base and typical 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 of energy each over the 

2010-2035 period (see Table Al 1-5). 

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

11-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table All-5: Ceiling Fan UEC and Energy Saving Potential (Lighting Only) 

Technology/ UEC Annual Energy Energy Saving 

Standard Level (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 installed base of all 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. It is 

unclear if the trend will continue in the future; continued strong growth will increase both the 

energy consumption and savings potential over the 2010-2035 period. 

A 11.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

Ceiling fans have not been subject to regulation for energy efficiency. The extent to which other 

regulations impact ceiling fans, such as safety regulations, was not determined. 

A 11.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

Ceiling fans improve occupant comfort by generating an indoor breeze, which decreases the 

perceived indoor air temperature. As a result, ceiling fans can enable higher indoor air 

temperature settings, displacing a portion of an air conditioning load and saving cooling energy. 

Thus, the cooling energy savings realized by ceiling fans may well exceed their own energy 

consumption. Potential energy efficiency standards need to ensure that the incremental cost of 

an efficiency standard (if any) does not deter the purchase of ceiling fans and potentially create a 

net increase in energy consumption. 

11-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ADL, 1999, "Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with 

High-Efficiency Electric Motors", Final Report to US Department of Energy, Office of Building 

Technology, State and Community Programs, December. 

ANSI/AMCA, 1999. "Laboratory Method of Testing Air Circulator Fans for Rating", American 

National Standards Institute and Air Movement and Control Association Standard 230-1999. 

Appliance Magazine, 2000, "23rd Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry", Appliance 

Magazine, September, pp. 87-89. 

Callwell, C. and Horowitz, N., 2000, "Residential Ceiling Fan - A Look at Their Energy 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 of Ceiling 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 of Electric Circulating Fans and Regulators'', 

International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60879. 

NEMA, 1951. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standard Publication No. FMl1951. 

Parker, D., Callahan, M., and Sonne, J., 1999, "Development of a high efficiency ceiling fan'', 

Florida Solar Energy Center.FSEC-CR-1059-99~ Available at: 

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/~bdac/pubs/CRl 059/CRl 059 .html . 

Sanchez, M., 1997, "Miscellaneous Electricity Use in U.S. Residences", M.S Thesis in the 

Energy and Resources Group, University of California at Berkeley. 

1P1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 12 Commercial Reach-In Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 

The commercial refrigeration equipment category consists of reach-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 or food 

products and reject the heat to ambient air. The three energy-consuming components of a vapor 

compressor refrigeration cycle are: 

• The compressor: moves the refrigerant through the refrigeration cycle; 

• The evaporator air fan: blows air to be cooled over the cold evaporator; 

• The condenser air fan: blows ambient air over hot condenser to remove heat from the 

refrigeration system. Some equipment rejects heat from the condenser via natural 

convection eliminating the condenser fan. 

Therefore, the energy consumption and savings potential of commercial refrigeration equipment 

depend on the efficiency of these three components, the effectiveness of the condenser and 

evaporator heat 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 of the equipment installed base estimates are about 10 years old, creating the theoretical 

potential for uncertainties in the current installed base. Since commercial refrigeration 

equipment has been in the marketplace for decades and the primary venues using refrigeration 

equipment have not increased dramatically over the past 15 years, the older installed base data 

should provide reasonable estimates of the current installed base of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 

A 12.1 Background 

Reach-in refrigerators, reach-in freezers, and reach-in refrigerator-freezers are upright, 

refrigerated cases with solid or glass doors that hold frozen or refrigerated food products 

respectively. The freezers maintain the temperature of the food product below freezing, usually 

around 0°F, and the refrigerators typically maintain food product temperatures between 35°F and 

40°F. 

Besides the normal complement of power-consuming devices for the refrigeration system, a 

frame heater is required to prevent condensation on the outside of the case. In addition, lighting 

inside the case illuminates the inside of the case when the door is open. 

Table A12-1 shows that the 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 of 8 to 10 years, and freezers, 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers annually consume 0.066 quad, 0.054 quad, and 0.012 quad, 

respectively. Despite the larger installed base of refrigerators, the annual energy consumption of 

all reach-in freezers exceeds that of refrigerators because of freezers' greater power draw levels. 

12-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al2-1: Installed Base Data for Reach-In Freezers and Reach-In Refrigerators 

Equipment type Data type Value Source 

Installed Base, thousands (1994) 800 

Reach-In Freezers 

Annual Sales, thousands (2001) 47 ADL(l 996); 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(l 996); Appliance 

Refrigerators Equipment Lifetime, years (1994) 8 to 10 Magazine (2002) 

Primary AEC, 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 test procedure does not exist for reach-in freezers, reach-in refrigerators, or reach-in 

refrigerator-freezers; however, several organizations have test procedures for reach-in 

refrigeration. 

Measures of energy use or efficiency for commercial refrigeration typically consist of an amount 

of energy the product uses (per unit volume per unit time). For reach-in refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers, energy use is typically expressed in terms of daily energy consumption 

(kWh/day) per internal volume of the refrigerated space (ft3

). There are a number of existing test 

procedures that have been developed for rating commercial refrigeration equipment. These 

include the following: 

• National Sanitation Foundation/American National 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 of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 

117-2002 (ASHRAE 117-02) Method of Testing Closed Refrigerators. 

The NSF/ANSI 7-01 test procedure was developed with food safety as an objective, and 

therefore does not include measurements of energy consumption. However, the ARI 1200-02 

and the ASHRAE 117-02 test procedures were developed to allow comparisons of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, and therefore include measurements of energy consumption. 

12-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The NSF/ANSI 7-01 test procedure is a performance test for reach-in refrigerators and freezers 

used to store and/or display cold food. This test procedure is used to ensure that the refrigeration 

equipment can maintain temperatures safe for food preservation by requiring a case temperature 

of less 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 ambient rating condition is appropriately conservative for food safety 

purposes but may not represent real-world conditions for commercial refrigeration. The test 

procedure by itself is not sufficient to 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 or remote, open or closed, and service and self-service 

commercial refrigerated display cases. It was developed to provide guidance to the commercial 

refrigeration industry and allows comparison of energy consumption among remote commercial 

refrigerated display cases or comparison of energy consumption among self-contained 

commercial refrigerated display cases. The rating conditions for the open type display cases are 

based on the ASHRAE Standard 72 test procedure, and the rating conditions for the closed type 

display cases are based on the ASHRAE Standard 117 test procedure. However, two different 

ambient temperature conditions are used for each type of display case, depending on the 

environment in which the equipment is installed. Type I display cases are intended to be used in 

areas where the ambient temperatures do not exceed 75° F and are therefore rated at an ambient 

dry-bulb temperature of 75° F +/- 2°F. Type II display cases are intended to be used in areas 

where the ambient temperatures do not exceed 80° F and are therefore rated at an ambient drybulb temperature of 80° F +/- 2°F. 

The ASHRAE 117-02 test procedure is used as the basic test method by many organizations, 

including the Canadian Standards Association in the CSA C827-88 Standard, the California 

Energy Commission (CEC) as the test method for their commercial refrigeration standards, and 

the EPA certification of commercial refrigeration products for their ENERGY STAR® program. 

The ASHRAE 117 standard is used for all types of closed refrigerators and freezers that hold or 

display food, and it applies to both remote and self-contained products. 

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 order to simulate typical operation. The energy consumption is measured over a 24-

hour period, while the ambient conditions are fixed at a dry-bulb temperature of 75° F +/- 2° F 

and a wet bulb temperature of 64 ° F +/- 2° F. 

There are several potential limitations of the ASHRAE 117 test procedure. First, the ambient 

temperature rating condition may not represent the typical real-world conditions found in active 

commercial kitchens. These temperatures can be well above the 75° F ambient rating condition 

and may even reach 100° F at times. Furthermore, ASHRAE 117 does not include a recovery 

test where the energy consumption required to cool down warm food is measured. This could be 

particularly important for beverage merchandisers if DOE decides that rapid "pull down" of 

product temperature is an important feature of beverage merchandisers and accounts for 

significant energy use. Finally, the ASHRAE 117 test procedure does not specify a case 

12-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

temperature or a food temperature and is thus inadequate by itself for energy efficiency 

standards, because a valid comparative evaluation of energy consumption among products would 

require equal food or case temperatures to be maintained during the tests. The ASHRAE 117 test 

procedure is fairly difficult to carry out and is generally performed by test labs, not 

manufacturers. In current testing for the CEC, not all units made by a manufacturer are tested. 

Instead, representative units are tested, and performance estimates are extrapolated to other units. 

The ASHRAE 117 test procedure is, however, widely used and has been revised several times 

since it was originally developed in 1983. It is 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 test procedure is modified to include a cabinet air temperature of 38° F for 

refrigerators and 0° F for freezers. For the CEC, the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is modified to 

include an integrated average product temperature of 38° +/- 2°F for refrigerators. For freezers, 

an integrated average product temperature of0° +/- 2°F is specified. The EPA's program for 

commercial reach-in refrigerators and freezers takes the same approach as the CEC by specifying 

the same integrated average product temperatures. 

