## Appliance Standards Program

The FY 2003 Priority

Setting Summary Report and Actions Proposed

Date: August 22

, 2002

## Table of Contents

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ .............................. iv
1 Energy Conservation Program

– P roduct Prioritization Process

....... 1

- 1
1.1 Background on Appliance Standards Program

................................ ........... 1

- 1
1.2 DOE Authority to Add Products

................................ ................................ 1

- 2
1.2.1 Consumer Products

................................ ................................ .................... 1

- 3
1.2.2 Commercial Products

................................ ................................ ................. 1

- 5
1.2.2.1 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Consumer

Products

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 5
1.2.2.2 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Commercial

Produ cts

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 7
1.2.3 Potential Impact of Pending Legislation

................................ .................... 1

- 9
1.3 The Product Prioritization Process

................................ ........................... 1

- 10
1.3.1 Annual Priority

- Setting Analysis and Development of Prioritie s List

..... 1

- 10
1.3.2 Process to Expand the Program.

................................ .............................. 1

- 11
1.4 Refining the Prioritization Process

–September 11, 2001 Meeting

........ 1

- 12
1.5 Refining the Priority Products List

–November 6, 2001, Meeting

.......... 1

- 14
2 General Comments on the Prioritization Process

............................... 2

- 1
2.1 General Comments on the DOE Program

................................ .................. 2

- 1
2.2 Effects on Consumers

................................ ................................ ................. 2

- 2
2.3 Ranking and Prioritization

................................ ................................ .......... 2

- 3
2.4 Overall Process and Methodology

................................ .............................. 2

- 5
2.5 Technology Changeover, Product Convergence, and Innovation

.............. 2

- 6
2.6 Volun tary or Other Programs

................................ ................................ ..... 2

- 6
2.7 Setting Standards at ASHRAE Levels

................................ ....................... 2

- 6
2.8 One Watt Standby Level

................................ ................................ ............ 2

- 7
2.9 NAECA’s 100 kWh Annual Energy Usage Requirement

.......................... 2

- 7
3 Comments on the Products under Existing Regulation: Product

specific Feedback Received and DOE Response

................................ 3

- 1
3.1 Dishwashers

................................ ................................ ................................ 3

- 1
3.2 Fluorescent Lamps

................................ ................................ ...................... 3

- 2
3.3 High Intensity Discharge Lamps

................................ ................................ 3

- 3
3.4 Residential Clothes Dryers

................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 4
3.5 Incandescent General Service Lamps

................................ ......................... 3

- 5
3.6 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

................................ ................................ ... 3

- 6
4 Comments on the New Products under Consideration for Regulation:

Product

- specific Feedback Received and DOE Response

................. 4

- 1
4.1 Torchieres

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

- 1
4.2 Ceiling Fans

................................ ................................ ................................ 4

- 2
4.3 Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnaces

................................ .................. 4

- 4
4.4 Commercial Refrigeration

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 5
4.4.1 Walk

- in Coolers, Freezers, and Combinations

................................ .......... 4

- 5
4.4.2 Supermarket R efrigeration Systems

................................ ........................... 4

- 6

## Table of Contents (continued)

ii

4.4.3 Water Coolers

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

- 7
4.4.4 Ice Machines

................................ ................................ ............................... 4

- 8
4.4.5 Reach

- in Freezers and Reach

- in Refrigerators

................................ .......... 4

- 9
4.4.6 Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

................................ .... 4

- 10
4.5 General Comments on Consumer Electronics

................................ .......... 4

- 12
4.5.1 RACK/Component Audio

................................ ................................ .......... 4

- 13
4.5.2 Compact Audio

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 15
4.5.3 Monitors

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

- 15
4.5.4 Desktop Personal Computers

................................ ................................ ... 4

- 16
4.5.5 Televisions

................................ ................................ ................................ 4

- 18
4.5.6 Set

- top Boxes

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 19
5 Products Not Considered

................................ ................................ ...... 5

- 1
5.1 General Comments

................................ ................................ ..................... 5

- 1
5.2 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

.............................. 5

- 1
5.3 Ground Source Heat Pumps

................................ ................................ ....... 5

- 2
5.4 Cooking Product s

................................ ................................ ....................... 5

- 2
5.5 Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

.............................. 5

- 3
5.6 Residential Refrigerators and Freezers

................................ ....................... 5

- 4
5.7 Residential Furnaces and Boilers

................................ ............................... 5

- 4
5.8 Commercial Boilers

................................ ................................ .................... 5

- 4
5.9 Commercial Laundry

................................ ................................ .................. 5

- 5
5.10 Oil Unit Heaters

................................ ................................ .......................... 5

- 7
5.11 Exit Signs

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

- 7
5.12 Traffic Signals

................................ ................................ ............................ 5

- 7
5.13 Dehumidifiers

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

- 8
5.14 Copy Machines

................................ ................................ ........................... 5

- 8
5.15 Fax Machines

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

- 8
5.16 Laser Printers

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

- 9
5.17 Low

- End Servers , Commercial

................................ ................................ .. 5

- 9
5.18 Wine Chillers

................................ ................................ .............................. 5

- 9
5.19 Power Supplies and Battery Chargers

................................ ...................... 5

- 10
5.20 Video Cassette Recorders

................................ ................................ ......... 5

- 10
6 Summary of Propos ed Actions

................................ ............................. 6

- 1

References .....................................................................................R

–1 Appendix A: Technical Support Document (TSD).......................................A

- 1 Appendix B: Data Sheets for Existing Products........................................... B

–1 Appendix C: Data Sheets for New Products............................................. C

–1iii

Table 1

- 1: Timeline of the Prioritization Process

................................ ....................... 1

- 11
Table 1

- 2: Initial List of Potential New Products

................................ ....................... 1

- 12
Table 1

- 3: Existing Covered Products

................................ ................................ ........ 1

- 13
Table 1

- 4: Product Prioritization Criteria

................................ ................................ ... 1

- 13
Table 1

- 5: Information Contained in the Preliminary Data Sheets

............................. 1

- 14
Table 1

- 6: Existing Products with High and Medium Priority

–Standards and

Determinations

................................ ................................ ......................... 1

- 15
Table 1

- 7: Existing Products with High and Medium Priority

–Test Procedures

..... 1

- 15
Table 1

- 8: Products with a Maximum Energy Savings Po tential Exceeding One Quad

(Includes New and Existing Products)

................................ ..................... 1

- 15
Table 1

- 9: Products with Energy Savings Potential under One Quad (Includes New and

Existing Products)

................................ ................................ .................... 1

- 16
Table 1

- 10: Refined list of Products Selected for Further Consideration

................... 1

- 17
Table 3

- 1: Categorization of Energy Savings Potential (for 2008

- 2030 Period)

.......... 3

- 1
Table 6

- 1: Summary of Proposed Actions for Currently Regu lated Products under

Consideration

................................ ................................ .............................. 6

- 1
Table 6

- 2: Revised Priorities

- Standards and Determination

................................ ........ 6

- 3
Table 6

- 3: Revised Priorities

–Test Procedures. ........................................... 6

- 3
Table 6

- 4: Summary of

Proposed Actions for New Products under Consideration

..... 6

- 4iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In May 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD Group) reported a National Energy Policy to the President. One of the re commendations called for the President to direct the Secretary of Energy to take steps to improve the energy efficiency of appliances. The recommendation included supporting the existing appliance standards program, setting higher standards and expanding the scope of the program to include additional products where technologically feasible and economically justified.

In response, the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) extended the scope of its annual priority

- setting activities and held two informa l public meetings. These meetings provided a forum for the Department and stakeholders to discuss the priorities of the existing program and any possible expansion of the scope of the program to include additional consumer products and commercial and indu strial equipment. The Department received suggestions on the criteria it should use to reach decisions on these issues and on the factors, and data and analysis methods that might be used by DOE in its decision making process. The Department also obtained product

- specific
recommendations for further actions.

As a result of the priority

- setting activities, the Department plans to take the following actions:

1. Assess whether to class the following as “covered products:

a. Additional New Consumer Products: In the course of this activity the Department considered which consumer products could be added to the program. The Department found that substantial energy savings could be achieved through wider use of certain types of incandescent reflector lamps (e.g. ER and BR), torchieres and ceiling fans that are more energy efficient than those which now dominate the marketplace. These products are not currently covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), and we intend to assess whether to classify th em as “covered products” under Section 322 of the statute. If we do classify them as covered products, we would then review and decide what if any action to take with respect to adoption of test procedures and energy conservation standards for any product that we classify as covered. In addition, the Department plans to support energy efficiency for torchieres, ceiling fans, and consumer electronics through ENERGY STAR  initiatives

b. Additional New Commercial and Industrial Equipment : The Department
fou nd that substantial energy savings could be achieved through wider use of some categories of commercial refrigeration equipment (reach

- inv freezers and reach

- in refrigerators; vending machines and beverage merchandisers), that are more energy efficient than those which now predominate in the marketplace. Currently, EPCA prescribes no efficiency requirements for these products, and we intend to examine covering them under provisions of the statute that concern commercial products. If we do classify commerci al refrigeration equipment as covered under the statute, we would then review and decide what if any action to take with respect to adoption of test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards for such products covered.

2. Existing A

ppliance Standards : As a result of the expanded priority

- setting activity, the Department is proposing to change the priority status of several products covered under existing regulations.

a. ASHRAE Products: In the January 2001 Final Rule for efficiency standards for commercial heating, air conditioning and water heating products, the Department announced its decision to consider more stringent standards than those adopted by ASHRAE for several categories of commercial products. The Department places a high priority on reassessing the energy savings potential for a subset of those product categories, specifically, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning (PTACs),
Commercial Oil

- and Gas

- fired boilers, and tankless instantaneous water
heaters. If appropriable, the Department will reconsider adopting the ASHRAE standards levels for these products.

In the January 2001 Final Rule, the Department identified four categories of three

- phase air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities less then 65 kBtu/h that may well have significant energy savings. Since these products were not considered by ASHRAE at the time, DOE took no action. During the 2002 summer meeting, ASHRAE proposed including these products at a 12 SEER level. The department plans to place these

p roducts on high priority once ASHRAE has taken final action.

b. High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps

– Determination: Given their high potential energy savings, the Department proposes to move HID lamps from low to high priority for standards determination.

c. Dishwasher Standards: The Department proposes to promote dishwashers from low to medium priority for standards.

d. Small Motor Standards: The Small Electric Motors determination process is continuing and remains a high priority.1

- 1 1 Energy Conservation Progr am

– Product Prioritization Process

The Department of Energy (referred to herein as DOE or the Department), and particularly the appliance standards program, plays a distinct role in the National Energy Policy of the current administration, as indicated in the “Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group”. 1 Specifically, the Energy Policy Development Group recommends that the Department of Energy explore ways of promoting energy efficiency, including expanding the Appliance Standard Program a nd improving the energy efficiency of appliances.

Thus tasked by the President, the Department has expanded the annual priority setting process for the appliance standards program to include an examination of additional products that could be included in the program.

1.1 Background on Appliance Standards Program

The Department of Energy's Appliance Standards Program is conducted pursuant to Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). (Pub. L. 94

- 163). In 1987, EPCA w as amended to establish national efficiency standards for certain appliances by law and a schedule for DOE to conduct rulemakings to periodically review and update these standards. (National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, or NAECA, Pub. L. 100

- 12). T he products covered by these standards included refrigerators and freezers, room air conditioners, central air conditioners and heat pumps, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, direct heating equipment, ranges and ovens, and po ol heaters. Fluorescent lamp ballasts were added by an amendment in 1988. In conducting the rulemakings to update the standards, the Secretary of Energy is to set standards at levels that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is techn ologically feasible and economically justified.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) further amended EPCA to expand the coverage of the standards program to include certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial heating and air

- conditi oning equipment, water heaters, certain incandescent and fluorescent lamps, distribution transformers, and electric motors. (Pub. L.102

- 486). EPAct established maximum water flow

- rate requirements for certain plumbing products and provided for voluntary t esting and consumer information

1 National Energy

Policy , 2001, “Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group”, May. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National

- Energy

- Policy.pdf

.

The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of Energy to take steps to improve the energy efficiency of appliances.

• Support appliance standards program for covered products, setting higher
standard s where technologically feasible and economically justified.

• Expand the scope of the appliance standard program, setting standards for additional appliances where technologically feasible and economically justified.

National Energy Policy, pp. 4

- 5 and 4

- 6

.1

- 2

programs for office equipment and luminaries. EPAct also established a labeling program for commercial products.

EPCA provides for DOE to establish test procedures to be used in evaluating compliance with efficiency stand ards. These test procedures are revised periodically to reflect new product designs or technologies.

Any new or amended standard for consumer products must be designed so as to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), provides that before DOE determines whether a standard is economically justified, it must first soli cit comments on a proposed standard. After reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must then determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing of the following seven factors:

“I. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard; II. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any incre ase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; III. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposi tion of the standard; IV. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; V. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; VI. The need for national energy conservation; and VII. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.”

These principles and criteria also apply for the most part to standards that EPCA
authorizes DOE to promulgate for commercial products.

Section 327 of the Act addresses the effect of Federal rules on State energy conservation laws or regulations concerning testing, labeling, and standards. Generally, all such State laws or regulations are supe rseded by the Act unless specifically exempted in Section 327. The Department can grant a waiver of preemption in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of Section 327(d) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).

1.2 DOE Authority to Add Products

The De partment’s ability to act on the National Energy Policy’s recommendation to expand the scope of the appliance standard program is dependent on its statutory authority. This section discusses the Department’s understanding of its current authority with rega rd to consumer and commercial products. In summary, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, the Act, or the statute) authorizes DOE to impose energy1

- 3

conservation standards and test procedures for 13 specified consumer products. 2 In addition, EPCA a uthorizes DOE to classify any other consumer product as a “covered product,” and to impose test procedures for that product, if DOE determines such classification is “necessary or appropriate” to carry out the purposes of EPCA and that the average energy u se for the product by a household using it is likely to exceed 100
kilowatt

- hours (kWh) per year. 42 U.S.C (6292 (b). DOE can also promulgate energy conservation standards for any such product if it determines that the product meets additional, more deta iled criteria specified in EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l).

As for commercial products, the Department has the authority to promulgate energy conservation standards for both specific commercial equipment set forth in section 342 of EPCA, as well as other types o f the commercial equipment which the Secretary classifies as covered equipment under section 341(b) of EPCA. With respect to “other covered equipment,” Section 345(a) of EPCA specifically references the criteria and procedural requirements in section 325( l)

- (s) as applying to Part C of EPCA. These referenced sections concern prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards, including standards for “other covered products.”

Part C of EPCA covering commercial equipment parallels the statutory schem e of Part B for residential products. As with residential products, EPCA allows the Department to prescribe energy conservations standards and test procedures. In the case of commercial equipment, the Department also has the authority to prescribe labeli ng requirements. For residential products, the Federal Trade Commission has such authority.

1.2.1 Consumer Products

EPCA provides energy conservation standards, and authorizes DOE to promulgate standards, for any energy using product of a type that “to any si gnificant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals” 3 and that is one of 13 products specified in the Act. EPCA Section 321 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq

. Of these 13 products, the statute does not provide definiti ons for the following seven products, and therefore DOE’s authority to impose standards, as well as test procedures, applies to all residential types of these seven products:

1. Room air conditioners;
2. Dishwashers;
3. Clothes washers;
4. Clothes dryers;
5. Direct hea ting equipment;

6. Kitchen ranges and ovens; and

7. Television sets. EPCA does define the following six products, and therefore provides and authorizes standards only for types of products that are within the applicable definitions:

2 Section 322(a) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6292(a), lists only 12 types of products, but one of the 12 (furnaces) is defined as including the 13 th product, residential boilers. EPCA Section 321(23), 42 U.S.C. 6291(23).

3 Such products are typically referred to, and are referred to in t his section of this report, as “consumer” (or “residential”) products. Each unit of such a product is covered under EPCA as a consumer product, regardless of whether that unit “is in fact distributed . . . for personal use or consumption by an individual. ” EPCA Section 321(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Thus, for example, if a type of product is to a significant extent distributed for personal use or consumption by individual consumers in their homes and is regulated under EPCA’s consumer product provisions, the n the regulations would apply to any units of that same product distributed for commercial applications.1

- 4 1. Refrigerators, refrigerato r

- freezers and freezers, EPCA Section 322(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1);
2. Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, EPCA Section 321(21), 42 U.S.C. 6291(21);
3. Water heaters, EPCA Section 321(27), 42 U.S.C. 6291(27);
4. Furnaces, EPCA Sec tion 321(23), 42 U.S.C. 6291(23);
5. Boilers, EPCA Section 321(23), 42 U.S.C. 6291(23); and

6. Pool heaters, EPCA Section 321(25), 42 U.S.C. 6291(25).

Section 321(21) of EPCA defines “central air conditioner” for example as being a product that is (A) powered by single phase electric current, (B) air cooled, (C) below 65,000 Btu per hour, (D) not in the same cabinet with a furnace having a rated capacity above 225,000 Btu per hour, and (E) a heat pump or cooling only unit. If a product were to be developed fo r residential use that met all of these criteria except that it was water cooled instead of air cooled, it would not be within this definition and hence would not be subject to regulation as a “central air conditioner” under EPCA.

EPCA does, however, auth orize DOE to incorporate additional residential products into its program. EPCA Section 322(a) (19) and (b), 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19) and (b). DOE could add (1) for the six products listed above which EPCA defines, types of these products that are not withi n the EPCA definitions, such as a water cooled residential central air conditioner for example, and/or (2) products completely different from the listed products, such as, for example, ceiling fans or VCRs.

To be added as a covered product under the EPCA provisions that regulate consumer products, a product must consume or be designed to consume energy, and be distributed to “any significant extent . . . for personal use or consumption by individuals.” EPCA Sections 321(1) and 322, 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) and 6 292. DOE would also have to determine that (1) including the product as a “covered product” is “necessary or appropriate” to carry out the purposes of EPCA and (2) the average energy use for that type of product by a household using it is likely to exceed 100 kWh per year. EPCA Section 322(b), 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). To prescribe an energy conservation standard for a product that met those criteria, DOE would also have to determine that,

“(A) the average per household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any 12

- month period ending before such determination;

”(B) the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 4.2 billion kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such
12

- month period;

“(C) substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible; and

“(D) the application of a labeling rule under . . . [EPCA] to such typ e (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) which1

- 5 achieve the maximum energy efficiency which is technologically feasible and
economi cally justified.”

EPCA Section 325(l), 42 U.S.C. 6295(l). In addition, the criteria that normally apply in setting an energy conservation standard under EPCA would apply to setting a standard for one of these added products. Thus, it is possible that a product could meet the criteria for being added as a “covered product” under EPCA, but not meet the criteria for setting a standard for that product. In such an instance, DOE could establish test procedures for the product and the product would be subject to labeling requirements. EPCA Sections 323(b) (1)(B) and 324(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(B) and 6394(a)(3).

EPCA does not specify a process for determining whether a product meets the criteria to be added as a new covered product or whether, having met those criteria, the product meets the additional criteria for having standards applied to it. Sections 325(l) and (p) of EPCA could reasonably be interpreted, however, as requiring the latter determination to be included as part of the standards rulemaki ng process for such a product. 42 U.S.C. 6296(l) and (p).

Finally, in some instances the EPCA provisions that prescribe standards for a consumer product limit the application of those standards to a narrower category of products than is covered by EPC A’s definition for the product, or, absent an EPCA definition, than would be covered by a commonly accepted definition. For example, Section 325(b)(2) of EPCA states that the standards prescribed for refrigerator products in Section 325(b)(1) “do not appl y to refrigerators and refrigerator

- freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 39 cubic feet or freezers with total refrigerated volume exceeding 30 cubic feet.” 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1). Since it is neither contained in EPCA’s definition of
the cover ed product, nor worded so as to indicate a future limit on coverage, such a limitation does not appear to bar DOE from promulgating a standard for products that
are within the limitation.

1.2.2 Commercial Products

1.2.2.1 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concer ning Consumer Products

As part of its program for consumer products, EPCA provides energy conservation standards, directs DOE to adopt test procedures, and authorizes DOE to adopt amended standards, for the following three largely commercial products:

1. Fluorescent lamp ballasts; 2. General service fluorescent lamps; and 3. Incandescent reflector lamps.

EPCA Sections 321(1), 323 (b)(5)

- (6), and 325(g)(5) and (i), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 6293(b)(5)

- (6), 6295(g)(5) and (i). EPCA contains a definition for each of these products, using considerable specificity and detail for the latter two products. EPCA Section 321(29)

- (30), 42 U.S.C. 6291(29)

- (30). The test procedures and standards that EPCA prescribes for lamps cover all or virtually all products that f all within its definitions for these two products, but the statute’s requirements for ballasts apply only to certain of the products that meet its definition of “fluorescent lamp ballast.” EPCA1

- 6

Sections 321(29)(A), 323(b)(5)

- (6), and 325(g)(5) and (i), 42 U.S.C. 6291(29)(A), 6293(b)(5)

- (6), 6295(g)(5) and (i). Moreover, although the language of the definitions
and standard

- setting provisions indicate that the standards and test procedures apply largely to equipment distributed for commercial use, they als o apply to any consumer product that meets the definitions and other criteria that govern their application. EPCA Sections 321(1) and 322(a)(13)

- (14), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) and 6292(a)(13)

- (14).

Although EPCA specifies requirements only for certain types of ballasts, the statute specifically authorizes DOE to determine in subsequent rulemakings whether to adopt standards for other products that meet EPCA’s definition of “fluorescent lamp ballast.” EPCA Section 325(g)(7), 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7). For lamps, the statute authorizes DOE, in a rulemaking to begin within 24 months after labeling requirements become effective under EPCA, to determine if it should adopt standards for “additional . . . general service incandescent lamps,” a category that includes but is broader than the incandescent reflector lamps for which the statute prescribes standards. EPCA Section 325(i)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5). 4 EPCA also contemplates a third rulemaking concerning lamps, to begin “not less than eight years after October 24, 19 92,” in which DOE must “determine if the standards in effect for fluorescent lamps and incandescent lamps should be amended.” EPCA Section 325(i)(4), 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4). Arguably, this provision authorizes the Department to promulgate standards for pro ducts that meet the definition of “fluorescent lamp” or “incandescent lamp” in Section 321(30)(A) and (C) of EPCA, 6291(30)(A) and (C).

For products that are within EPCA’s definition of “fluorescent lamp ballast,” “general service fluorescent lamp,” or “i ncandescent reflector lamp,” clearly any rulemaking could cover commercial products. See EPCA Section 321(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). As discussed below, EPCA also authorizes DOE, subject to certain conditions, to promulgate standards for commercial (as well as consumer) high

- intensity discharge lamps. EPCA Section 346, 42 U.S.C. 6317. But EPCA does not expressly authorize DOE to promulgate standards for any other commercial lighting product. See EPCA Sections 321(1), 322, and 325(l), 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 629 2, and 6295(l). Nevertheless, since Section 325(i) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i), authorizes DOE to amend the standards for commercial incandescent reflector lamps to include standards for “additional general service incandescent lamps,” EPCA may be construe d as authorizing standards for commercial versions of general service incandescent lamps. For essentially the same type of reason, if DOE were to conclude that Section 325(i)(4) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4), authorizes it to prescribe standards for “fluo rescent lamps” and “incandescent lamps,” a sound argument could be made that the Department can set standards for commercial versions of these products. (For the reasons discussed in Section 1.2.1 above, under S ections 321(1), 322(a) and (b) and 325(l) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 6292(a) and (b) and 6295(l), DOE can also add to its energy conservation program any consumer lighting product that meets the applicable criteria in those sections.) The net effect of the foregoing would be that DOE could adopt

s tandards for any lamp, whether commercial or consumer, that met EPCA’s definition of “fluorescent lamp” or “incandescent lamp.” But for lamps excluded from these definitions, such as for example reflector lamps with elliptical reflector (ER) and bulge

4 This provision also authorizes DOE to consider adopting standards for “additional general service fluorescent lamps.” But it is difficult to
disce rn what “additional” lamps might be contemplated here, since section 325(i)(1) of EPCA appears to prescribe standards for all or virtually all lamps that meet the statute’s definition of “general service fluorescent lamp.”1

- 7

ref lector (BR) shapes or wattages over 205 Watts (W), under section 322 and 325(l) of EPCA DOE could adopt standards for products that are distributed to any significant extent for personal use or individual consumption. In addition, if reflector lamps with

E R or BR shapes meet the criteria for other covered industrial equipment, then standards could be set for such lamps that are distributed to any significant extent for industrial or
commercial use.

Finally, as will be discussed in Section 1.2.2.2. which fo llows, the EPCA provisions that specifically concern commercial products can be construed as authorizing DOE to promulgate standards for both the types of products for which those provisions already prescribe standards and for other industrial equipment th e Secretary classifies as covered equipment under section 341(b). These would include some lighting products, since DOE is authorized to add to its program, for example, types of “electric lights” that are
distributed for commercial or industrial use. EP CA Sections 340(1)

- (3) and 341((b), 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)

- (3) and 6312(b).

1.2.2.2 Products Regulated under EPCA Provisions Concerning Commercial Products

Sections 340 through 345 of EPCA concern “covered equipment,” which consists of certain “industrial equipmen t” that “to any significant extent . . . [is] distributed . . . for industrial or commercial use” and is not covered under the EPCA provisions for consumer products. EPCA Section 340(1)

- (2), 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)

- (2). Sections 342 and 343, 42 U.S.C. 6313

- 631 4, prescribe energy conservation standards and test procedures for certain types of the following commercial products:

1. Electric motors;
2. Small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment;
3. Large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment;
4. Warm air furnaces;
5. Packaged boilers;

6. Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps;

7. Storage and instantaneous water heaters; and
8. Unfired hot water storage tanks.

EPCA contains a definition for each of these products. For the first five the statute prescribes standards for most but not all of the products that meet the applicable definition, and for the last three it provides standards for all products that meet the definition. EPCA Sections 340(1)

- (13), and 342(a)(1)

- (5) and (b), 42 U. S.C. 6311(1)

- (13), and 6313 (a)(1)

- (5) and (b).