Because the ASHRAE 117 test procedure 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 of commercial refrigeration equipment, it is 

a good basis for measuring the energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment. To 

overcome the limitations identified, modifications to the rating conditions may be considered, 

possibly including: ambient temperature ratings more closely representative of those typically 

encountered by the equipment, a recovery test that measures the energy consumption required to 

cool warm products introduced into the cabinet, and an integrated average product temperature 

rating condition. 

12-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A12.3 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 of Energy 

Efficient Appliances26 

% Energy Savings 

potential from CEC 

Database of Energy 

Efficient Appliances27 

% Energy Savings 

potential from ENERGY 

STAR®website28 

28 Available at:http://yosemitel.epa.gov/estar/consumers.nsf/content/refrigerator.htrn. 

12-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The annual energy savings potential if all reach-in freezers employed these technologies equals 

35%, which translates into 0.47 quad over the 2010-2035 period. All features have a simple 

payback period of less 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 that represents the 

average consumption for units of all sizes (ADL, 1996). 

The California Energy Commission (CEC) has proposed two tiers of energy efficiency standards. 

The first tier took effect on March 1, 2003; the second tier is scheduled for August 1, 2004. The 

CEC database of appliances produces an average daily energy consumption for solid door reachin freezers between 19 and 21 ft3 of11.74 kWh/day. This is lower than the 14.24 kWh/day 

baseline used by ADL (1996), because it only considers the smaller-sized units. For units in the 

19 to 21 ft3 size 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 can be applied across the 

entire volume range of reach-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-door units, i.e,. glass door units are not in 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 assumed the 20% 

energy savings can be applied across the entire volume range ofreach-in freezers. 

Table A12-3 shows two different combinations of technologies 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. 

12-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

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

Technology I % Energy Annual Energy Energy Saving 

Savings Savings Potential Potential (2010- Source Standard Level 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 

Sweat Heating) 

<5 Years Payback % Energy Savings 

(ECM Motor for 45 0.024 0.50 potential from ADL 

Condenser Fan) (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 1 is a short but effective list of improvements: 

• 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 and brushless DC fan motors, are relatively easy 

to implement while 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. 

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. 

12-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

These projected savings assume a 70°F ambient temperature and a 65% duty cycle for the 

baseline refrigeration system. Such a high duty cycle ofthe baseline refrigerator at 70°F ambient 

temperature means that it may fail the NSF7 test at the higher ambient temperature of 100°F. 

Since refrigerators cannot be sold without NSF approval, it is likely that the 65% duty cycle 

includes door openings, suggesting that the energy savings estimate is based on reasonably 

realistic operating conditions. 

Combination 2 is a more aggressive application of energy 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 or 0.74 quad over the 

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 Condenser Fan Motors; 

• Variable-Speed Refrigeration 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 payback periods were not calculated for this option. 

All of the options considered in the three "combinations" - with the possible exception of the 

variable-speed refrigeration systems - are presently feasible and the components needed to 

implement the options commercially available. Variable-speed refrigeration systems may not be 

available in sizes (and with refrigerants) compatible with all sizes of reach-in refrigerators in the 

market. 

The California Energy Commission (CEC) includes two tiers of energy efficiency standards for 

all reach-in refrigerators. Analysis of a two-door solid reach-in refrigerator with an interior 

12-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

volume of 43.5 ft3 indicates that the first tier will not realize measurable energy savings. 

However, the second tier will achieve 9% energy savings. On the other hand, ifthe CEC 

standards apply to glass door reach-in refrigerators, which have inherently higher energy 

consumption levels, the energy savings potential will exceed the aforementioned values. 

If all reach-in refrigerators attained ENERGY STAR® certification, then the annual energy 

savings potential would be 29%. 

Table Al2-4 shows one combination of technologies to reduce energy consumption in reach-in 

refrigerator-freezers. 

Table Al2-4: Potential Energy Saving Estimates for Reach-In Refrigerator-Freezers 

Technology I % Energy Primary Annual Energy Saving 

Standard Level 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 of improvements as the reach-in freezer: 

• Hot gas 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 of the 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 implement while 

.the first, hot gas antisweat, requires product redesign and retooling for a new case. All features 

have a simple payback period of less than three years. 

Differences in test conditions complicate direct comparison of the AD L ( 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 of door 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, but because the ambient temperatures 

assumed are similar, the energy savings potential calculations should be broadly comparable. 

Table A12-5 summarizes the information presented in this sub-section. 

12-9 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

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

Technology I Annual Energy Energy Saving 

Savings Potential Potential (2010 - 2035) Standard Level (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® 37 0.029 0.59 

A 12.4 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® program began qualifying reach-in refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-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 solid door refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers. The energy efficiency level depends on the internal volume of the case and on the 

reach-in type, i.e. freezing or refrigerating temperatures. 

Since all reach-in refrigerators and freezers use a vapor compression cycle, most manufacturers 

have contended with the elimination of ozone-depleting CFC refrigerants from new products 

imposed by the Montreal Protocol. If the U.S. ratifies the Kyoto Protocol or adopts other 

legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, then the makers of commercial refrigeration 

equipment may also have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. Most 

manufacturers produce more than one type of commercial refrigeration equipment, so that 

regulation of refrigeration equipment as an equipment class would impact a broad range of 

products for many manufacturers. In addition, some commercial refrigeration manufacturers 

have other divisions that manufacture other types of equipment that 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 of CFC 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. 

12-10 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

previous energy efficiency standards, and face the possible elimination of global warming 

refrigerants. 

A 12.5 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

The ASHRAE 117 test is a time-consuming (24-hour) and meticulous test standard. As a matter 

of fact, 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 if ASHRAE 11 7 continues to be the basis of test procedures. 

12-11 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ADL, 1996, "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", Final Report 

to US Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, 

June. 

ADL, 2001, "Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HV AC Systems -

Volume I: Chillers, Refrigerant Compressors, and Heating Systems," Final Report to US 

Department of Energy, Office of Building 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 of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, 

January. 

ADL, 2002b, "Application of Best Industry Practices to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators 

- Development of a 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 of Testing Closed Refrigerators", American Society of Heating, 

Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 117-2002. 

Appliance Magazine, 2002, "49th Annual Report", Appliance Magazine, May. 

California Energy Commission, "Database of Energy Efficient Appliances". Available at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/. 

ENERGY STAR® website, "Energy Star Qualified Products". Available at: 

http ://yosemite 1.epa. gov/ estar/ consumers.nsf/ content/refrigerator.htm. 

NSF I ANSI, 2001. "Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers", National Sanitation 

. Foundation/ American National Standards Institute Standard 7-2001. 

Zabrowski, David, 2003, Personal Communication, PG&E Food Service Technology Center. 

12-12 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A13 Gas Unit Heaters I Gas Duct Furnaces 

A13.1 Background 

Gas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces both bum natural gas for space heating, typically in 

commercial and industrial buildings. Unit heaters 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 or blower). 

The approximately 3.9 million gas unit heaters in use in the United States in 2001 consume about 

0.65 quad of energy 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 installed base 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-contained units that usually hang from the ceiling of a space, but can 

also be installed on floors or walls. A gas supply line feeds fuel to the burner and combustion 

chamber where the gas is burned to release heat. The hot combustion gas then travels through the 

inside of a metal heat exchanger and passes out through the vent where it is exhausted outdoors. 

A fan blows indoor air over the hot outer surface of the heat exchanger and distributes the heated 

air throughout the space. 

Power vented units use a separate fan to draw combustion products through the combustion 

chamber. This configuration can improve combustion efficiency and reduce off-cycle flue 

losses. Power vented units with separated combustion bring in combustion air from the outside 

·of the heated space. This configuration further reduces losses and improves the seasonal 

efficiency of these designs. At one time, pulse combustion unit heaters, that utilize combustion 

pulses to enhance heat transfer, were offered to improve efficiency but are no longer on the 

market. Condensing units (currently with very limited commercial availability) are designed to 

extract more energy from the combustion products to improve efficiency. Water vapor in the 

exhaust gas condenses on the walls of the heat exchanger, improving efficiency by extracting 

latent heat. 

38 average of lifetimes (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). 

13-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 

prescribed by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (as of October 29, 2001) are set at 80% combustion 

efficiency. These levels have not been changed in subsequent versions of ASHRAE 90.1 to date. 

In previous versions of ASHRAE 90.1, a thermal efficiency requirement was prescribed. 

However, for products of this type, thermal and combustion efficiency are virtually identical. A 

review of current product literature reveals that nearly all unit heaters and duct furnaces on the 

market today meet ASHRAE 90.1. This reflects the situation that ASHRAE 90.1 requirements 

have been adopted by many 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 

currently prescribed 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. 