As to DOE’s authority to promulgate standards for these products, EPCA provides standards for “electric motors” ranging from one to 200 horsepower, and authorizes the Department to amend these standards. EP CA Section 342(b), 42 U.S.C. 6313(b). The statute does not explicitly address whether such amendments can include standards for electric motors smaller than one or larger than 200 horsepower, but arguably DOE has authority to adopt such standards. See EP CA Sections 341(a) and 342(b)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6312(a) and 6313(b)(3)(A). EPCA provides no explicit authority to adopt1

- 8

standards for any other type of motor, with the exception of small electric motors as
discussed below. 5

For each of the remaining sev en commercial products listed above, EPCA states that DOE can amend the Federal energy conservation standard for a product if and when the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1 is amended for that product. 6 EPCA Section 342(a)(6), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). Thus, if EPCA, or at a later point DOE’s regulations, contains a standard for one of these products, or for a subcategory of one of these products, and
ASHRAE amends the standard in ASHRAE 90.1 for such product or subcategory, then DOE could amend the corresponding Federal standard. 7

EPCA also authorizes DOE to determine if energy conservation standards are warranted, and if so to promulgate such standards, for the following three largely
commercial products:

1. Distribution transformers;
2. High

- intensity discharge lamps; and
3. Small electric motors.

EPCA Section 346, 42 U.S.C. 6317.

For any product that falls within one of the EPCA definitions for commercial heating, air conditioning and water heating p roducts, but for which the statute did not set a standard, EPCA authorizes DOE to set a standard if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were revised to set or amend a standard for that product. 8

EPCA does allow the Department to classify as “covered equipment” certain s pecific types of commercial and industrial equipment, if (1) they meet EPCA’s general criteria for covered equipment (presented at the outset of this section) and (2) DOE determines that such classification “is necessary to carry out the purposes of” the E PCA provisions concerning such equipment. EPCA Section 340(1)(G) and (2)(A), and 341(b), 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G) and 2(A), and 6312(b). Those products are as follows:

1. Compressors;
2. Fans;
3. Blowers;
4. Refrigeration equipment;
5. Electric lights;

6. Electrolytic equipm ent;
7. Electric arc equipment;
8. Steam boilers;
9. Ovens;

5 It should be noted that Sectio n 340(1)(A) also specifies “pumps” as “covered equipment.”

6 DOE has taken the position that an “amendment” to ASHRAE 90.1 consists either of a change in an efficiency standard in 90.1, or a decision by ASHRAE not to change such a standard after having rev iewed it to determine whether a change is warranted.

7 EPCA does not set standards for commercial unit heaters or duct furnaces, and the statute’s definition of “warm air furnace” specifically excludes these products. EPCA Sections 340(11)(A) and 342(a) , 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A) and 6313(a). Thus, DOE may lack authority to regulate these products.

8 For example, EPCA defines “large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” as including “water source” products, but prescribes no standard for large water source air conditioners. If ASHRAE were to amend Standard 90.1 to change or include a standard for that product, then DOE could adopt a standard for that product.1

- 9 10. Kilns;
11. Evaporators; and
12. Dryers.

DOE can prescribe test procedures and labeling requirements for any of these products that it classifies as “covered equipment.” EPCA Sections 343(a)(1) and 344(a), 42

U. S.C. 6314(a)(1) and 6315(a). And because (1) the purpose of this part of EPCA is to improve the efficiency of “certain . . . industrial equipment,” 42 U.S.C. 6312(a), and (2) the standards rulemaking provisions for consumer products are made applicable to any products DOE classifies as “covered equipment,” 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), DOE also has authority to set standards for these products.

1.2.3 Potential Impact of Pending Legislation

Neither H.R. 4, the energy bill passed by the U.S, House of Representative (the Ho use bill), nor the bill passed by the Senate (the Senate bill), would limit DOE’s authority to add consumer products to its energy conservation program, and to promulgate energy conservation standards for such newly added products. Both bills would add au thority for DOE to address energy consumed by products in the standby mode, although the standby loss provisions in the two bills differ from one another. The Senate bill specifically directs DOE to initiate rulemaking as to standby mode energy use of bat tery chargers and external power supplies.

Section 143 (b) of the House bill would require DOE to identify any consumer products not currently listed as covered products in EPCA that (1) meet the statute’s criteria for being added as covered products and (2) are major users of electricity. DOE would be required to adopt energy conservation standards for any such product. The bill would also require the Department to adopt test procedures and standards for the following products:

1. Residential furnace fan s; 2. Residential central air conditioner and heat pump circulation fans;
3. Suspended ceiling fans; and
4. Cold drink vending machines.

Except insofar as some of these products are commercial, the House bill does not address commercial products.

The Senate bil l would require DOE to develop and adopt test procedures and standards for the following products:

1. Suspended ceiling fans;
2. Cold drink vending machines;
3. Commercial unit heaters; and
4. Commercial refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator

- freezers.

The bill wo uld also prescribe standards for the following four products, and require DOE to adopt test procedures for the first three:1

- 10 1. Illuminated exit signs;
2. Low voltage dry

- type transformers;
3. Traffic signal modules; and
4. Torchieres.

Finally, Section 922 of the Senate bill is entitled “Authority to Set Standards for Commercial Products.” It would give DOE the authority to add commercial products as “covered products” under the provisions of EPCA that cover primarily consumer products. (DOE already has this same authority for consumer products.) Notwithstanding the title of Section 922, however, because it amends neither Section 322(a)(19) nor Section 325(l) of EPCA, which taken together empower DOE to promulgate standards for newly added consumer products, Sect ion 922 arguably would not authorize DOE to promulgate standards for newly added commercial products. Rather, read literally, the amendments in Section 922 would appear to allow DOE only to promulgate test procedures for newly added commercial products. See, e.g., paragraph (9) of Section 922 of the Senate bill.

1.3 The Product Prioritization Process

In September, 1995, the Department announced a formal effort to consider further improvements to the process used to develop appliance efficiency standards, c alling on energy efficiency groups, manufacturers, trade association, state agencies, utilities and other interested parties to provide input to guide the Department. On July 15, 1996, the Department published a Final Rule: Procedures for Consideration o f New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products (hereinafter referred to as the Process Rule), 61 FR 36974.

The Process Rule set forth guidelines for developing efficiency standards. These guidelines are designed to provide for great er, and more productive, interaction between the Department and interested parties throughout the process. It is also designed so that key analyses are performed earlier in the process, with early opportunities for public input to and comment on the analy ses. The guidelines are consistent with the procedural requirements of law, but add some important steps to enhance the process.

1.3.1 Annual Priority

- Setting Analysis and Development of Priorities List

As contemplated in the 1996 Process Rule, at least once a year the Department prepares an analysis of pending or prospective rulemaking using several factors (identified below) based on existing literature, direct communications with interested parties and other experts, and other available information. The re sults of this analysis are used to develop rulemaking priorities and proposed schedules for the development and issuance of all rulemakings. Each year, DOE invites public input to review and comment on the priority analysis. Finally

, each fall, the Depart ment issues, simultaneously with the issuance of the Administration’s Regulatory Agenda, a final set of rulemaking priorities, the accompanying analysis, and the schedules for all priority rulemakings that it anticipates within the next two years

.1

- 11

Based o n the guidelines set forth in EPCA, the Department compiled the following initial list of factors to be considered in developing priorities and establishing schedules for conducting rulemakings:

1. Potential energy savings;
2. Potential economic benefits;
3. Poten tial environmental or energy security benefits;
4. Applicable deadlines for rulemakings;
5. Incremental DOE resources required to complete rulemaking process;

6. Other relevant regulatory actions affecting products;

7. Stakeholder recommendations;
8. Evidence of energy e fficiency gains in the market absent new or revised standards;
9. Status of required changes to test procedures; and
10. Other relevant factors.

1.3.2 Process to Expand the Program.

Generally, the annual Priority

- Setting Process focuses on products already covered b y the energy conservation program under EPCA. The Department viewed the Priority

Setting Process as an opportunity to work with stakeholders to define which products could be added to an expanded appliance standards program.

The overarching goal of the e xtended prioritization process was to identify the products that offer the largest and most readily

- attainable energy savings, and that, taking into account a variety of other important factors, warrant further, more detailed evaluation. Ultimately, some o f the new products considered may be subject to a rulemaking or other actions by the DOE, including (but not limited to) voluntary programs and research and develop (R&D) programs.

Table 1

- 1 provides a chronologically

- based overview of the prioritization process, including a description of key events and documents generated to support the process.

Table 1

- 1 : Timeline of the Prioritization Process

Date Event Documents Made Available

09/11/2001 First Priori tization Meeting Initial Prioritization Criteria and
Product Lists

10/26/2001 Data Sheets for Potential New

Products Posted on DOE Website Data Sheets for Potential New
Products

11/06/2001 Second Prioritization Meeting Revised Prioritization Criteria Lis t

12/06/2001 Deadline for Receipt of

Stakeholder Comments Response to meetings and data
sheets

The rest of this section describes the most recent prioritization process in chronological order, beginning with the September 11 meeting.1

- 12 1.4 Refining the Prior itization Process

– September 11, 2001 Meeting

For the September 11, 2001, meeting, DOE developed an initial list of 36 products for possible inclusion in an extended program. These products are listed in Table 1

- 2

.

Table 1

- 2 : Initial List of Potential New Products

Commercial Residential

Clothes Washers Inkjet Printers* Clothes Dryers Automatic Coffee Makers Electric Cooking Set Top Boxes Gas Cooking Compact Audio Supermarket R efrigeration Dehumidifier

Walk

- In Refrigerators Furnace Fans Vending Machines Microwave Ovens
Beverage Merchandisers Pool Pumps

Reach

- In Refrigerators RACK/Component Audio

Ice Machines Torchiere Lamps Traffic Signals (VCR) Video Cassette Recorder

Pe destrian Crossing Signs Waterbed Heaters Exit Signs Well Pumps General Service Incandescent Lamps Window/Stand/Desk Fans

Gas Unit Heaters# Ceiling Fans

Oil Unit Heaters#

Gas Duct Furnaces#

Ground

- Coupled Heat Pumps# Desktop (PC) Personal Computer s*

Monitors*

Low

- End Server Computers* Copy Machines*

Laser Printers*

Facsimile Machines*
*Denotes commercial and residential devices; initially, energy consumption and savings calculations were performed separately for commercial and resident ial uses. # Denotes that the product has a minimum energy efficiency specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

In addition, as it does every year, the Department provided information relative to all products existing in the current program. Existing covered p roducts are listed in Table
1

- 3.1

- 13

Table 1

- 3 : Existing Covered Products

Commercial Residential Central AC and HP (3

- phase > 65kBtu/h)# Clothes Dryers
Central AC and HP, 65

- 240kBtu/h # Clothes Washers

Tank less Gas

- Fired Instantaneous Water
Heaters# Cooking Products

Commercial Furnaces and Boilers# Direct Heating Equipment, Gas

Commercial Water Heaters# Dishwashers

Distribution Transformers Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
Electric Motors, 1

- 200HP# Fluorescent Lamps

Commercial Oil

- and Gas

- Fired Packaged
Boilers# Mobile Home Furnaces

High

- Intensity Discharge Lamps Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Packaged Terminal A/C and HP# (PTAC) Pool Heaters, Gas Small Electric Motors (<1 horsepower (HP)) Refrigerators

Resid ential Water Heaters

Room Air Conditioners

Residential Central AC/HP

Residential Furnaces and Boilers #Denotes that the product has a minimum energy efficiency specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1

For the September meeting, the Department offered for consideration all of the products in
Tables 1

- 1 through 1

- 3. The Department compiled the list of potential new products by drawing from similar lists prepared by independent organizations, and supplemented with products the Department identified as consum ing significant amounts of energy. Inclusion of a given product on the initial list did not constitute a final decision by DOE to initiate further action. Instead, the initial list sought to include a broad range of potential products that might stimulat e a discussion of different prioritization criteria.

During the meeting, the Department received input on the prioritization process. Specifically, participants suggested what criteria, besides those already outlined in the process rule, should influenc e the selection of products for further action. These suggestions, and comments received after the meeting, enabled the Department to refine its list of prioritization criteria as shown in Table 1

- 4

.

Table 1

- 4 : Product Prioritization Criteria

Prioritization Criteria
Energy savings potential

Potential economic benefits Potential environmental or energy security benefits Applicable deadlines for rulemakings

Incremental DOE reso urces required to complete rulemaking process Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market absent new or revised standards Status of required changes to test procedures Impact of potential regulation on product innovation 3
Fuel neutrality 3

I mpact on peak demand for electricity 3
Impact of potential regulation on small businesses Cumulative regulative burden on products, related products manufactured by the same
manufacturers

3 9 New Criteria

9 Denotes new criterion developed for or during the workshop.1

- 14 1.5 Refining the Priority Products List

– November 6, 2001, Meeting

In light of the revised prioritization criteria, the Department developed preliminary “data sheets” for all of the products under consideration. The preliminary data sheets, which offer product

- specific information under each prioritizat ion criterion, were posted on the
DOE website 10 and made available for the November 6, 2001, meeting. Table1

- 5 summarizes the type of information contained in preliminary data sheets.

During the September meeting, stakeholders emphasized the need for ener gy savings estimates for all products. The Department made every effort to develop energy savings calculations using the most up

- to

- date and complete data available. In practice, the sheer number of new products under initial consideration limited the qu antity and depth of analysis applied to each product. Consequently, the energy savings calculations derived were intended to be preliminary, yet reasonable estimates based on available
literature.

Table 1

- 5 : Information Contained in the Preliminary Data Sheets
Information Type Information Included

Energy Annual Energy Consumption; Energy Savings potential of different standard levels/technologies

Sales Annual sales; installed base; product lifetime

Efficie ncy Levels Installed base; typical new; best available; ENERGY STAR ® (as applicable); future/posited technologies/standard levels

Test Procedures Status of test procedures (DOE; Industry [e.g., ASHRAE], ENERGY

STAR ® , other); overview of procedure(s); futu re test procedures under consideration; correlation between test procedure and energy consumption; correlation between test procedure and peak electricity demand; potential ways to improve test procedure relevance to energy consumption
Cumulative Regulato ry
Burden Current regulations affecting product (and related products), including energy efficiency

Evidence of Market

- Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Market shares of products meeting technology/standard levels;

ENERGY STAR ®

product market sh are; other evidence/reasons for market movement to technology/standard level (e.g., move to light emitting diodes (LED) traffic signals because of much longer lifetime and reduced maintenance costs)

Using the updated prioritization criteria, the Departme nt developed information for both “new” and “existing” products, which enabled comparison of all products on a common basis. By evaluating existing products side

- by

- side with the proposed new products the Department could propose a revised list of “high,” “medium” and “low” priority products. Existing medium and high priority products from the 2001 Regulatory Agenda are shown in Table 1

- 6 , for Standards and Determinations, and Table 1

- 7 for
Test Procedures. Sectio n 6 of this report presents a proposed revision to these priorities.

10 At: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/notices/notc0044/index.html1

- 15 Table 1

- 6 : Existing Products with High and Medium Priority

– Standards and Determinations

High Medium

Residential Central AC/HP Central AC/HP, Three

- Phase, <65k Btu

Distribution Transformers Oil

- and Gas

- Fired Commercial Packaged
Boilers

Residential Furnaces and Boilers Tankless Gas

- Fired Instantaneous Water
Heaters
Central AC/HP, 65

- 240k Btu

Small Electric Motors

- Determination

P ackaged Terminal AC/HP

Table 1

- 7 : Existing Products with High and Medium Priority

– Test Procedures High Medium

Dishwashers Compact Refrigerators

Residential Central AC/HP Ductless Split Central AC/HP

C ommercial A/C and Heat Pumps

Commercial Furnaces

Commercial Water Heaters

Following the September meeting, the Department reduced the list of products under consideration primarily on the basis of maximum energy savings potential.

The “short” list developed from the original list of 36 (Table 1

- 2) included 12 products with an energy saving potential in excess of one quad 11 and included both new and existing products. (Table 1

- 8). This list did not seek to exclude other products from consideration, but was intended to serve as a focal point for product prioritization discussions at the meeting. Furthermore, the Department recognized that this “short” list would need to be changed in light of revised energy savings calculations and of the other prior itization criteria.

Table 1

- 8 : Products with a Maximum Energy Savings Potential Exceeding One Quad (Includes

New and Existing Products)

Commercial Products Energy * Savings (Quads) Residential Products E nergy * Savings (Quads) High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps 8.3 Televisions 4.1

Monitors 4.4 Incandescent General Service Lamps 3.7

Personal Computers 4.2 Residential Clothes Dryers 3.5 Incandescent Reflector Lamps 2.2 Ceiling Fans (including Lightin g) 2.4 Fluorescent Lamps 2.1 Set

- Top Boxes 1.9
Torchiere Lamps 1.7

Dishwashers 1.7 Source: 2002 Priority Setting Data Sheets * Energy Savings Cumulative to 2030

11 A “quad” denotes one quadrillion Btus, or 10 15 Btus.1

- 16

Table 1

- 9 shows the products that fell under the one quad criterion.

Table 1

- 9 : Products with Energy Savings Potential under One Quad (Includes New and Existing

Products)
Commercial Energy * Savings (Quads) Residential Products Energy * Savings (Quads)
Commercial Furnac es N.S. Clothes Washers NS

Commercial Oil

- and Gas

- Fired Packaged Boilers .28 Cooking Products .6

Commercial Water Heaters N.S. Direct Heating Equipment .1

Electric Motors N.A. Pool Heater .7 Packaged Terminal AC&HP .56 Refrigerators, Refrigerator/ Freezers N.S.

Tankless Instantaneous Water
Heaters .10 Residential Water Heater N.S.Existing Products

Room Air Conditioners N.S.

Commercial Clothes Washers .46 Compact Audio .57
Commercial Clothes Dryers .81 Dehumidifier .53 All Cooking ¿ 1.024 Pool Pumps .21 Super Market Refrigeration .31 RACK/Component Audio .87

Walk

- in Refrigerators .37 VCR .38
Vending Machines .45 Well Pumps .24
Beverage Merchandisers .22

Reach

- in Refrigerators/Freezers .89

Ice Machines .21 Exit Signs .35

Gas Unit Heaters .73

Oil Unit Heaters .01

Gas Duct Furnaces .13

Low

- end Server Computers .92 Copy Machines .81

Laser Printers .50

Facsimile Machines .48

Water Coolers .26New Products

Traffic Signals .60

12 Source: 2002 Priority Setti ng Data Sheets. * Energy Savings Cumulative to 2030 N.S. Recently adopted standard
N.A. Not available
¿ Includes Broilers, Fryers, Griddles, Ovens, Ranges and Steamers.
For the November meeting, the Department had several objectives. Specifically t he Department wanted to:



### • Complete the discussions concerning the program’s existing priorities.



### • Review the prioritization criteria and the process to expand the program’s scope through the addition of new products.



### • Receive comments on the preliminary data sheets.

12 Energy Savings estimates as prese nted during the November workshop.1

- 17



### • Obtain product

- specific recommendations for further actions.

Although discussion at the meeting centered on whether or not to pursue a standards rulemaking for these products, future actions could follow a variety of different paths, including:

• Initiating a rulemaking;

• Developing a test procedure;

• Conducting further analysis to assess the viability of a rulemaking or other action;

• Considering non

- regulatory actions to influence the products sold in the market (e.g., an ENERGY STAR ® program for th e product); and

• Suspending further action at this time.

During the meeting, the Department and stakeholders refined the “short” list of products for further consideration (Table 1

- 10). The need to limit the number of products under
consideration reflects the Department’s resource constraints, which allow the Department to pursue approximately four priority rulemakings a year.

Table 1

- 10 : Refined list of Products Selected for Further Consideration

Commercial Products Energy Savings (Quads) Residential Products Energy Savings (Quads) High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps 2.2 Televisions 1.7

Monitors 4.44 Incandescent General Service Lamps 8.7

Personal Computers 4.08 Residential Clothes Dryers 3.5

Incandesc ent Reflector Lamps 2.7 Ceiling Fans (including Lighting) 3.7 Fluorescent Lamps 2.6 Set

- Top Boxes 1.55

Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct

Furnaces * 1.6 Torchiere Lamps 1.7

Commercial Refrigeration * 4.3 Dishwashers 1.7

Home Audio (Compact and
RACK/Componen t) * 1.44

* 13 Products Added based on updated energy savings potential.
Several products not appearing on the initial list (Table 1

- 8) warranted further
consideration. Gas Unit Heaters were added to the list based on their revised maximum energy savings p otential (1.3 quads). In addition, gas duct furnaces were added in recognition of their historical link to gas unit heaters, as to energy efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1 and as to test procedures in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z38. Comm ercial refrigeration equipment encompasses several different kinds

13 *Denotes added to short list for consideration based upon input received at meeting.1

- 18

of systems: supermarket refrigeration systems; ice machines; refrigerated vending machines; reach

- in refrigerators; reach

- in freezers; and beverage merchandisers. Collectively, these pr oducts have an energy savings potential of up to 4.3 quads, which formed the rationale for further study. In addition, home audio equipment, including compact audio and RACK/component audio products, warranted further study based on their collective energ y savings potential (up to 1.44 quads).

Several questions arose at the November meeting concerning the derivation of energy savings calculations. A companion Technical Support Document (TSD) describes the derivation of energy consumption and savings esti mates for all products listed in Table
1

- 10

. 14 In addition, the TSD provides product

- specific information relating to the other prioritization criteria. The TSD is continued in Appendix A to this report.

14 Spreadsheets containing the assumptions and calculations for equipment under consideration were posted on the DOE website at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/notices/notc0044/index.html

.2

- 1 2 General Comments on the P rioritization Process

2.1 General Comments on the DOE Program

Several commentators voiced support for some type of DOE action in general, while others broadly opposed DOE action. 15 The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) supports DOE action to update test proce dures, and Shaver supports an expansion of the energy conservation program. Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA) also supports efforts to update test procedures, but it is opposed to expansion of the energy conservation program. Similarly, the El ectronic Consumers Alliance (ECA) and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) provided comments opposed to the energy conservation program in general.

EEI commented that “the Department should concentrate on expanding the program
where it is cost

- effective for the maximum number of consumers, technically feasible, economically justified on a national basis, and saves a significant amount of energy,
both at the end

- user level and at the national level” (EEI, No. 33 16 ). EEI further
commented that the Departme nt should focus its effort on updating test procedures (EEI,
No. 33 ).

In full support of expanding the energy conservation program to include additional consumer products (i.e., computers, monitors, printers, microwave ovens, incandescent light bulbs, a nd compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs), Shaver commented that such inclusion “is necessary in order to provide an effective and significant counter to the trend (of growing electricity consumption) which threatens the ability of the ... electricity genera tion and distribution system to meet consumer and industry demands” (Shaver, No. 7). Shaver further commented that “inclusion in the Program would provide consumers with more economical products, provide consumers with tools to make energy

- smart purchases , and provide companies with an incentive to produce more energy efficient products” (Shaver, No. 7).

The California Energy Commission (CEC) commented that upgrading of standards for consumer products as mandated by NAECA should be given priority. CEC al so supports completion of January 2001 rulemaking activity for the identified products that required further study to assess adoption of several standards contained in ASHRAE
90.1

- 1999. On the other hand, CEC asserted that the Department is not in a posit ion to expand the scope of the appliance standards program at this time, and that in most cases it lacks legal authority to do so (CEC, No. 38).

15 This section does not address comments provided with respect to specific products.

16 D ominion Virginia Power commented that it is “in full support of the detailed comments submitted by the Edison Electric Institute” (DVP, No. 31). Instead of noting this comment in conjunction with each and every EEI comment, it appears once in this footnot e.2

- 2

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) commented that it
believes DOE should be able to undertake five rulemakings at this time, in addition to a few test procedure rules, because the rulemakings now being considered are unlikely to be as controversial as many of the recent rulemakings. ACEEE added that, therefore,
there is room to start two to three new rulemakings, as there are currently only three or four other major rulemakings. ACEEE recommend that the department choose incandescent reflector lamps, unit heaters, and external power supplies/battery chargers (which did not make the final list of potential products for consideration) as subjects for new rulemakings, as new ENERGY STAR ® programs have recently started for ceiling fans, set

- top boxes, and commercial refrigerators. Furthermore, ACEEE recommended that the Department monitor ef ficiency trends of products for which the U.S. Congress is likely to adopt new standards without DOE action (i.e., torchieres) and products for
which an ENERGY STAR ® program is making progress in capturing energy savings (e.g., computers/monitors and TVs/V CRs/audio equipment) (ACEEE, No. 39).

EMPA is in support of updating test procedures; however, it is opposed to the addition of new products to the existing appliances standards program (EMPA, No. 3 and 25). EMPA commented that the U.S economy is already much less energy intensive than in the past due to three key factors, which do not include mandated efficiency standards: relatively high energy prices in the 1970s and early 1980s, new technologies that have permitted increased productivity and required less energy, and a shift in the U.S. economy to less energy

- intensive manufacturing and services (EMPA, No. 25)

.

ECA and CEI generally opposed further DOE action. ECA commented that “mandated reduced energy consumption will result in conservation; howev er, it is an incomplete premise upon which to base policy, in the same way as it would be to increase energy prices” (ECA, No. 23). On a different note, CEI commented that “most energy

- using home appliances (including heating and air conditioning systems, refrigerators, water heaters, cooking products, clothes washers and dryers)” have already been regulated, and the new products under consideration are only “minor energy users” (CEI, No. 8 and 24). CEI further commented that “the Department is statutoril y precluded from promulgating any standard that does not save a significant amount of energy and that is not economically justified” (CEI, No. 24).

2.2 Effects on Consumers

CEI, ECA, Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE), National Association of
Farmer El ected Committees (NAFEC), Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC), First Company, EMPA, and the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) provided comments regarding energy efficiency standards and the interests of consumers. These commentators, in genera l, asserted that standards would have the effect of increased consumer prices and would likely be adverse to the interests of consumers. Furthermore, commentators discussed NAECA’s consumer protections for rulemakings,2

- 3

including impact on purchase price, life cycle cost, maintenance and service agreements, as well as product choice, utility, features, and performance (CEI, No. 24; ECA, No. 23, WIFE, No. 19; NAFEC, No. 22; SBSC, No. 27; FC, No. 26; EMPA, No. 3 and 25; ACGA, No. 35).