Power Vented - Separated 82% 80% Product catalogs and estimates 

Combustion 

Best Available (condensing) 93% 93% Product catalogs and estimates 

In 1995, the majority of gas unit heaters sold (~85%) were simple gravity vented units. Powervented units claimed the rest of the market (~15%). Data are not available to estimate the current 

share of power vent or power vent-separated combustion unit 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 

unit heater. 

A 13.2.2 Gas Duct Furnaces 

Gas duct furnaces are heating system components that are installed as a section in the supply 

ductwork of a ventilation system (they do not have fans or blowers of their own). A gas supply 

line feeds fuel to the burner and combustion chamber where the gas is burned to release heat. 

The hot combustion gas then travels through the inside of a metal heat exchanger and passes out 

through the vent where it is exhausted to the outdoors. The ventilation system fan or blower 

blows air over the hot outer surface of the heat exchanger and distributes the heated air 

throughout the space. 

Power-vented units use a separate fan in the venting system to draw combustion products 

through the combustion chamber to improve combustion efficiency and reduce flue losses (by 

restricting the flow of warm 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 

13-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

combustion is no longer viewed 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 in the combustion products condenses on the walls of the heat exchanger (improving 

efficiency by extracting latent heat). ASHRAE 90.l minimum efficiency requirements are the 

same for duct furnaces as for unit heaters (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) 

Power Vented-Separated 82% 80% Product catalogs and estimates 

Combustion 

Best Possible (condensing) 93% 93% Product catalogs and estimates 

.While the exact numbers are not known, in 1995 the majority of gas duct furnaces sold and 

installed were simple gravity vented units. Power-vented units claimed the rest of the market. 

No condensing duct furnaces are currently available in the 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 unit heaters and duct furnaces, primarily commercial/industrial products, do not have a DOE 

test procedure, 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 on the ANSI Z83.8 (CSA 2.6) test procedure. The ANSI test procedure 

establishes a uniform experimental setup and procedure (at maximum steady-state operation) to 

measure the heating value of the natural gas burned and the heat lost through the vent in the form 

of hot combustion gases and water vapor (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 not be the most accurate way to calculate annual energy 

consumption because it does not account for losses due to equipment on-off cycling. Instead, a 

seasonal efficiency value such as Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) can better predict 

how much fuel the equipment consumes on a yearly basis by taking into account cycling losses 

(attributed to warm-up and cool-down) and when a standing pilot is used, pilot losses (gas 

consumed by the pilot burner when the unit is not operating). Existing DOE test procedures for 

NAECA covered heating products, such as residential furnaces and boilers, describe the test 

13-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

procedure for determining AFUE, but an AFUE has not been prescribed by ASHRAE for unit 

heaters or duct furnaces. 

A 13.4 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 estimated AFUE values to better reflect 

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 

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

UEC Annual Energy Energy Saving 

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 

Power Vent-Separated Combustion 377 0.008 0.13 

Condensing technology has over twice the energy savings potential of power vent-separated 

combustion because it offers both much higher steady-state and seasonal efficiencies. 

Some uncertainty exists in the calculation of national energy savings potential for gas unit 

heaters because assumptions were necessary when deriving the AEC estimate for the installed 

base. ADL (2001 b) provided an estimate of the AEC of gas unit heaters in the commercial 

building sector, but no data could be found for the AEC in industrial buildings. Instead, based on 

the widespread application of the unit heater in the industrial sector, it was assumed that gas unit 

heaters consume 85% of the 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 unit heater installed base .could be either higher or lower. This treatment of shipment 

data could also affect energy estimates for duct furnaces (see the Sub-Appendix for more 

information). 

13-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 13.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

The DOE has not regulated gas unit heaters or gas duct furnaces for energy efficiency. A 

provision in the new National Energy Bill would require, if passed, that unit heaters have an 

intermittent ignition device and either power venting or an automatic flue damper. As discussed 

above, unit heaters and duct furnaces are covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which has been 

adopted as part of many municipal and regional building codes and which sets a minimum 

efficiency requirement. Some manufacturers of gas 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 other regulations impact gas unit heaters and duct furnaces, including health 

and safety, was not determined. 

A 13.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

Commercial furnaces have been subjected to efficiency standards (by ASHRAE 90.1 and DOE 

standards published in the Federal Register - January 2001 ), which, if similarly promulgated for 

·gas unit and/or duct heaters, could force manufacturers to abandon certain designs and/or 

technologies. Examples of possible prescriptive standards (such as being considered in the 

National Energy Bill) include requiring vent dampers and banning pilots. The current ASHRAE 

90.1 standard for gas unit heaters 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, and prescribing a minimum AFUE 

level (rather than steady-state efficiency) for these products would further impact equipment 

design. A new test procedure would also be necessary to measure AFUE. In addition, the 

electricity consumed by this equipment could be regulated by future efficiency standards (e.g., 

electricity consumed by the fan or blower of unit heaters or the power venting system of duct 

furnaces). 

A broader issue when setting efficiency standards for heating equipment is quantifying how 

effectively heaters deliver warm air to building occupants. For example, many unit heaters are 

installed near the ceiling of tall spaces; in which case, a portion of the heat generated may not 

reach the occupants at floor level. Duct furnaces could be impacted by ventilation system 

distribution inefficiencies, such as duct leakage. It is not clear how to best address such 

"system" effects and whether future equipment efficiency standards can effectively address 

installation issues. 

13-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ADL, 2001, "Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HVAC Systems -

Volume I: Chillers, Refrigerant Compressors, and Heating Systems", Final Report by Arthur D. 

Little, Inc.to US Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community 

Programs, April. Available at: 

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/ documents/pdfs/hvacvolume 1 finalreport.pdf . 

ANSI/CGA, 1996, Standard for Gas Unit Heater and Gas-Fired Duct Furnaces, American 

National Standard Institute I Canadian Gas Association Standard, Z83.8-1996/CGA2.6-M96. 

ASHRAE, 1999, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 -1999, Energy Efficient Design of New 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Press: Atlanta, GA. 

GAMA, 2003, Statistical Highlights, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, Arlington, VA, 

March4. 

GRI, 1995, Baseline Projection Data Book, 1995 Edition, Gas Research Institute. 

GRI, 1997, "Commercial Space Heating Equipment Market," Gas Research Institute Report, 

GRI-97/0100. 

13-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Sub-Appendix. Gas Unit Heaters and Duct Furnaces Calculation Details 

Installed Base Calculations 

A literature search did not yield gas unit heater and duct furnace installed base estimates, nor 

shipment data spanning the entire lifetime of the devices. Instead, the installed base estimates 

utilize shipment data from GAMA (2003) for the period of 1992-2001 (Table A13-Al). The 

average annual shipment volume for that period 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 Gas Unit heaters Gas Duct Furnaces 

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 of the average lifetime and the average 

annual shipments from 1992 to 2001. The drawback of this 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 performed by ADL 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 increased proportionally 

to the increase in installed base, approximately 20%. The result is a change from the 1995 AEC 

of 0.54 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 consumed by devices in both the commercial sector and industrial 

building sectors. ADL (2001 b) provides an estimate of commercial sector unit heater AEC; 

however, no estimate for the AEC of unit heaters in the industrial sector could be 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). 

13-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A13-A2: Gas Unit Heaters AEC Calculation 

Tvue Data Source 

Commercial sector gas unit heater consumption 0.20 ADL (2001b) (quad) 

Total Manufacturing sector total gas 0.40 MECS (1998) consumption (quad) 

% in Manufacturing sector consumed by gas 85% ADL Estimate unit heaters 

Manufacturing sector gas unit heater 0.34 Calculation consumption (quad) 

Total sector gas unit heater consumption (quad) 0.54 Sum of Commercial and 

Manufacturing sector 

Because the stock split of commercial-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%) of gas heating in the manufacturing sector. 

This yields an estimate that gas unit heaters consume about 0.54 quad of primary 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 unit heater output, the installed base, 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 of about 0.4 quad of gas. Even if unit heaters consume all of this heat, the total 

gas consumption estimate would be 0.6 quad (0.2 for the commercial consumption plus 0.4 for 

the industrial consumption), much less than the above estimate of~ 1 quad. The high estimation 

may occur for a variety of reasons, including widespread equipment over-sizing and unutilized 

equipment. The above estimate of 0.54 quad seems to be a more accurate estimate. 

The gas duct furnace AEC estimate is derived by estimating the total installed capacity of duct 

furnaces and multiplying it by the average annual duty cycle for duct furnaces: 

Average unit size( output) AEC = · 8760 ·installed base· average duty cycle, seasonal efficiency (typical new) 

where the duty cycle equals the ratio of the annual heating load to the peak-heating load: 

Average heating load 

average duty cycle= -----"'---.::..___ __ Peak heating load 

Warehouse duty cycle data from DOE-2 computer model 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 similar to warehouses. 