Due to impact on consum ers, WIFE, NAFEC, SBSC, and ACGA commented that the Department should not expand the list of consumer products under energy efficiency regulation. ECA opposes expanding the scope of energy efficiency regulation without further empirical consideration of t he relative costs and benefits for residential and small business consumers (ECA, No. 23). CEI and ECA commented that DOE should only promulgate standards that are in the best interest of consumers or that would benefit consumers positively ( CEI, No. 8 an d 24; ECA, No. 23).

WIFE, NAFEC, and ACGA are concerned about rural area impact, commenting that expansion of the standards program would primarily impact affordability and access to basic household appliances and electronics in rural America. (WIFE, No. 19; NAFEC, No. 22; ACGA, No. 35). SBSC commented that consumers will bear the burden for costs incurred by industry, making some essential products unaffordable for “many Americans” (SBSC, No. 27).

EMPA commented that the Department could account for th e interests of real consumers by specifically contracting with one or more organizations that would be charged explicitly with such a task. This would include analyzing existing and proposed energy efficiency standards, evaluating data used by the Departm ent and its contractors, and defending consumers’ economic and choice freedoms (EMPA, No. 15). EMPA further commented that DOE currently provides funding to energy efficiency advocacy groups, including National Laboratories (AES), ACEEE, The Alliance to S ave Energy, (AES) and State energy offices (EMPA, No. 3 and 25).

2.3 Ranking and Prioritization

Southern Company, EEI, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ( AHAM) and ACEEE provided comments commending the ranking and prioritization criteria. Spe cifically, EEI commended the additional criteria of innovation and fuel neutrality (EEI, No. 5 and 16) , and AHAM commended the consideration of cumulative regulatory
burden (AHAM, No. 10). ACEEE commented that it would add “reduction in peak
electrical de mand” to the list, which the Department did, as shown in Table 1

- 4 (ACEEE, No. 39).

EEI questioned the relationship between the one

- quad cutoff criteria and economic justification. EEI commented that if the technol ogy that provides one

- quad of cumulative energy savings is the highest efficiency (and technically feasible) product, it is not likely to be economically justified ( EEI, No. 5 and 16). Several other2

- 4

organizations made similar comments about the appropriat eness of “best available” products as a potential energy efficiency level, primarily in the context of consumer electronics and office equipment. Specifically, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) noted that many products that can achieve the ‘best available’ energy efficiency may be a ‘de

- featured’ product, likely to have very limited market appeal (CEA, No. 28). In addition, CEI commented that “NAECA contains provisions to protect consumers from conservation standards that may diminish product cho ice, features” (CEI, No. 8 and 24). The Department acknowledges that consideration of technical energy savings potential alone would be inappropriate. The one Quad criterion was a preliminary sorting threshold and the list of priority products will includ e consideration
of economic and other factors.

First Company suggested that three more factors be considered for prioritization criteria: status as a niche product, dual function products, and effect on consumer choice (FC, No. 26). First Company stated that in many cases niche products are manufactured by small independent companies, and their share of the market is small. For ‘dual function products,’ First Company commented that “a product cannot, by definition, have two ‘primary’ functions, and the Department’s legal authority is limited to developing energy efficiency standards based on the primary function of an appliance” (FC, No. 26). In past rulemakings the Department has considered the unique consumer utility niche products provide by establis hing separate product classes for these products. Also, the Department has evaluated separately

- and considered

- the burdens placed on niche manufacturers. For the purposes of the priority setting, the Department did not evaluate dual function product s.

ACEEE commented that energy savings estimates should not be included for technologies that are unlikely to meet NAECA’s criteria of “technically feasible” and “economically justified.” For example, since heat pump and microwave clothes dryers
are unli kely to be cost

- effective to consumers, they should not be included in the

energy

- saving analysis. ACEEE further commented that other factors listed in NAECA under economic justification are generally more difficult to screen; thus, these other
factors sh ould be generally left to the rulemaking process as opposed to the screening process ( ACEEE, No. 39). In the initial screening process, DOE identifies technically feasible options for energy savings estimates, albeit some that are not yet commercially

ava ilable. Then, the Department reviews the list of design options based on the factors and policies specifically listed in the Process Rule. Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products, 61 FR 36974 (Ju ly 15, 1996).

ACEEE also commented that one major problem with the analysis is that many related products were examined separately, with the result that energy savings appear small. Where products have enough similarity that they can be combined into a s ingle2

- 5

rulemaking (e.g., commercial reach

- in refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator

- freezers), they should be examined together and not separately (ACEEE, No. 39).

The Department has determined that the following sets of products should be combined
int o a single rulemaking:

• Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnaces

• Reach

- In Freezers and Reach

- In Refrigerators

• Vending Machines and Beverage Mechandisers

• RACK/Component Audio and Compact Audio

2.4 Overall Process and Methodology

While few comments were raised r egarding the overall process and methodology, several general points of interest were brought to DOE’s attention. First, for products selected for further rulemaking consideration, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association ( NEMA) and EMPA presumed that significantly more detailed analysis of potential energy savings and economic benefits will be undertaken (NEMA, No. 20; EMPA, No. 3). In the TSD accompanying this report, the Department is providing a more detailed analysis of the energy savings po tential and where possible, a description of the consumer economic impacts. For any products ultimately selected for standards actions, the Department will undertake a rigorous economic analysis.

Southern Company commented that it generally agrees with the methodology (SC, No. 17) . However, EMPA commented that the period of time in lifecycle cost analyses should be changed to reflect the period of time that the initial purchaser owns the appliance 17 (EMPA, No. 15) . DOE maintains that the correct definit ion of time period to be considered is the entire life of the product, as useful energy and cost savings are realized throughout the product’s entire life. Regarding the compiled list of potential products, EEI commented that the list came only from a sel ected group of stakeholders and the additional suggestions made in October 2001, by other stakeholders should be
considered (EEI, No. 16) . As suggested by EEI the Department expanded the products under consideration in response to comments received during and following the public meetings.

Southern Company and AHAM recommend reestablishing the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency so that a forum exists to discuss and communicate issues of a general nature (S.C., No. 6; AHAM, No. 10). On the other hand, EMPA does not recommend that the Department reestablish the Committee , asserting that the former Committee resulted in communication limited to a preferred group. However, EMPA further commented that if the Committee is reestablished, it shoul d assure that all

17 EMPA commented that authority for this is given under 42 USC 6295 (o) (EMPA, No. 15)

.2

- 6

legitimate interests are represented, including “real consumers” (EMPA, No. 15) . At this point, DOE does not plan to re

- establish the Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy Efficiency; instead, it will continue to hold public meetings an d encourages participation of a broad range of stakeholders in the prioritization process.

2.5 Technology Changeover, Product Convergence, and Innovation

Bose, EEI, CEI, EMPA, and the Information Technology Industry Council ( ITI) commented that technology ch angeover, product convergence, and innovation affect consideration of standards for new products, specifically consumer electronic products and office equipment (i.e., VCRs, Component and RACK Audio, Compact Audio, Monitors, Desktop PCs, Televisions, and S et

- top Boxes). The three specific characteristics of consumer electronics products postulated as precluding energy conservation standards are: (1) short product life

- cycles relative to the rulemaking cycle, (2) rapid evolution of product features, includ ing multi

- functionality; and (3) the possibility that energy consumption caps might result in products that cannot support the otherwise desired breadth of features (i.e., de

- featured products). Detailed discussion of each of these issues and the specific comments is given in Section 4.5.

2.6 Voluntary or Other Programs

W.C. Wood, Southern Company, Controlled Energy Corporation, Sony, SBSC, CEA, CEI, and ITI provided comments in support of voluntary and/or energy

- use labeling programs. W.C. Wood, Sony, CEA , CEI, and ITI provided comments in favor of increasing the number of products covered by, and increasing the support to, the
ENERGY STAR ® Program, and Southern Company supported efforts to extend the

energy

- use labeling program to new products (W.C. Wood, No. 4; Controlled Energy Corp., No. 14; Sony, No. 21; CEA, No. 28; Bose, No. 32; CEI, No. 8 and 24; ITI, No. 30; SC, No. 6 and 17) . Sony recommended that the Department consider building on
the ENERGY STAR ® program to avoid potentially difficult and non

- productive regulation (Sony, No. 21). CEI commented that the success of non

- regulatory approaches reduces the need for additional standards (CEI, No. 8 and 24). ITI
commented that “a number of factors have contributed to ENERGY STAR’s ® success...perhaps th e most important is the program’s reliance on voluntary rather than
‘command

- and

- control’ compliance mechanisms” (ITI, No. 30). As noted in Section 1, the Department strongly supports the development of voluntary programs (such as
ENERGY STAR ® ) that prom ote energy efficiency for products, as appropriate.

2.7 Setting Standards at ASHRAE Levels

EEI commented that DOE should accept ASHRAE standards for products already covered by ASHRAE (EEI, No. 5) ; however, First Company commented that ASHRAE
standards shoul d not be a substitute for the Department’s own rulemaking processes and protections (FC, No. 26). EEI believes that Department resources should be saved for2

- 7

other activities (EEI, No. 5) . On the other hand, First Company commented that it
should not be a ssumed that standards developed by ‘standards

- setting’ organizations such as ASHRAE are truly ‘consensus’ standards that meet Department criteria (FC, No. 26).

DOE responds that its role in mandating equipment efficiency is separate from the role
of ASHRA E and building codes

. Specifically, the Department, for products over which it has authority to regulate, is tasked with setting standards in accordance with criteria set forth in EPCA, and the ASHRAE 90.1 standards may not satisfy these criteria.

2.8 One Wa tt Standby Level

Southern Company commented that it recommends setting a different standby power standard for each product rather than a universal one

- watt (1 W)standby power
maximum (SC, No. 17) . The Department will consider standby power standards that vary from product

- to

- product. A universal one

- watt standby power level may not be appropriate for all applicable products. The Department intends to incorporate standby power consumption on a product by product basis in the course of revising test

proce dures. Furthermore, the July 2001 Executive Order, which specifies that the Federal government should purchase products which consume one watt or less in standby mode, will create an incentive for manufacturers to produce devices meeting the

one

- watt thre shold where feasible.

2.9 NAECA’s 100 kWh Annual Energy Usage Requirement

EEI and CEI commented that the Department may not be allowed to legally issue rulemakings for products using less than 100 kWh per year on average (EEI, No. 5; CEI, No. 24)

. For seve ral product classifications (e.g., desktop personal computers, monitors, and laser printers), some participants in the meetings on priorities questioned the distinction between household and commercial energy consumption for purposes of applying NAECA’s re quirement of a 100 kWh minimum annual energy consumption (per household). For example, they questioned DOE’s authority to promulgate energy efficiency regulations for desktop PCs, as the average desktop PC consumes ~297 kWh/year in commercial applications but only ~56 kWh/year in residential applications. CEI noted this discrepancy between residential and commercial usage and asserted that desktop PCs, as well as monitors, cannot legally be subjected to rulemakings (CEI, No. 24). To further clarify appli cation of the NAECA requirement for some products (e.g., halogen torchieres and compact audio systems which may only be used with batteries)

, EEI suggested that detailed studies may be needed to determine the average or median

energy usage (EEI, No. 5)

.

In the context of an expansion of the appliance program as contemplated by the National Energy Policy, this report seeks to identify which products could have the potential to2

- 8

save energy from regulatory or other actions. Once the Department has identifie d those products, the Department’s consideration of further action must take into account its authority under EPCA.3

- 1 3 Comments on the Products under Existing Regulation: Product

- specific Feedback Received and DOE Response

This (and the following) sectio n of the report addresses product

- specific issues for those products identified by stakeholders as most promising for future standards. Each product sub

- section includes concise background information about the subject product, a summary of comments recei ved, DOE’s responses to these comments, and the Department’s proposed action for that product. This section considers products under existing regulation, and the next section covers the same topics for potential new products that might be included in the program. Section 5 addresses these same topics for products not selected for further consideration at this time.

In all of the recommendations, specific data for energy savings potential estimates represent the cumulative quads of energy saved in the per iod 2008

- 2030. To give perspective on the relative energy savings potential of different products for the purpose of this report only, the energy saving potentials have received categorization as “high,” “moderate,” or “low,” based on the thresholds shown in Table 3

- 1

.