13-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al3-A3: Gas Duct Furnaces Load Data 

Type Annual Heating Load Peak Heating Load Approximate 

(Btu/ft2) (Btu/hr-sq. ft) Duty Cycle 

(%) 

Warehouse, Fort Worth, 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 data used in 

the calculations, resulting in an ABC estimate of 0.10 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 of the seasonal 

efficiency, in this case AFUE. Thus, the energy savings potential of an advanced technology 

equals one minus the ratio of the 'typical new' AFUE to that of the 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 

Power vent 80 8% Estimates 

13-9 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 14 Illuminated Exit Signs 

A14.1 Background 

An exit sign is an internally illuminated sign that is permanently fixed in place and used to 

identify the exit from a building. An internal light source illuminates the sign or letters spelling 

"EXIT". The sign is connected to only one source of power at a time (normal or emergency), and 

is designed to remain illuminated via an emergency power source upon failure of the normal 

power supply (EPA, 2004a). 

Exit signs in the U.S. consume 0.0282 quad of energy per year (see Table A14-1). The total 

installed base of exit signs is approximately 33 million units, with LED, compact fluorescent and 

incandescent representing 26.4, 5.0 and 1.6 million units respectively (NCI, 2003). 

Table A14-1: Exit Signs Background Data 

Data type Value Source 

Installed Base, million (2002) 33.0 NCI, 2003. 

Equipment Lifetime, years 11 Calculated, based on NEMA, 2003 and 

the estimated installed base. 

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 of exit 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 installed base and 

product class average wattages. NCI, 2003. 

Typical New (LED) 6 Estimated average. NCI, 2003. 

Minimum Efficiency No national energy standard, however California has 

NA passed standards that are consistent with ENERGY STAR® 

(CEC, 2003). 

Incandescent 32 Weighted average wattage. NCI, 2003. 

Compact Fluorescent 17 I Weighted average wattage. NCI, 2003. 

Light Emitting Diode 6 Weighted average wattage. NCI, 2003. 

Best Available Efficiency < 1 Some ENERGY STAR® Exit Signs are listed that consume 

(LED light source) less than one watt. EPA, 2004b. 

ENERGY STAR® Efficiency SW per ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Exit Signs. 

face Eligibility Criteria. EPA, 2004a. 

Maximum Efficiency <l Electroluminescent and some LED panels already use 1 

(Future Technology) W or less. 

14-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

LED exit signs have considerably lower operating costs than other types of signs 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 cost basis, which can be an 

important purchasing determinant, LEDs have become competitive. While incandescent signs 

without battery backup are still marginally less expensive than LED signs, the price for both 

types of signs with battery backup is about the same because the incandescent system requires a 

much larger battery. LED first costs have fallen in part due to the red LED being a relatively 

mature and well-understood technology (NCI, 2003). 

Currently, exit signs do not have a national minimum efficiency standard, but they 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 

consistent with National Fire Protection Association requirements must be met (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) 

Input power demand :S 5 W per face 

Luminance contrast Greater than 0 .8 

Average Luminance Greater than 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 

·Maximum to Minimum Luminance Less than 20: I measured at normal (0°) and 45° 

viewing angles 

Due to favorable economics, better performance, enhanced safety capabilities, and marketing 

programs such as ENERGY ST AR® Exit Signs, LED exit signs have already captured a significant 

share of this market. With an 80% market share, the installed base of LED 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 of Energy does not have a test procedure for Exit Signs. 

The draft Energy Bill states that the "Test procedures for illuminated exit signs shall be based on 

the test method used under Version 2.0 of the ENERGY STAR® program of the Environmental 

Protection Agency for illuminated exit signs." This test procedure draws on several industry 

standards and methods, including the National Fire Protection Association document 101 Life 

Safety Code and the Underwriters Laboratory 924 Standard for Safety: Emergency Lighting and 

Power Equipment. 

14-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The input power of the 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 battery fully charged before any 

measurements are made. 

The luminance measurement positions are to be measured in accordance with NFP A 101, Life 

Safety Code, figure A-7-10.6.3. The positions where the luminances are to be measured are 

detailed in figure 40.9 of UL 924, Standard for Safety: Emergency Lighting and Power 

Equipment. 

A14.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

The energy savings calculation for exit signs assumes an installed base of 33 million units 

nation-wide, which operate 24 hours per day (NCI, 2003). The energy savings scenario is based 

on the 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 

installed base, wattage, and usage data for exit signs in 2002. The proportions of technologies 

shown in the table for the baseline scenario were held constant over the analysis period. This 

was done to be consistent with the methodologies followed in other priority setting analyses, and 

because even though more than 90% of exit signs sold today are based on LED 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. 

Compact Fluorescent Lamp 4.9 million 17 24 NCI, 2003. 

Incandescent 1.6 million 32 24 NCI, 2003. 

As discussed earlier, approximately eighty percent of the installed base of exit signs have already 

converted to ENERGY STAR® compliant technology. Thus, the energy savings estimate is based 

on converting the remaining 20% of exit signs, which includes both compact fluorescent and 

incandescent technology signs. For this analysis, it was assumed that half of the replacement 

incandescent and compact fluorescent exit signs have two faces and that half have one face, 

meaning the average energy consumption is reduced to 7.5 watts per unit, based on the 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 of 2010-2035, the energy savings totals 0.16 quad (see Table A14-5). 

14-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A14-5: Exit Sign AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates 

Technology/ AEC Annual Energy % Energy Energy Saving 

Standard Level (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, however there are 

considerable regulations associated with dimensions and visibility, operating hours and other 

safety-related attributes. Indicative of this is the fact that the ENERGY STAR® test method for 

qualification includes not just a method for measuring the energy consumption, but also the 

safety, battery life operating hours, and other non-energy related aspects that are critical to the 

safe operation of exit signs (EPA, 2004a). 

The State of California adopted energy standards for exit signs such that input power, luminance 

. contrast, minimum luminance, average luminance and maximum to minimum luminance ratio of 

illuminated exit signs manufactured on or after March 1, 2003 must meet the requirements of the 

ENERGY STAR® program. 

A14.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

There is good availability of ENERGY STAR® compliant products on the market already, and the 

trend is toward LED-based technology due to its savings on both energy and maintenance. 

14-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

CEC, 2003.Califomia Energy Commission, Appliance Efficiency Regulations. P400-03-0I6, 

Sacramento, California. 

EPA, 2004a. ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Exit Signs, Eligibility Criteria; PDF 

posted on the 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 of Feb. 27, 2004. PDF posted on the EPA 

website, available at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod _lists/exit_ signs _prod _list.pdf 

NCI, 2003. Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications, 

prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program by Navigant Consulting, November 2003. 

NEMA, 2003. Email from Kyle Pitsor, Lighting Division Manager, National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association, Roslynn, Virginia. June 2, 2003. 

14-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 15 Lamps, Incandescent Reflector - ER/BR 

A 15.1 Background 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EP ACT 92) established minimum average lamp efficacy 

standards (LPW) for incandescent reflector lamps, although ellipsoidal reflector (ER) and bulge 

reflector (BR) shaped lamps were exempted. 

EP ACT 92 defines an ER incandescent reflector lamp as "a reflector lamp with an elliptical 

section below the bulb's major diameter and above its approximate baseline as shown in Figure 1 

(RE) on page 7 of ANSI C79.l-1994 (see 10 CFR 430.22) and a finished size and shape as 

shown in ANSI C78.21-1989 including the referenced reflective characteristics in part 7 of ANSI 

C78.21-1989." 

EP ACT 92 defines an BR incandescent reflector lamp as "a reflector 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 of ANSI C79.l-1994 (see 10 CFR 430.22). A BR lamp has a lamp wattage of 85 or 

less than 66 and a BR40 lamp has a lamp wattage of 120 or less" (10 CFR 430.2(c)(16)). 

At the time ER/BR lamps were exempted, they constituted a very small percentage of total 

reflector lamp shipments. However, since that time, market forces have expanded the proportion 

of ER/BR lamps so that they now represent more than 50% of all reflector lamp sales in the 

United States. ER/BR lamps have a lower first-cost than regulated reflector lamps, but they have 

higher operating costs because of their lower relative efficacy. 

There are approximately 165 million ER/BR lamps in service in the United States. This estimate 

was prepared by looking at national shipments supplied by the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA), and then deriving a national installed base using estimates of operating 

hours and lamp lifetimes. These reflector lamps (ER/BR) consume approximately 0.166 quad 

per year (see Table A15-1). 

Table Al5-1: ER/BR Background Data 

Data type 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 of ER/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/BR lamps are subject to a halogen standard (approximately 

15-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

18% increase in lamp efficacy). This first scenario is approximately equivalent to the EP ACT 92 

standard for reflector lamps (removing the exemption for ER/BR). The second energy savings 

scenario evaluates a higher efficacy standard in which incandescent reflector lamps shift to the 

halogen infrared reflector (HIR) technology (54% increase in lamp efficacy). This higher 

standard level is commercially available, but lamps incorporating HIR technology are only 

starting to enter the market. Only efficacy levels were used for this energy savings analysis; 

dimming capability or usage 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. 

Incandescent Efficiency 12LPW Efficacy of a 75-watt reflector lamp. 

Halogen Efficiency 14.2 LPW Halogen reflector lamp of equivalent light output. 