Table 3

- 1 : Categorization of Energy Savings Potential (for 2008

- 2030 Period)
Classification Energy Savings Potential (quads) High >1.0

Moderate 0.5 to 1.0

Low <0.5

3.1 Dishwashers

Dishwashe rs, with an installed base of 53.8 million units, consume 0.24 quads of energy annually. The current minimum efficiency standard is an energy factor (EF) of 0.46. The identified technologies considered for revised energy efficiency standards are: (1)
th e best available unit as listed in ENERGY STAR ® (1.05 EF) and (2) the current
minimum standard ENERGY STAR ® for a dishwasher (0.58 EF). Using the efficiency of these two products as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 1.4 qu ads and 0.40 quads, respectively. 18

Currently, the primary issue concerning energy savings for dishwashers is the need for a test procedure that properly reflects energy consumption for new, readily available adaptive control technologies. The existing tes t procedure specifies testing with clean dishes only; therefore it cannot properly reflect actual energy consumption of dishwasher models that alter cycle times and functions based on the level of cleanliness of the dishes. In support of this, ACEEE comme nted that the dishwasher test procedure needs to be corrected (ACEEE, No. 39). Similarly, EEI contended that energy savings values based on the requirement that consumers use an appliance in one particular way

18 Source: Appendix A, Technical Support Document (TSD).3

- 2

(e.g. requiring pre

- rinsing) are not likely t o be obtained (EEI, No. 16) . Industry supports a test procedure revision for more accurate testing of new adaptive control models. Upon finalization of a new test procedure, ACEEE recommended that dishwashers be subject to a new rulemaking, as many presen tly

- available dishwashers exceed the current standard by 25 percent or more (ACEEE, No. 39).

To address new technology (e.g., adaptive controls, dirt sensors), the Department is in the process of updating the test procedure. The new procedure will use di rty test

- dishes

to encompass the variety of sensor techniques now in the market. As the next step, the Department plans to evaluate the energy performance of dishwashers under the new test procedures. This will allow the Department to determine the relat ive performance of the products and evaluate their energy savings potential.

The Department considers the development of new dishwasher test procedures a high priority. Furthermore, given the relatively high energy savings potential of new standards, the Department proposes to move dishwashers from low to medium priority for rulemaking.

3.2 Fluorescent Lamps

Fluorescent lamps consumed 3.0 quads of energy in 2001. Energy efficiency levels considered for possible future standards are: (1) best available Fed eral Energy Management Program (FEMP) procurement recommendation levels (4

- foot, 8

- foot, and

U

- tube lamps), and ( 2) recommended FEMP procurement recommendation levels (4

- foot, 8

- foot, and U

- tube lamps). Estimates for cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings at these levels are 3.54 and 1.84 quads, respectively. When taking into account market trends towards the use of electronic ballasts, the energy savings estimates due to the best available and recommended FEMP levels become 0.47 and 0.14 quads, respective ly. These lower estimates are more likely as ballast standards mandating the use of electronic ballasts for new fluorescent lamp installations will become effective in the year 2005.

Fluorescent lamps are subjects of EPACT, the ENERGY STAR ® program, the ASHRAE 90.1 building energy efficiency code, the FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and some utility demand side management (DSM) programs. Furthermore, although not specific to lamps, a recent Federal rule (2000) established electronic ballasts as the
b aseline for fluorescent lamps/ballast systems. NEMA commented that no further action is necessary because of the 2000 Federal fluorescent lamp ballast energy
conservation standards (NEMA, No. 20). EEI commented that these ballast standards, which go into effect in 2005, will shift the lamp technology to T8 lamps (EEI, No. 16)

. In clarification, DOE acknowledges that the ballast standards will essentially require electronic ballasts, as opposed to magnetic ballasts. Furthermore, the most common lamp/ball ast system sold in the U.S. today is a T8 lamp running on an electronic ballast,3

- 3

so a shift to T8 lamps is already occurring. In addition, the updated ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999 building code lighting provisions essentially require T8 lamps in new non

residential b uildings. 19 As of October 2001, seven states had already adopted the updated 1999 standard. ACEEE commented that lighting power density standards in building codes (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999) are a more flexible and preferable option than new lamp standards and thus recommended that fluorescent lamps should remain a low priority for a new rulemaking ( ACEEE, No. 39)

.

D ue to the low to moderate energy savings potential of the two FEMP scenarios 20 (0.14

- 0.47 quads, based on a more likely characterization of the future ballast market), the Department will not conduct further energy savings and economic analysis of new standards for fluorescent lamps, and this product will have low priority status.

3.3 High Intensity Discharge Lamps

High Intensity Discharge (HID) l amps, with an installed base of 167 million units, consume 1.4 quads of energy annually. If all HID lamps rated at 100 W or higher had an efficacy of at least 50 lumens per watt, which would result from the substitution of metal halide and high

- pressure s odium lamps for mercury vapor lamps, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy saving would equal 1.4 quads.

Southern Company, EEI, NEMA, and ACEEE commented on the cumulative potential energy savings estimate (with the opinion that it was too high). T hey noted that inefficient mercury vapor lamps are already being replaced by more efficient choices and that HID lighting (in general) is already used in applications where it produces the most light for the least electricity (SC, No. 17; EEI, No. 16; NEMA , No. 20; ACEEE,
No. 39 ). NEMA commented that even if all mercury vapor lamps were eliminated, potential energy savings may not even meet the 1.0 quad threshold. If the rulemaking occurs, NEMA commented that HID standards should be tailored to eliminate mercury vapor lamps, an already declining market, over a time period that allows users to make an orderly transition (NEMA, No. 20).

Market

- driven replacement of inefficient mercury vapor lamps with metal halide and high

- pressure sodium lamps is occurrin g but it is uncertain whether it will continue into the future. Data reported in the companion TSD shows that the annual sales of mercury vapor lamps decreased by more than 75 percent from 1993 to 2001. But there are markets (e.g., the southern U.S.) and fixture types (e.g., dawn

- to

- dusk fixture) that continue to use mercury vapor lamps due to their extremely low cost. Although life cycle costs clearly favor the change from mercury vapor to either metal halide or high

-

19 ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999 contains lighting power density (LPD) allowances in Watts/sq. ft for various building and space types. Where a fluorescent light is typically used, the LPDs were calculated based on T8 fluorescent lamp efficacies.

20 Another scenario considered, with a technology shift from T12 to T8 lamps offers too low of an energy savings potential to warra nt consideration for rulemaking. It is assumed that this shift will take place as a side

- effect of the upcoming fluorescent ballast standards, which will result in a shift to electronic ballasts. Therefore, since the large majority of these electronic ba llasts will be used with T8 lamps, the additional savings from mandating the present T8 technology would be small.3

- 4

pressure sodium lamps for most appli cations, it is possible that core markets will continue to utilize low first cost mercury vapor lamps. 21

The drop

- off in mercury vapor HID lamp sales over the past decade suggests a strong
market

- based move to more efficient HID technologies. The Departme nt will conduct additional analysis to determine if this trend is likely to continue at the current rate or “bottom out” at a specific level.

Due to the potential, yet uncertain, energy savings for HID lamps, the Department will
conduct a standards dete rmination to accurately assess the viability of minimum energy efficiency standards. Market trends will receive particular attention in the determination analysis.

3.4 Residential Clothes Dryers

Residential clothes dryers can be divided into gas and electri c subcategories. At an installed base of 18 million units, gas residential clothes dryers consume 0.064 quads of energy annually. Electric residential clothes dryers, at an installed base of 60.5 million units, consume 0.6 quads of energy annually. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) heat pump electric dryer with modulation (5.5 EF); (2) heat pump electric dryer (5.2 EF 22 ); (3) microwave electric dryer (3.4 EF); and (4) modulating gas dryer (2.8 EF). Using the se products as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 3.8, 3.5, 1.2, and 0.06 quads, respectively.

EEI and ACEEE questioned the economic and technical feasibility of heat pump and microwave clothes dryers. EEI is not aware of any working model or prototype of heat pump electric clothes dryers. EEI also commented that Edison Power Research Institute (EPRI) research found little success when applying microwave clothes dryers to full size applications (EEI, No. 16) . ACEEE commen ted that heat pump and microwave clothes dryers are unlikely to be cost

- effective; thus energy savings from a new standard are likely to be modest (ACEEE, No. 39).

The primary issue as to the energy savings potential of clothes dryers is that m echanical

e xtraction of moisture in clothes washers is 20 times more efficient than an incremental gain in clothes dryer efficiency. 23 The move to a modified energy factor (MEF) for washer performance has led to more washer designs that strive to reduce the remaining moisture content (RMC) of clothes, in turn reducing the energy consumed by dryers (by approximately 15 percent). Consequently, the potential energy savings for residential clothes dryers would decrease by approximately 15 percent.

21 Actual payback for conversion from mercury vapor to high pressure sodium or metal halide varies depending on three factors: actual wattage reduction, electricity rate structures of the region, and the number of hours electric lighting is used in the location.

22 For dryers, the Energy Factor (EF) equals the number of pounds of moisture removed from a specified set of test cloths per kW h of

en ergy consumed by the dryer.

23 Source: Appendix A, TSD.3

- 5

Furthermore, numerous changes to the clothes dryer test procedure are required prior to a standards rulemaking for this product, such as accounting for sensor systems (i.e., humidity sensors). Also, a new product class needs to be defined for condenser dryers and currently the re is one test procedure waiver in effect.

The Department considers residential clothes dryers to be a low priority product and will
not consider further actions at this time due to three factors: (1) energy savings for the task of drying clothes is effectively realized in clothes washers as opposed to clothes dryers; (2) the products with large potential energy savings (i.e., heat pump and microwave electric dryers) are not yet available in the market; and (3) the energy savings potential of the rema ining options are low.

3.5 Incandescent General Service Lamps

Incandescent general service lamps (A

- type) consume 2.5 quads of energy annually (2001). The identified energy efficiency levels considered for standards are: (1) a 1.5 percent efficacy increase over products currently sold; (2) a three percent efficacy increase; and (3) a technology shift to incandescent halogen lamps (17 percent efficacy increase). Estimates for cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings at these levels are 0.80, 1.57, and 8.52 qu ads, respectively. 24

ENERGY STAR ®, ASHRAE 90.1, the FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and some utility DSM programs address efficient alternatives to present incandescent general service lamps. NEMA recommended that the Department pursue increased use o f
ENERGY STAR ® compliant compact fluorescent lamps as the method to improve the efficiency of residential lighting (NEMA, No. 20) . NEMA further commented that to support this effort and maintain the quality and efficiency of CFLs, the Department
should co nsider minimum efficiency standards for CFLs similar to the current 2001
ENERGY STAR ® specifications (NEMA, No. 20)

. Shaver commented that both incandescent general service lamps and CFL lamps should be included in the standards program as the annual aver age per

- household energy consumption meets NAECA’s threshold (Shaver, No. 7).

EEI and NEMA provided comments in opposition of the potential shift to halogen lamp technology. EEI commented that a shift to compact fluorescent technology may be
more desirab le (EEI, No. 16) . NEMA commented that the expected market price of “A” lamps cannot support the cost of internal halogen capsules with infrared (IR) coatings, nor would they be sufficiently robust for household use (NEMA, No. 20). ACEEE
commented that th e economics of halogen IR technology has not yet been demonstrated. Likewise, halogen lamps are generally not as cost

- effective as CFLs. In summary, ACEEE commented that economically justified standards will not result in substantial

24 Source: Appendix A, TSD

.3

- 6

energy savings at th is point in time and thus recommended that DOE focus only on R&D efforts for halogen IR technology at this time (ACEEE, No. 39).

Regarding the proposed potential standards in general, EEI commented that an efficacy 25 increase does not guarantee energy savi ngs, as manufacturers may still make the same wattage bulbs, with the effect being the production of more light (EEI, No. 16) . NEMA commented that residential users perceive value in longer life, not in greater efficiency, citing increased acceptance of s crew based halogen non

- IR lamps (NEMA, No. 20). NEMA also commented that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates labeling of these lamps (NEMA, No. 20).

At this time, DOE considers development of new standards for incandescent general service lamp s a low priority because the more efficient technologies do not appear to be economically viable for this very mature technology . But due to the large amount of energy savings possible from shifting to halogen lamp technology, support for voluntary

progra ms encouraging CFL or halogen substitution will continue and the Department will explore research opportunities to reduce the cost of halogen alternatives

3.6 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Two classes of incandescent reflector lamps were analyzed: lamps reg ulated under EPACT (essentially PAR lamps) and unregulated incandescent reflector lamps (BR and ER lamps and exempt Parabola Aluminized Reflector (PAR) and reflectors (R) lamps)

PAR reflector lamps consumed 0.29 quads of energy in 2001. The identified potential energy efficiency standards are: 1) a 1.5 percent efficacy increase over current product sold; 2) a 3 percent efficacy increase over current product sold; and 3) a technology shift to halogen infrared reflector lamps (30 percent efficacy increas e). Estimates for cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings at these levels are 0.09, 0.18, and 1.44 quads, respectively.

Unregulated reflector lamps consumed 0.30 quads of energy in 2001. The identified potential energy efficiency standards are: (1) a 1. 5 percent efficacy increase over current product sold; ( 2) a switch to halogen lamps (18 percent efficacy increase); and (3) a technology shift to halogen infrared reflector lamps (54 percent efficacy increase).
Estimates for cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings at these levels are 0.1, 1.0, and 2.26 quads, respectively. 26

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established minimum average lamp efficacy standards (LPW) for many other incandescent reflector lamps, although BR, ER and some PAR

25 Efficacy is a measurement of lighting efficiency, recording a device’s ability to convert watts of power into lumens of light. Stated in units of lumens per watt (LPW), efficacy is a primary metric by which light sources are compared. Increased efficacy of a light source results in either a) decreased wattage for a given lumen level or b) increased lumens for a given wattage.