Halogen IR Efficiency 18.5 LPW Halogen infrared reflector lamp of equivalent light 

output. 

Maximum Efficiency (Future 18.5 LPW No known method of improving performance of 

Technology) incandescent technology without changing technology 

(e.g., CFL, LED) 

ER/BR lamps are being considered because the volume of these lamps shipped has been 

increasing since the exemption was made in EP ACT 1992. By 2001, 57% of all reflector lamp 

shipments were ER/BR lamps (NEMA, 2003), and these lamps accounted for an estimated 77% 

of all reflector lamp shipments to the residential sector (NEMA, 2003 and NRCan, 2002). All 

major NEMA lamp manufacturers now produce this lamp. Thus, more than half of all reflector 

lamp sales are now exempt from EPACT. 

Shipments of parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) lamps, which are regulated by and are 

compliant with EPACT, showed no growth from 1999-2002. In contrast, shipments of BR lamps 

continue to increase over that 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 that use reflector lamps (e.g., 

recessed ceiling and track lighting), and 2) BR lamps are the lowest first-cost reflector lamp, 

although they do have higher life-cycle costs. Recent shipment information on ER lamps do not 

show an increasing trend like BR, however, the Department is concerned that if standards were 

promulgated for BR lamps and not ER, the ER-shape lamp may expand its market share, as it 

may then become the lowest first-cost reflector lamp. For this reason, the Department is 

considering ER/BR lamps as a group of reflector lamps. 

A15.3 Test Procedure Status 

The Department of Energy has a test procedure for reflector lamps that already covers ER/BR 

lamps (10 CFR 430 Subpart B, Appendix R, 4.3). This test procedure applies to all reflector 

15-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

lamps, and incorporates appropriate test methods promulgated by the Illuminating Engineering 

Society of North America (IESNA) and ANSI. 

A 15.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

The energy savings calculation for ER/BR lamps is based on a calculated installed base of 165 

million lamps, including ER, BR, and bulged parabolic aluminum reflector (BP AR) units. The 

estimated installed base of ER, BR, and BP 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 BPAR lamps 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 incandescent reflector lamps (12 LPW) shift to halogen technology 

(14.2 LPW). This first energy savings scenario is approximately equivalent to the standard 

already in place for regulated reflector lamps. The second energy savings scenario evaluates a 

lamp efficacy standard in which incandescent reflector lamps shift (12 LPW) to the HIR · 

technology (18.5 LPW). 

For the first scenario, the annual energy savings potential is 0.0304 quad, a savings of 18.3%. 

Over the cumulative analysis period 2010-2035, these savings total 0.74 quad. For the second 

scenario, the annual energy savings potential is 0.09 quad, a savings of 54.2%. Over the 

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 of use/day 

Scenario Efficacy use/day Commercial References 

Residential Industrial, Outdoor 

Baseline 12LPW 2.4 9.7 NCI, 2002. 

Scenario I (Halogen, EP ACT 92) 14.2LPW 2.4 9.7 NCI, 2002. 

Scenario 2 (HIR technology) 18.5 LPW 2.4 9.7 NCI, 2002. 

15-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A15-4: ER/BR AEC 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 

A 15.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

Based on the definition of incandescent reflector lamps in EP ACT 92, ER/BR lamps were 

exempted from standards. EP ACT 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 or vibration 

service applications that contains an inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct the light; 

has an R, PAR, or similar bulb shape (excluding ER or BR) with an E26 medium screw base; has 

a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially 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 that has a rated wattage above 

205." (see 10 CFR 430.2(c)(16)). 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set the following standard for incandescent reflector lamps: 

"Each of the following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after November 1, 1995 shall 

meet or exceed lamp efficacy standards shown in the table in this paragraph. 

Table Al5-5: Incandescent Reflector 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 CFR 430.2(n)(2)). 

ER/BR lamps are not part of the draft Energy Bill. If the Energy Bill becomes law, the 

Department must decide whether to continue attempting to cover this product or reprioritize 

ER/BR lamps for a later date. 

15-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 15.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

One issue that has been raised with respect to the regulation of ER/BR lamps is the consumer 

demand for low-first-cost reflector lamps. IfER/BR lamps were forced to comply with the 

EP ACT 92 standard for reflector lamps, consumers may start installing general incandescent 

lamps (A-type) or other shapes of these lamps (e.g., K-type director lamps which do not have 

aluminized reflectors or optics designed for recessed fixtures) in their fixtures designed for 

reflector lamps. This type of substitution 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. 

15-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

NEMA, 2003, ER/BR Reflector Lamp Shipment and Market Share Data, provided by NEMA in 

a meeting with the Department of Energy on April 2003. 

NRCan, 2002, Reflector Study by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for Natural Resources, Canada, 

March2002. 

NCI, 2002, "U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and 

Energy Consumption Estimate", prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of 

Energy. Washington D.C. September 2002. Available at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ documents/pdfs/lmc _vol I_ final. pdf. 

15-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 16 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 of cooling capacity) 

heat, cool, and ventilate commercial buildings. This section focuses on cooling performance. 

The heating function may be 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-fired heat generally has an 

Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) within a couple of percentage points of 80%. 

The most common large unitary A/C configuration is the single package horizontal roof top 

configuration (cooling only or so-called year-round with cooling and heating), but split systems 

are also used in this capacity range. Altogether, the installed base of approximately 421,000 

large unitary air conditioners consumes approximately 0.32 quad for cooling (see Table A16-l). 

Table A16-1: 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/hour to <240kBtu/hour 

AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.12 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 

Installed base, 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/hour to <240kBtu/hour 

AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.08 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 

Installed base, 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/hour to <240kBtu/hour 

AEC, quad (cooling only) 0.32 ADL (1999), ADL (2001); for 1995 

*All AEC values based on fraction of total shipments tonnage, all units ~240kBtu/hour 

Shipments of all 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 of either 1993 or 2002 shipments, shipments grew over that nine-year 

period at a compound annual growth rate of 6.5 %. The often-predicted slow-down to a mature 

industry unit volume growth rate has yet to materialize. 

16-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A16.2 Product Technology Descriptions and Market Presence 

The majority oflarge unitary air conditioners are single package systems. Table Al6-2 

summarizes efficiency levels. 

Table Al6-2: Large Unitary Air Conditioner Technology levels and UEC Values 

EER Btu/Watt-hr 

Technology Level 240-760 >760 Comments/Source 

kB tu/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 that the effects of large 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 of unitary 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 bed truck is a size constraint. The ARI 340/360 test 

procedure also recognizes that larger capacity systems cover more floorspace and require longer 

duct runs. 

16-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table A16-3: Energy Efficiency 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 standard be met, credit points based on 2::20% 

energy savings relative to minimum efficiency standard 

*Minimum EER: Steady-state energy efficiency ratio, as determined by ARI 210/240 or 340/360 

test procedures at ARI Standard Conditions 

**Current DOE/EP Act, as of January, 1992 

***Deduct 0.2 EER from units with heating other than electric resistance heat. 

The CEE Tier I level was discontinued as of 31 December, 2002 "in response to increasing 

Federal standards" (CEE 2003). In 2001, about 43% of units (presumably for all size ranges) 

met or exceeded the Tier 1 level, while 16% of units (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 test procedure, ARI-340/360. The 

increasing external static pressure increases the blower power. Since indoor air moving power 

typically equals 15 to 20% of unit power draw, a 25% to 40% increase in air moving power 

decreases EER by 4 to 8%. This accounts for a large part of the difference between the 

minimum efficiency levels for small and large unitary. 

16-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

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

Standard Cauacitv Ratin2s Minimum External 

kBtu/hour For Tons 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 

The basic options for increasing the full load, standard conditions EER are to specify more 

efficient refrigerant compressors, increase condenser and/or evaporator coil face area and heat 

transfer area, and to specify high efficiency fans, blowers, or motors. Application of one or more 

efficiency measure is a design-specific cost-benefit tradeoff that is constrained by total unit cost 

for each manufacturer, including aforementioned unit size. 

Some large unitary products may also include one or more technologies that can reduce annual 

cooling energy consumption and/or improve seasonal energy efficiency. When the unitary AC 

supplies outdoor ventilation air mandated by ASHRAE Standard 62, energy recovery heat and/or 

enthalpy exchange between the ventilation make up air and exhaust air can reduce energy 

consumption by a significant amount ( 10% or more) under standard test conditions (per 

ANSI/ARI 340/360). This approach can also reduce seasonal energy consumption. Airside 

economizers, which are prescribed by ASHRAE 90.1-1999 under several circumstances, can also 

realize significant reductions in seasonal energy consumption. Variable air volume (VAV) 

operation of the indoor blower, coupled with compressor capacity modulation (typically through 

the use of multiple compressors) is another approach that can appreciably reduce seasonal energy 

consumption. One difficulty in applying VA V is the need to deliver a constant flow of outdoor 

air to comply with ASHRAE 62. On the other hand, if a separate blower brought in the outdoor 

air (and another blower recirculated additional air for cooling and heating 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 of C02 levels in occupied zones serve 

as a proxy (per ASHRAE Standard 62). Thus, DCV can reduce annual HV AC energy 

consumption in buildings by decreasing the quantity of outdoor air that requires conditioning; it 

does not impact unitary equipment efficiency performance (TIAX 2002). 