26 Source: Appendix A, TSD.3

- 7

and R lamps remain exem pt. In addition, ENERGY STAR ® , ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP programs, and some utility DSM programs address efficient alternatives to incandescent reflector lamps.

EEI, ACEEE and NEMA provided two general comments. EEI commented that for
incandescent reflector lam ps, a shift to halogen technology has already occurred in the
commercial sector (EEI, No. 16) . Similarly, ACEEE commented that because halogen lamps are fairly standard at present and because IR reflecting lamps are widely available, a new rulemaking on t hese products is appropriate (ACEEE, No. 39). NEMA commented that incandescent reflector lamps are already regulated for efficiency and test method by the Department and labeling by the FTC (NEMA, No. 20).

Furthermore, NEMA provided comments addressing e ach of the three classes of incandescent reflector lamps:

• Halogen PAR

- already covered by EPACT standards;

• Halogen PAR

- IR

- technology is not yet sufficiently mature for the general market. Furthermore, the technology can only be applied to a small inne r capsule, and it is therefore not a candidate for manufacturing a more efficient BR lamp; and

• BR lamps

–the efficiency of BR lamps is already considerably greater than the lower cost alternatives (“A” or “K” lamps). Subjecting BR lamps to efficiency

sta ndards would only restrict the general availability of the lamps, resulting in increased usage of the higher wattage alternatives. The Department could consider elimination of the BR rough service exemption and include lamps of BR31 and higher in the BR40 limit of 120 watts. Currently the “one

- piece” PAR (BR38) is exempt and generally available at 150 watts (NEMA, No. 20).

Regarding BR lamps, ACEEE added that a rulemaking should include BR lamps as these lamps are a major “loophole” in the current EPACT standard (ACEEE, No. 39).

In response, DOE acknowledges that most PAR lamps are covered by EPACT, but notes that a number of products, notably BR and ER lamps, are currently exempt. Moreover, the energy savings potentials of one option for the regulated category and two of the three energy savings options are high. Since the Department believes it would be best to consider all incandescent reflector lamps together, as a first step DOE will assess whether to classify currently exempt incandescent reflecto r lamps as
covered.4

- 1 4 Comments on the New Products under Consideration for Regulation:
Product

- specific Feedback Received and DOE Response

Whereas Section 3 discusses products currently part of the appliance standards program,
Section 4 describes new products, which if included, would expand the scope of the appliance standard program. This section brings together knowledge about the products, summarizes stakeholder comments, and articulates the Department’s proposed actions.

Note that energy saving s potential of a product category depends to large extent on which products are aggregated in the category. We have made considerable effort to base product categories on rational groupings of products, taking into account function, test procedure, simila

rity of energy consuming technology and characteristics, etc. For example, reach

- in freezers and refrigerators are grouped together because they share the same basic test procedure; only the operating temperatures differ. On the other hand,
commercial re frigeration is not considered a single overarching product category due to the wide variety among individual products, including their test procedures (e.g., vending machines versus reach

- in freezers).

4.1 Torchieres

With an installed base of 40 million unit s (1998) and annual shipments of about 14 million units (1999), torchieres consumed approximately 0.19 quads of energy in 1997. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standard levels are: (1) wattage limit set at 190 W, and (2) watt age limit set at 70 W. These levels have potential cumulative energy savings (2008

- 2030) of 0.83 quads and 1.7 quads, respectively. 27

DOE has not adopted a test procedure for torchiere lamps. However, there is an
ENERGY STAR ® test procedure that referenc es various ANSI, Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) test procedures, which include the performance characteristics of input power and light output. The inclusion of these two key energy efficiency metrics means that the test procedure accurately represents energy consumption and the potential savings. Furthermore, the test procedure and metric of energy input correlate highly with the peak output of torchiere lamps.

EEI and ACEEE provided comment s regarding the energy savings analysis. EEI believes that the analysis overstates the total annual primary energy usage and that peak demand correlation is likely low (EEI, No. 16) . Second, EEI suggested using import and export shipment data to provide information on market growth (EEI, No. 16)

. Finally, EEI noted that if CFL torchieres cannot be dimmed, then the potential for

27 Source: Append ix A, TSD.4

- 2

energy savings is reduced (EEI, No. 16) . ACEEE commented that DOE’s assumptions are inconsistent and lead to an overly conserva tive estimate of energy savings. Specifically, ACEEE estimates sales of nine million incandescent and halogen torchiere units per year and a 10 year average life, resulting in an installed base of 90 million units, much higher than DOE’s estimate of 40 mi llion units. ACEEE recommended that the Department review and revise its figures, which it believes will likely lead to a higher savings estimate (ACEEE, No. 39).

The Department agrees with EEI and ACEEE that the energy savings calculations are

uncerta in. In the TSD, DOE highlights two major counteracting uncertainties; the size of the installed base and, a market shift to lower

- wattage lamps due to safety concerns. Even considering the uncertainties the Department believes the energy savings potentia l of higher efficiency torchieres is such that they warrant further consideration.

The Department will give further consideration to the possible development of efficiency standards for torchieres, given their moderate to high

- energy savings potential (0 .83

- 1.7 quads). Since EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency requirements for torchieres, DOE will first assess whether to classify them as “covered products” under
Section 322 of the statute.

4.2 Ceiling Fans

Ceiling fans have an installed base of 158 mi llion units and annual shipments of 16.5 million units (2000); approximately 95 percent of ceiling fans incorporate a lighting fixture in addition to the fan. The fan apparatus (air

- moving) and lighting involve distinct energy use issues, and the 2000 ene rgy consumption levels equaled 0.14 quads for motors and 0.36 quads for the associated lighting. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the ENERGY STAR ®

- compliant air

moving efficacy level (75 cfm/W 28 ); (2) the bes t available aerodynamic fan blade performance (130 cfm/W); (3) aerodynamic fan blade combined with improved motor technology (260 cfm/W); and (4) ENERGY STAR ® compliant lighting (pin

- based CFL). Using these levels as baseline standards, the potential cumu lative (2008

- 2030) energy savings equal 0.47, 1.1, 1.6, and 3.7 quads, respectively. 29

EEI and AHAM provided several comments regarding the energy savings analysis. First, EEI questioned the assumptions of (1) lighting always “on” when the fan is operatin g, and (2) no use of dimming switches. Second, EEI commented that the metric of cfm/W for ceiling fan systems has no impact on annual energy usage or peak demand savings, as total watts consumed is the metric necessary for energy consumption (EEI, No. 16)

. AHAM commented that data needs to be gathered to determine the number of hours of use, the number of fans per home, usage patterns, climatic differences,

28 Cfm/W (cubic felt per minute/wall) quantifies the amount of air moved per motor power draw, where fan speed is characterized as the number of cfm of air flow. The levels cited are for the highest

- speed setting.

29 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 3

saturation and energy usage versus savings potential. AHAM added that the use of a fan (as opposed to an air conditioner) actually provides energy savings during warm weather, because fan usage allows thermostats to be raised to avoid or reduce the use of central or room air conditioners (AHAM, No. 10).

Our estimate of the lighting energy consumption reflects a lighting usage pattern independent of the fan usage. In addition, the Department recognizes that to achieve the goal of energy conservation, any efficiency standard must address watts consumed and that the efficacy metric of cfm/W does so. Thi s metric valuates and compares the energy efficiency of the air

- moving characteristics of the motor and blade technologies under consideration. Also, the Department recognizes that additional analyses are needed to address the issues raised by AHAM.

Sign ificant issues concerning regulation of ceiling fans are the variety of air

- flow capacities of fans and the common inclusion of lighting as an integral component of ceiling fans. Approximately 95 percent of ceiling fans are shipped with lighting and light ing typically consumes more energy than the fan motor; therefore, ceiling fan/lighting combinations may warrant consideration as a potential new product for rulemaking. 30 EEI commented that efficiency of the fan and efficiency of the lighting system should be addressed separately (EEI, No. 16) . DOE has

–and will continue to

– analyze the lighting and fan motor components of ceiling fan energy consumption separately.

A DOE test procedure does not exist for ceiling fan air moving efficacy; however, one
do es exist under ENERGY STAR ® . The ENERGY STAR ® test procedure is based on the industry developed Hunter Method, which measures the efficiency of a fan’s ability to move air (cfm/W). Tier I ENERGY STAR ® requirements, which took effect on January 1, 2002, a lso govern controls, lighting, warranty, and provide consumer information. Tier II levels take effect on October 1, 2003, and include amendments that cover most of the above categories and additional noise regulations. Controls may also increase energy s avings (e.g., the Gossamer Wind fan includes motion

- sensing controls to insure that the fan does not operate when people are not present in the room).

The Department will give further consideration to the possible development of efficiency standards for c eiling fans, given their moderate to high

- energy savings potential (0.47

– 5.3 quads). Since EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency requirements for ceiling fans, DOE will first assess whether to classify them as “covered products” under Section 322 of th e statute. Also, the Department will continue to support the ENERGY STAR ® program for ceiling fans.

30 S ource: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 4 4.3 Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnaces

Gas unit heaters have an installed base of approximately 3.2 million units (1995) and annual shipments of 0.14 million units (1995). Annual energy consumption is 0.5 quads (1998). Gas duct furnaces, at an installed base of 0.24 million units (1997) and annual shipments of 0.11 million units (1995), consume approximately 0.1 quads of energy annually. The identi fied technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) power vent (E t 31 = 82 percent); (2) pulse combustion (E t = 90 percent); and (3) condensing (E t = 93 percent). Using these levels as standards, the potential cumulative energy savings (2 008

- 2030) for gas unit heaters are 0.59, 0.72, and 1.3 quads, respectively, and 0.13, 0.16, and 0.3 quads for gas duct furnaces, respectively. 32

Efficiency levels for both products are set forth in ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999. EEI commented that the Department shoul d work with ASHRAE to change the efficiency levels of gas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces (EEI, No. 16) . EEI believes that products that are already covered by ASHRAE 90.1 standards should not have separate standards set by the Department (EEI, No. 16)

.

The existing ANSI test procedure measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters and duct furnaces operating under full

- load and steady

- state conditions. However, thermal efficiency measured under these conditions does not fully indicate t he actual annual energy consumption of this equipment. First, the fans and other types of air movers that are built into unit heaters and duct furnaces consume electricity but are not covered under the current testing procedure. Second, the test procedur e only
measures full

- load steady

- state efficiency and does not indicate how well the heater or furnace performs during “warm

- up” and “cool

- down” operation, or during part

- load operation (when the dampers are partially closed or the fan operates at partial speeds). A seasonal measure, such as annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE), would better model these effects. ACEEE commented that the Department should base its analysis on seasonal efficiency (e.g., AFUE), as the biggest opportunity for savings is by reducing off

- cycle losses, which are not accounted for in thermal efficiency measurements (ACEEE, No. 39).

Despite the moderate to high energy savings potential of gas unit heaters (0.59

- 1.3 quads), and the additional energy savings potential of the t echnologically similar gas duct furnaces (0.13

- 0.30 quads), these products are not currently covered under EPCA, and the Department plans no further action at this time.

31 The thermal efficiency, E t , equals 100 percent minus the energy that escapes via the flue.

32 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 5 4.4 Commercial Refrigeration

Several commentators addressed commercial refrigeration products in general. EEI
raised the concern that DOE had under

- estimated the payback periods for all commercial refrigeration products because the average cost of electricity it used was too high (EEI, No. 16) . The analysis, which was performed in 1996, used an electricity price based on geographic locations with medium energy costs of 7.82 cents per kWh (1996). 33 EEI commented that, according to the Energy Information Administration Statistical Yearbook 2000, the average commercial cost of electricity w as 7.26 cents per kWh in 1999 and had been declining since the early 1990’s. In response, DOE notes that using the most recent (1999) cost of electricity prices represents an approximate seven percent increase in the estimated simple payback periods and t hat this does not have a substantial impact upon the economic analysis. For example, the 1999 cost of electricity would increase a 2

- year payback period to about 2.15 years.

The Air

- Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) raised concerns about gro uping diverse commercial refrigeration products into “broadly defined categories” (ARI, No. 36). ARI further commented that it is only by aggregating all commercial refrigeration products into one category that the one quad criterion for consideration for rulemaking is met. On the other hand, ACEEE commented that commercial reach

- in refrigerators, freezers, refrigerator

- freezers, and beverage merchandisers should be part of the same rulemaking. ACEEE reasoned that because residential refrigerators, freez ers, and refrigerator

- freezers have been covered by a single rulemaking, the same should hold true for commercial products. ACEEE also suggested that refrigerator vending machines could be part of such a rulemaking, as they are essentially refrigerators w ith coin vending features (ACEEE, No. 39). Finally, ARI commented that DOE must first establish standardized test procedures for each product line and product class before it can consider regulation for commercial refrigeration products (ARI, No. 36). Th e Department’s response and proposed action for each product category of commercial refrigeration equipment is discussed individually in the following sub

- sections.