A16.3 Test Procedure Status 

A DOE energy efficiency test procedure has not been instituted for commercial unitary air 

conditioners. Industry (ANSI/ ARI) test procedures are used instead. 

ASHRAE 90.1 minimum efficiency requirements for large unitary products are specified in 

terms ofEER. The efficiency of large unitary air conditioners is tested according to ANSI/ARI 

standard 340/360. The standard provides for determining the EER at a standard condition, 

analogous to the EER at the DOE A test condition in the NAECA test procedure for residential 

16-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

central air conditioners. It also determines Integrated Part Load Value (IPLV) as an 

approximation of seasonal 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 in ARI 340/360 does not appear to correlate well with actual 

seasonal performance (based on discussions with major unitary equipment manufacturers). The 

ARI 340/360 Engineering Committee is beginning to work on an improved method for 

determining part-load performance and seasonal energy consumption. Furthermore, ARI 

340/360 does not account for the seasonal energy impact ofVAV, DCV, or economizers on 

seasonal energy use. It also does not consider the energy performance of efficient methods of 

preconditioning outdoor ventilation air (e.g., heat or enthalpy recovery exchange). ASHRAE 

guideline V, however, addresses this configuration. 

A 16.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

All energy savings calculations assume that the entire installed base of large 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 New Device (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 EER products are generally 

not available at the upper end of the 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 of all large unitary air conditioners are produced by 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 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EP Act) took effect. Residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps have been subject to minimum SEER and HSPF standards since 

1990. Standard levels were increased in 1993 and in 2004 with the end of the rulemaking 

litigation on residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

16-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) first established minimum efficiency levels for 

commercial unitary 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 equipment with capacity ::?:65 kBtu/hr and <240kBtu/hr is considering 

whether to adopt 90 .1-1999 efficiency levels or to set more stringent levels. 

Several states are considering setting standards at the state level. To avoid having to manage 

multiple state-level standards, ARI is developing a proposal for a federal performance standard. 

More information should be available in early April on the status of ARI's proposal. 

A16.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

As discussed in Section A16.2 above, space constraints (for both 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 unit physical size, so unit physical 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. 

16-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

ADL, 1999, "Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HV AC Systems -

Volume II: Thermal Distribution, Auxiliary Equipment, and Ventilation'', Final Report by Arthur 

D. Little, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and 

Community Programs, October. Available at: 

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/comhvac.pdf. 

ADL, 2001, "Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HV AC Systems -

Volume I: Chillers, Refrigerant Compressors, and Heating Systems", Final Report by Arthur D. 

Little, Inc.to US Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community 

Programs, April. Available at: 

http ://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/ documents/pdfs/hvacvolume 1 finalreport.pdf. 

ARI, 2000, ARI Standard 3401360, 2000, Standard for Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute: 

Arlington, VA. 

ARI, 2003, "Guideline V: 2003 Guideline for Calculating the Efficiency of Energy Recovery 

Ventilation and Its Effect on the Efficiency and Sizing of Building HVAC Systems," The AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute: Arlington, VA. 

ASHRAE, 1989, ASHRAEIIES Standard 90.1-1989, Energy Efficient Design of New Buildings 

Except New Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Press: Atlanta, GA. 

ASHRAE, 1989, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 -1999, Energy Efficient Design of New 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Press: Atlanta, GA. 

Carrier, 2004, Telephone conversation between Dick Lord of Carrier and Bob 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/C03e7o 141/ehb _lcalcc _ 13to30 _ 0309.pdf 

16-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

TIAX, 2002, "Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HV AC Systems -

Volume III: Energy Savings Potential," Final Report by TIAX LLC to US Department of 

Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, July. Available at: 

http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/ documents/pdfs/hvacvolume3 finalreport.pdf . 

TIAX, 2003, "Energy Efficient Rooftop Air-Conditioner-Design, Development and Field 

Testing'', Final Technical Report by TIAX LLC to US Department of Energy, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, DOE Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC26-99FT40640, June. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 200240, "Current Industrial Reports -Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and 

Warm Air Heating 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." 

16-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 17 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 air handler for the air 

conditioner. The electricity use for non-weatherized furnaces is shown in Table Al 7-1. Since 

one circulating air blower is included in every residential furnace, the installed base and 

equipment lifetime are the same as for residential furnaces. 

Table Al7-1: Residential Furnace Fan Background Data 

Datil type 

Installed Base, millions 48.9 

Annual Shipments, millions 

3.20 

3.38 (year 2006 forecast) 

Equipment Lifetime, years 20 

AEC,quad 0.58 

Based on historical shipments and 

equipment lifetime of 20 years 

(Kendall 2002) 

(Appliance 2004) 

(Appliance 2004) 

Based on installed based and stock annual 

energy use 

1 Installed base, annual shipment, and AEC values are for the year 2002 except where noted. 

A17.2 Product Technology Description and Market Presence 

The baseline design for the furnace circulating-air blower is a centrifugal design with a forwardcurved impellor in a sheet metal scroll powered by a permanent split capacitor (PSC) induction 

motor. The forward-curved impellor is made of stamped sheet metal. The air handlers are sized 

to move air for the air conditioner with which the furnace is installed. 

Nominal motor sizes are less than 1 horsepower (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 in the 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. For furnace operation, a lower motor setting is 

used. About 95 percent of furnaces are sold with a PSC motor and centrifugal-type blower. The 

combined efficiency of these motor and blowers 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 of these motors are used in as much as 20 percent of 

condensing furnaces. The primary selling point is the extra consumer utility of being able to 

operate the furnace air handler at a reduced airflow, thereby improving consumer comfort and 

reducing noise. This motor is currently used with standard forward-curved centrifugal blowers. 

17-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

With DOE assistance, General Electric has developed a prototype backward inclined blower with 

a smaller BPM motor. The different geometry of this blower requires it to operate at a higher 

speed, but allows the motor to be smaller in size. Improvements to the aerodynamics of the 

blower inlet cone were also included. This prototype blower has about double the efficiency of 

the baseline blower and blower-motor design. The impellor is likely to be more expensive, 

because it is more difficult to make, but the motor will likely be less expensive than current BPM 

motor designs because it is smaller. Table Al 7-2 provides the UEC values corresponding to the 

furnace fans discussed above. 

Table A17-2: Residential Furnace Fan 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 on metered 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 Al 7-3 provides the change in retail price for the two BPM designs listed in Table Al 7-2. 

The BPM retail price is based on a cost estimate from the Sachs and Smith (Sachs and Smith 

2003) multiplied by a manufacturer cost-to-retail price markup estimated by DOE (DOE 2002). 

The additional price of the backward-inclined blower is based on a DOE estimate for the blower 

alone (DOE 2002). 

Table A17-3: Residential Furnace Fan Retail Prices 

Technology Level 

PSC motor, forward-curved blower 

BPM motor, forward-curved blower 

BPM motor, backward-inclined 

blower 

>J)elta.Retail Price 

. ($2002) 

NA 

$174 

$275 

NA 

Manufacturer cost estimated by Sachs and 

Smith multiplied by a retail price markup 

estimated by DOE (Sachs and Smith 

2003; DOE 2002) 

Motor same as above. Blower price from 

DOE (DOE 2002) 

17-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A17.3 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 it includes electricity from other furnace components as well. EAE is measured during 

furnace testing. It does not measure air-handling performance and it does not include the impact 

of standby power or air handler operation during air conditioning. 

The Air Movement and Control Association International (AMCA) and ASHRAE have 

developed Laboratory Methods for Testing Fans for Aerodynamic Performance Rating that could 

be adapted for use as the basis of a test for furnace air handler efficiency (ANSI/ AMCA 210-99; 

ANSI/ASHRAE 51-1999). 

A17.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

Table Al 7-4 presents the energy savings potential for the efficiency levels specified in Table 

Al 7-2. Also provided in Table Al 7-4 is the economic benefit or burden to consumers for each 

efficiency level taking into account both utility bill savings and the increased equipment costs. 

Consumer national utility bill savings for a given year are derived by taking the national annual 

energy savings and multiplying it by the corresponding electricity price from the DOE-Energy 

Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (DOE 2004). Consumer national 

equipment cost increases are derived by taking the per unit change in equipment 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 net benefit or burden being the difference 

between the two values.41 

41 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 

17-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al 7-4: Residential Furnace Fan Potential Energy Savings and Economic Impact Estimates 

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 of furnaces are regulated for energy efficiency under NAECA. Furnace 

manufacturers currently measure and publish the airflow performance of furnaces 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 considered by Congress. If approved and enacted, DOE would be allowed to regulate the 

electricity consumption of furnace fans. 

DOE has not adopted a test procedure to rate the efficiency of residential furnace fans. This will 

have to be done before any standards are adopted. The current test procedure includes, but 

doesn't require 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. It does not measure air-handling performance and it does not include the impact of 

standby power or air handler operation during air conditioning. 

The type of motor-blower combinations used in residential furnaces fans is also used in heat 

pumps. IfDOE decides to pursue the regulation of furnace fan efficiency, the Department will 

need to determine if heat pump air handlers are also covered under residential furnace fans. 

Finally, as noted earlier, the backward-inclined blower is a prototype design. Thus, the energy 

and cost impacts may change significantly ifthe blower goes into mass production. The 

effectiveness of backward-inclined blowers has been confirmed through their use in large 

commercial equipment. But until backward-inclined blowers have been mass-produced for 

residential applications, their cost and energy impacts will be to some degree uncertain. 

17-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

Appliance Magazine. 2004. "Healthy Times Ahead." January, 2004. 

Kendall, Mark. 2002. Appendix A- Furnace Shipments; Appendix B - Boiler. Comment# 24 

submitted to Docket Number: EE-RM/STD-01-350 Shipments. Arlington, VA: GAMA. 

Pigg, Scott. 2003. "Electricity Use by New Furnaces: A Wisconsin Field Study, Appendices." 

Madison: Energy Center of Wisconsin. 

Sachs, H.M. and S. Smith. 2003. "Saving Energy with Efficient Residential Furnace Air 

Handlers: A Status Report and Program Recommendations," American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), Washington DC A033, April 2003. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technology Program, "Engineering Analysis, Furnaces and Boilers Standards 

Rulemaking, Draft Report for Review". September 19, 2002. 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance _ standards/residential/pdfs/furnace _engineering 

_analysis.pdf 

U.S. Department of Energy (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 Handler Efficiency in 

Residential HV AC Applications. LBNL 53606. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. 

17-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A18 Torchieres 

A 18.1 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 popular because of their function -

illuminating a large space from one fixture, often with an adjustable lighting level. Newer living 

spaces typically require 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 built with switched electrical outlets rather than 

hard-wired. fixtures because builders allocate less than 1 % of their construction budget to 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 of energy per year (see Table Al8-1). Total annual shipments oftorchieres are 

approximately 12 million units, 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 

Data type 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 and the level in the pending federal energy bill) and one 

limiting the wattage to 70 watts per fixture, approximately equivalent to the ENERGY STAR® 

standard (see Table Al 8-2). Only wattage levels were considered; dimming capability or usage 

was not considered. 

18-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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. 

Minimum Efficiency 190 Draft Energy Bill Standard; CEC maximum effective 

March 1, 2003. 

Incandescent 225 Ecos Consulting, 2003. 

Best Available 55 Assume light output of energy star light source held constant with 

Efficiency 225 W incandescent (3500 lumens) 

(CFL light source) 

ENERGY STAR® 70 Assume light output of CFL 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 most popular units 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 cost between $40 and 

$70. Operating costs tend to be about $18 less per year for operating a CFL torchiere, with a 

simple payback period.ofbetween 1.7 to 2.2 years. However, the majority of the 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% of the market. In 2003, CFL torchieres 

represented approximately 7% of the units shipped (Ecos Consulting, 2003). 

To promote the use of CFL torchieres, several utilities and university campuses have sponsored 

trade-in programs, where people can swap their halogen 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 of the most efficient linear fluorescent tube currently available, is not commercially 

available in torchiere form at this time. 

Currently, torchieres do not have a national minimum efficiency standard, but they 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 shorter that consume 30 or more watts. The 60 LPW requirement translates to an allowed 

wattage of approximately 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 of maximum light output, or be switchable to three levels of brightness, not 

including the off position (DOE & EPA, 2001). 

18-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table 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 

Power factor 2':0.5 

Lamp current crest factor '.Sl.7 per ANSI C82.11-5.6.1 

Lamp color rendering CRI 2': 80 for CFLs 

Dimming Torchiere style portable fixtures shall be dimmable from 100% to 

30% or less of maximum light output, or be switchable to three 

levels of brightness, not including the off position. 

Safety Must comply with NFPA 70, NEC 

Other ANSI and UL standards apply to specific fixture types 

Despite concerted marketing efforts and more than 30 different compliant models for consumers 

to choose from, ENERGY STAR® torchieres still represent just 7% of the units shipped (Ecos 

Consulting, 2003). In fact, between 2001 and 2003, estimates oftorchiere sales increased while 

the units sold and total shipment percentage of ENERGY ST AR® CFL torchieres declined. 

Generally, consumers have not responded to the marketing efforts, bulk procurements, subsidies 

and awareness raising initiatives conducted to increase the market share of Energy Star 

torchieres. 

A18.3 Test Procedure Status 

The Department does not presently have a test procedure for measuring the energy consumption 

of torchiere fixtures. However, industry-recognized testing procedures published by !ESNA are 

available which provide standardized test methods by which engineers can measure the energy 

consumption and light output of a torchiere. 

This section is divided into three parts, each summarizing the test method by which torchieres 

are evaluated in respective programs. The three sections are: (A) the draft Energy Bill; (B) the 

California Energy Commission standard; and (C) the ENERGY STAR®Torchiere program. 

A) Draft Energy Bill 

In the event that Congress passes the draft Energy Bill, a national standard will be enacted for 

torchieres manufactured on or after January 1, 2005 that "(1) Shall consume not more than 190 

watts of power; and (2) Shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 

watts." 

The !ESNA has a test method that can be used to measure the power consumption of a fixture 

(!ESNA Guide for the Selection, Care, and Use of Electrical Instruments in the Photometric 

Laboratory; LM-28-98), addressing the first criterion, i.e., that the torchiere consume not more 

than 190 watts of power. 

18-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

The second criterion - that the torchiere shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total 

more than 190 watts - requires interpretation in order to develop an appropriate test method. 

There are two possible interpretations of this statement. First, it could be interpreted to mean the 

luminaire was not originally designed to operate at more than 190 watts. This would require an 

inspection of the complete torchiere and lamp, as sold, to ascertain that the rated lamp wattage 

totals 190 watts or less. Second, a stricter interpretation of this clause would mean that the 

luminaire is not capable of operating at more than 190 watts. In order to ascertain whether a 

luminaire is capable of operating 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 of operating"), or 

could operate, but only consuming 190 watts instead of the rated wattage of the 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 of California recently passed an energy consumption standard for torchieres. 

Amending the California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 

1605.3 (n), California mandated that torchieres manufactured on or after March 1, 2003 shall not 

consume more than 190 watts and shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more 

than 190 watts. This standard does not provide or specify a test procedure, as it was not 

recognized as being necessary. Rated out-of-the-box wattage is the metric by which regulators 

determine compliance. 

CJ The ENERGY STAR® Torchiere Program 

The ENERGY STAR® program includes torchieres in its portfolio of products. Rather than basing 

eligibility on a wattage limit, the Energy Star program sets a minimum efficacy (lumens of light 

produced per watt of energy consumed) requirement. The EPA has developed a test procedure 

by which 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 of other light sources that could meet the minimum efficacy such as metal halide highintensity discharge lamps. Also, the test procedure measures the efficacy of the source rather 

than overall system (fixture) efficacy. Expanding the test procedure to incorporate fixture optics 

and thus measure the overall light output and performance of the luminaire may be 

advantageous. 

The IESNA publishes methods for photometric testing of luminaires (rather than simply light 

sources) that can be used to determine torchiere system performance. For testing indoor 

luminaires using HID or incandescent filament lamps, the IESNA publishes LM-46-98. For 

indoor fluorescent luminaires, the IESNA publishes LM-41. These two publications can be 

applied to torchieres on the market today, and could form the basis of a test procedure that can be 

applied to aHtorchieres, irrespective of the light source used by the luminaire. 

18-4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 18.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

The energy savings calculation for torchieres assumes an installed base of 69 million torchieres, 

including halogen, incandescent and compact fluorescent units. The average wattage, weighted 

by proportion of the installed base, 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 that those 

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 consistent units, this standard has been 

approximated as an energy consumption limit of 70 watts (see Table A18-4). 

In the first scenario, energy savings are calculated under the assumption that all torchieres 

consume less than 190 watts. Thus, all shipments of torchieres that had been greater than 190 

watts would become 190 watts. This first scenario approximates the energy savings potential of 

the torchiere standard in the draft Energy Bill. In the second scenario, it was assumed that 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 per watt for torchieres. The typical source light output of a 225 incandescent 

torchiere is approximately 3200 lumens. The typical source light output of a 300 watt halogen 

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). At the ENERGY STAR® standard of 60 lurnens per watt, 4300 lurnens 

equates to 71.7 watts, or rounded down to 70 watts. 

Table A18-4: Torchiere Wattage 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. 

For the potential energy saving estimate calculation, a slight modification to the baseline 

torchiere was made. In Table A18-4, the weighted average installed base of torchiere lamps is 

reported as 253 watts. This represents approximately 50 percent of the installed base being 

halogen torchieres (300 watts), 44 percent being incandescent torchieres (225 watts) and 6 

percent being compact fluorescent torchieres (70 watts). However, it is clear that shipments in 

2003 were dominated by incandescent torchieres, and halogen torchieres have been experiencing 

decreasing proportions of shipments ever since the late 1990' s, when several fires caused by the 

halogen fixtures raised concern among consumers. 

In 2003, the proportional breakdown oftorchieres shipped was approximately 11 percent 

halogen (300 watts), 82 percent incandescent (225 watts) and 7 percent compact fluorescent (70 

18-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

watts). This 2003 shipment-weighted average wattage corresponds to an average baseline 

wattage torchiere of 222 watts, approximately 12 percent lower than the 253 watts for the 

installed base weighted average wattage. Due to the relatively short operating lives of these 

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 product using the 

2003 shipment-weighted average wattage for torchieres. The Department believes that this 

adjustment to the baseline would give a more accurate estimate of the energy savings potential, 

as it more accurately reflects the dynamic qualities of today's torchiere market. 

Table A18-5: Torchieres AEC and Potential Energy Saving Estimates 

Technology/ AEC Annual Energy %Energy Energy Saving 

Standard Level (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 

A 18.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

The State of California passed an energy consumption standard for torchieres that took effect 

recently. Amending the California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 

4, Section 1605.3 (n), California mandated that torchieres manufactured on or after March 1, 

2003 shall not consume more than 190 watts and shall not be capable of operating 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. Many universities have 

also banned halogen torchieres from dormitories for safety reasons (LBNL, 1999). 

A 18.6 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 of CFL light sources, specifically 

with respect to light quality, e.g., color rendering index (CRI). CRI is a measure of the quality of 

18-6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

color 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 of approximately 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 not more than 190 

watts of power; and (2) Shall not be capable of operating with lamps that total more than 190 

watts." Issues related to this national standard have been raised, including the consideration of 

how to interpret and test the second clause of the standard. 

42 The ENERGY ST AR® program mandates a minimum CRI of 80 for compact fluorescent lamps. 

18-7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

DOE, 2002, "The FY 2003 Priority-Setting Summary Report and Actions Proposed," Appliance 

Standards Program of the Department of Energy, August 22, 2002. 

Ecos Consulting, 2003. Estimated Inventory ofTorchiere Lamps, prepared for the Department 

of Energy, Ecos Consulting, March 2003. 

DOE & EPA, 2001, "ENERGY STAR Program 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 on March 30, 2004 at http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/Ol/010709.html 

LBNL, 1998, "Energy Efficient Torchieres: From the 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. 

18-8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

A 19 Traffic Signal Modules 

A 19.1 Background 

Traffic signals are illuminated traffic control devices by which people are warned or directed to 

take a specific action. Traffic modules (or "balls") typically come in eight- and twelve-inch 

diameter round signals, consisting of a light source and a lens. These modules communicate 

movement messages (stop, caution or prepare to stop, and go) to drivers through red, yellow, and 

green light signals. 

Traffic signals are an integral part of the transportation system in the United States, safely 

regulating the movement of vehicles. In the United States, there are approximately 312,500 

signalized intersections (NCI, 2003). At each intersection, up to three types of traffic signals, 

including the three-colored ball, arrow, and bi-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 of colored 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 per year (see Table A19-1). 

Table Al9-1: Traffic Signals Background Data 

Data type 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 of traffic signals 

(incandescent and LED). 

19-1 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al9-2: Traffic Signal Technology Levels and Wattage Values 

Technolo2y Level Watta2e Comments/Source 

Average energy consumption 95.2 Stock weighted average wattage, NCI, 2003. 

of installed base (watts) 

Typical New (LED) 9.6 Assume LED. Estimated average. NCI, 2003. 

Minimum Efficiency None, No national energy standard, however California has 

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. 

Best Available Efficiency 9.6 Assume LED, installed base weighted average 

(LED light source) 

ENERGY STAR® Efficiency Variable See Table Al9-3 

Maximum Efficiency (Future 5.0 Assume doubling of LED system efficiency by 2020, 

Technology) relative to today's LED efficiencies (NCI, 2003). 

LEDs are emerging as the technology of choice for traffic and pedestrian control signals. 

Throughout the United States, municipalities are retrofitting and installing LED technology in 

these applications. These systems have a higher first-cost, however the 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 year period, the cost of ownership of red LED 

traffic signals is about one-third that of incandescent traffic signal (CEE, 2002). 

Currently, traffic signals do not have a national minimum efficiency standard, but they 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 if they meet Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Vehicle 

Traffic Control Signal Heads Part 1 or 2 (or other relevant future ITE specification), as well as 

consuming energy at or below the standards in Table A19-3. (EPA, 2004) 

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

Module Type Maximum Wattage Nominal Wattage 

(at74°C) (at 25°C) 

12 inch Red Ball 17 watts 11 watts 

8 inch Red Ball 13 watts 8 watts 

12 inch Red Arrow 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 

19-2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Due to their energy saving benefits and reduced maintenance costs of LEDs, as well as market 

transformation programs highlighting these advantages, approximately 30-33% of the traffic 

signal market has already moved to LEDs. Red signal heads have seen the highest level of 

market penetration at 39%, while green signal heads are approximately 29% LED. Because of 

their low duty-cycle, yellow LED traffic signals have a much longer payback period. This, 

coupled with the stringent luminosity specifications for yellow LED signals results in a low 

market penetration, assumed to be around 2% (NCI, 2003). 

A19.3 Test Procedure Status 

The draft Energy Bill states: "Test procedures for traffic signal modules shall be based on the test 

method used under the ENERGY STAR® program of the Environmental Protection Agency for 

traffic signal modules, as in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph." The ENERGY 

ST AR® program for traffic signals specification states that "The products must meet the minimum 

performance requirements of the relevant ITE specification, and be tested under the conditions 

presented in Section 6.4.2 of the Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads, Part 2." 

.A19.4 Energy Savings Estimates and Calculations 

The energy savings calculation for traffic signal modules assumes an installed base of 15.3 

million units (NCI, 2003). The energy savings estimate is based on the standard contained in the 

draft Energy Bill, which establishes an ENERGY STAR® efficiency standard. Thus, the remaining 

stock of non-LED traffic signals convert to ENERGY STAR® compliant LED modules. Although 

the Energy Star specifications allow for other products 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 installed base, wattage, and usage data for 

traffic signals in 2002 (NCI, 2003). 

Table Al9-4: Traffic Signals Installed Base, Wattage, and Usage Data 

Equipment Type Installed Stock Average 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. 

IW alking Man White 1,875,000 97 7.4 NCI, 2003. 

IHand Orange 1,875,000 97 7.4 NCI, 2003. 

*Note: Stock Average Wattage represents the weighted average wattage of the installed base of incandescent and 

LED traffic and pedestrian control signal heads. 

19-3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

Table Al9-5: 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. Over the time period 2010-2035 the cumulative primary energy savings is more 

than half a quad, 0.66 quad (see Table Al 9-5). 

A 19.5 Regulatory Actions and Cumulative Burden 

Traffic signals are not been subject to national regulation for energy efficiency. However, traffic 

signals are included in the draft Energy Bill currently being considered in Congress. If the 

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 used under 

the ENERGY STAR® program of the Environmental Protection Agency for traffic signals, as in 

effect on the date of enactment of this subsection, and shall be installed with compatible, 

electrically connected signal control interface devices and conflict monitoring systems." 

The State of California considered energy efficiency standards for traffic signals in its proposed 

revisions to California Code of Regulations (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 after March 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 Energy Efficiency 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

(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 greater than 25 

watts. 

The California standard differs from the ENERGY ST AR® standard in two 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 common with ENERGY STAR® have 

identical standard levels. 

A 19.6 Issues Impacting Potential Energy Efficiency Standards 

Commercial products from a range of manufacturers 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 not be an 

accurate representation of today's traffic signal market. In the late 1990's, a few municipalities 

initiated programs to gradually replace incandescent traffic signals with LEDs as their capital 

budgets allowed. As LED signal heads became more affordable and the EPA started its ENERGY 

STAR® awareness program, more and more municipalities launched programs to upgrade their 

traffic signals. Municipalities are motivated by both the energy and the maintenance and labor 

savings associated with LED signals. The installed-base-weighted average percentage of LED 

signal heads in the United States is 27%. If this number were increased to 40%, the energy 

savings over the 2010-2035 analysis period would be reduced approximately 23%, to 0.50 quad 

of savings. 

19-5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.4

References 

CEC, 2002. California Energy Commission Express Terms (15-day language) and Notice of 

Adoption Hearing for Proposed Amendments to California Code of Regulations, Title 20: 

Division 2, Chapter 4: Energy Conservation, Article 4: Appliance Efficiency Regulatoins, 

Sections 1601-1608 and California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 6, Subchapter 2: Building 

Standards, Sections 110-111: Docket No. 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 of the 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 Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications, 

prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program by Navigant Consulting, November 2003. 

19-6