4.4.1 Walk

- in Coolers, Freezers, and Combinations

Walk

- in coolers, freezers, and combinations t hereof, are estimated to have an installed base of 0.54, 0.28, and 0.065 million units, respectively. It is estimated that walk

- in coolers consumed 0.095 quads of energy in 1995, walk

- in freezers 0.064 quads, and combination units 0.022 quads. The ident ified technology considered for energy efficiency standards is a combination of energy savings options, 34 which result in potential cumulative energy savings (2008

- 2030) of 0.37 and 0.35 quads for walk

- in coolers, and freezers and cooler

- freezers, respectiv ely. 35

33 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

34 Includes Floating Head Pressure, Ambient Subcooling, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, B rushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan
Motors.

35 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.4

- 6

Two factors complicate the application of energy standards to walk

- in refrigeration equipment: (1) the wide range of combinations of insulated boxes and condensing units actually used in the field, and (2) the importance of field installation to ov erall energy consumption. Moreover, a test procedure for a complete walk

- in refrigeration system does not exist. However, various test procedures exist for compressors and condensing units, which are major components of walk

- in refrigeration systems. Du e to the wide variety of walk

- in refrigeration systems as a whole (size, operating temperatures, etc.), we believe any energy test procedure should focus on individual components, such as the condensing unit and/or the insulated box.

EEI commented that th e Department should work with ARI or ASHRAE to set standards for commercial refrigeration (EEI, No. 16)

.

Based on the low energy savings potential (0.35

–0.37 quads), the large diversity of systems in this product category (and consequent complexity in p romulgation of standards), as well as the fact that many systems are assembled on site, the Department does not plan to take any actions for these products at this time.

4.4.2 Supermarket Refrigeration Systems

Supermarket refrigeration systems, with an install ed base of 0.03 million units and annual shipments of 0.055 million units, consumed 0.33 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technologies to be considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) a brushless direct connect evaporator, and (2) a combi nation of other energy savings
measures with less than a 5

- year payback period. 36 Using these two levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.44 quads and 0.39 quads, respectively. 37

EEI provided two comments regarding supermarket refrigeration systems. First, EEI suggested a review of EPRI research on supermarket refrigeration electric load profiles (EEI, No. 16) . Second, EEI believes that voluntary and information programs, rather than standards, are the best way to advance energy efficiency due to the nature of this equipment (EEI, No. 16)

.

The Department believes that the very wide range of system architectures used in supermarket refrigeration systems makes application of energy standards extremely complicated. A t this time, no suitable efficiency definitions have been established for supermarket refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems composed of many components, serving site

- specific loads. Moreover, almost all supermarket refrigeration

36 Includes Hot Gas Defrost, Antisweat Heater Control, Defrost Control, Liquid

- Suction Heat Exchangers for Low Temperature applications, Evaporative Conde nser, Floating Head Pressure, Heat Reclaim, and Mechanical Subcooling.

37 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.4

- 7

systems ar e assembled on site. Energy test procedures might focus on individual components, such as display cases or condensing units.

Given the low energy savings potential (0.39

- 0.44 quads), combined with the great range and complexity of supermarket refrigerat ion systems, the Department does not plan to take any actions for these products at this time.

4.4.3 Water Coolers

Water coolers, with an installed base of 6.03 million units (1992) and annual shipments of 1.0 million units (1998), consume approximately 0.044 quads of energy annually (1992). The identified technology to be considered for energy efficiency standards is a combination of energy savings options, 38 which would result in potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings of 0.26 quads. 39 The ENERGY STAR ® performance level would realize 0.24 quads of energy savings in the same period.

The baseline energy studies are 10 years old (1992), and EEI commented that a more accurate baseline of energy usage is needed and suggested conducting field studies (EEI, No. 16) . EEI also commented that daily energy use may vary significantly by season (EEI, No. 16)

.

A DOE test procedure does not exist for water coolers. However, ASHRAE and
ENERGY STAR ® both have test procedures for the measurement of water cooler

ener gy consumption: (1) ASHRAE 18

- 1987 (R1997) and (2) the ENERGY STAR ® test procedure (based on ASHRAE 18). It is unlikely that alternative test procedures will be developed; if an alternative procedure were developed, it would likely be based on the
ASHRAE procedure. The ENERGY STAR ® test procedure’s emphasis on standby energy use probably captures most of the energy use associated with water coolers. Also, the ambient temperature of 75 o F used in the ENERGY STAR ® test is appropriate for most applications . EEI commented that the minimum hot water temperature in the
ENERGY STAR ® test procedure of 165 o F raises concerns regarding scalding (EEI, No. 16). We expect this safety issue to be addressed by the ENERGY STAR ® program.

The wide range of water coole r types (e.g., ARI categorizes water coolers as: bottle

type, pressure

- type, compartment

- type, hot and cold

- type, and remote

- type) complicates the promulgation of standards. Given the diversity of this product and the low energy savings potential (0.24

- 0 .26 quads), the Department does not plan to take any action for the product at this time.

38 Includes High Insulation Value, Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Thermal Bond between coil and evaporator, Improved motor
effi ciencies, and Storage Coil Redesign.

39 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.4

- 8 4.4.4 Ice Machines

Ice machines, with an installed base of 1.2 million units (1995) and annual shipments of 0.30 million units (1998), consumed an estimated 0.10 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technologies to be considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) a combination of energy savings technologies, 40 (2) the Canadian standards; (3) FEMP recommended levels; and (4) FEMP best available levels. Using th ese four levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.18, 0.0, 0.16, and 0.31 quads, respectively. 41

Application of energy standards to ice machines is complicated due to the significant variety of products involved. AHA M commented that this product is undefined in the Department document, and that therefore it is unclear if the Department is considering icemakers contained in other types of products, and residential icemakers and/or commercial products (AHAM, No. 10). E EI commented that DOE should differentiate product categories by cooling type (air or water) and daily ice production capacity (pounds per day) (EEI, No. 16) . DOE clarifies that the product category of “ice machines” that we analyzed, which are classified under “commercial refrigeration,” refers to stand alone, commercial ice machines. The energy consumption and savings evaluations in our analysis take into account energy consumed to make and refrigerate
ice.

Although a DOE test procedure for ice machi nes does not exist, an industry accepted test procedure exists under ASHRAE Standard 29. However, because the ASHRAE test procedure was initially developed primarily for manufacturers to evaluate ice machine capacity, as opposed to ice

- machine energy effi ciency, it does not incorporate typical ambient and supply water temperatures. In addition, the ASHRAE test is performed at a
machine’s full ice

- making capacity, which overestimates the duty cycle of machines used in many applications. To better measure and represent actual energy use, a new test procedure that specifies more typical ambient and water supply temperatures, as well as a range of representative capacities, is needed.

T he current ASHRAE test procedure involves high ambient air and water temp eratures and 100 percent duty cycle and correlates well with peak load impact. EEI commented that peak load impact for beverage merchandisers and ice machines depends on the location of the equipment (indoor vs. outdoor) and the time of usage ( e.g., whet her ice production is in the daytime or at night ) (EEI, No. 16)

.

ARI commented that since ice machines do not meet the DOE one

- quad criteria for standards consideration, regulatory action is not warranted. The Department does not

40 Includes High

- Efficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor.

41 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 9

plan further actions fo r ice machines at this time, given the low energy savings potential (0.0

- 0.31 quads).

4.4.5 Reach

- in Freezers and Reach

- in Refrigerators

Reach

- in freezers, with an installed base of 0.8 million units and annual shipments of 0.08 million units, consumed 0.065 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) a combination of energy savings options (35 percent energy reduction); 42 (2) California regulations Tier I; (3) California regulations Tier II; and (4 ) ENERGY STAR ® minimum levels. Using these levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.40, 0.09, 0.15, and 0.23 quads, respectively. 43

Reach

- in refrigerators, with an installed base of 1.3 million units and annual shipme nts of 0.12 million units, consumed 0.054 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) three combinations of energy savings options (44 and 67 percent energy reductions); 44 (2) California regulat ions Tier I; (3) California regulations Tier II; and (4) ENERGY STAR ® requirements. Using these levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.42, 0.64, 0.76; 0.0, 0.09, and 0.28 quads, respectively. 45

The primary issues a s to reach

- in freezers and refrigerators are significant product variety and repeatability of the door

- opening tests in the ASHRAE 117 test procedure, as a DOE test procedure does not exist. On the issue of product variety, ARI
commented that the design and intended use of reach

- in products varies greatly. Some
“reach

- in” products have sliding doors, some have standard hinged doors, and some of these doors are transparent while others are solid (ARI, No. 36). ARI believes that assigning uniform minimum efficiency standards for all “reach

- in” products is impractical since they are very different products that, as a result of their design and use, have significantly different energy use requirements (ARI, No. 36). Regarding the test procedure’s door

- openi ng issue, t he expense of the test means that not all models made by a manufacturer are tested; instead, the manufacturer tests selected models and extrapolates the results to estimate the energy consumption of other models. Test procedures involving no in ternal load and no automatic door openings would be significantly easier to carry out and would have greater repeatability of results; however,
the automatic door

- openings provide a reasonable representation of typical reach

- in use.

42 Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Bru shless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors..

43 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

44 Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, (44% Energy Reduction); Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved G asket, Reduced Antisweat Heater Wattage, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor, PSC Condenser Fan Motor, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Refrigeration System Optimization (67% Reduction.); Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, R educed Antisweat Heat Input, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, Variable

- Speed Refrigeration System, Hot Gas Antisweat Heating (80% Reduction).

45 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 10

Nevertheless, ASHRAE S tandard 117 is already being used to determine the energy use
of reach

- in refrigeration products. Canada, California, and ENERGY STAR ® have all adopted this test standard. Correlation of peak load impact with the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is fair, since t he test procedure’s ambient temperature is relatively low. However, the ambient temperature condition is somewhat low compared to temperatures often seen in commercial kitchens employing the equipment. EEI does not agree with the determination that peak load impact is “high,” as they believe that this equipment has a relatively flat electric load profile with a high load factor (EEI, No. 16)

.

EEI also provided several comments regarding the energy savings analysis. First, EEI commented that the analysis does not show how technologies may interact to increase or reduce payback periods (EEI, No. 16) . Second, EEI commented that the best available efficiency of 5 kWh per day for reach

- in freezers appears to be based on a product that does not yet exist. EE I does not believe that standards should be based on “rough estimates” for equipment that does not exist in the marketplace (EEI, No. 16)

.

ACEEE commented that DOE uses a model developed by the Delfield Company to represent the base case energy consumptio n of commercial refrigerators and freezers. Based on its research, ACEEE believes that Delfield tends to make some of the most efficient units presently on the market and thus does not represent a good average
baseline. ACEEE recommends that DOE examine the California Energy Commission database for these products to determine a more appropriate baseline (ACEEE, No. 39).

Due to the potentially high potential energy savings (0.09

- 1.16) of reach

- in freezers
and reach

- in refrigerators, the Department pla ns to conduct further analysis for these products. Currently EPCA prescribes no efficiently requirements for these products. Hence, DOE will first examine covering them under provisions of the statute that concern commercial products. If DOE classifies them as covered under the statute, we would then review and decide what if any action to take with respect to adoption of test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards.

4.4.6 Vending Machines and Beverage Merchandisers

Vending mach ines, with an installed base of 4.1 million units and annual shipments of 0.4 million units, consumed 0.13 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technology considered for energy efficiency standards is a high

- efficiency compressor combined
with a brushl ess direct current (DC) evaporator fan motor (28 percent energy use reduction) and Royal Vendors’ Econo

- cool unit (47 percent energy use reduction). These technologies have cumulative energy savings potentials (2008

- 2030) of 0.67 and 1.13 quads. 46

46 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 11

Bevera ge merchandisers, with an installed base of 0.8 million units and annual shipments of 0.6 to 0.12 million units, consumed 0.05 quads of energy in 1995. The identified technology considered for energy efficiency standards is also a high

efficiency compress or combined with a brushless DC fan motor. Using this technology as a possible standard, the potential cumulative energy savings equals 0.33 quads. 47

Significant product variety is the primary issue for promulgation of energy efficiency
standards for ven ding machines. For both products, EEI commented that separate standards and test procedures should be created for indoor and outdoor vending machines and beverage merchandisers to account for the significantly different ambient
conditions. EEI believes t hat the suggested efficiency metrics may be feasible for indoor units, but are not feasible for outdoor units. Furthermore, EEI commented that DOE should clarify how it defines these two equipment types (EEI, No. 16)

.

For refrigerated vending machines, A CEEE commented that Royal Vendor, one of the largest manufacturers of refrigerated vending machines, just announced a new model that cuts energy use by about 50 percent, indicating that DOE’s estimate of savings (which used a 28 percent energy reduction) c an be nearly doubled (ACEEE, No. 39). As noted above, the Department has added the Royal Vendors unit performance level as a technology option and included it in the companion TSD.

For beverage merchandisers, the main issue is the i mportance of energy us e during pull down mode verses steady state. Furthermore, a test procedure specific to beverage
merchandisers does not exist. California treats Glass

- Door Beverage Merchandisers as
Glass

- Door Reach

- Ins, for which ASHRAE Standard 117 is the established te st, and Coca Cola has proprietary test procedures which include evaluation of energy use. However, a test procedure could be developed which is more suited than ASHRAE 117 to the operation of beverage merchandisers. Although the ASHRAE 117 ambient
temper ature of 75 o F is appropriate for typical temperatures for beverage merchandisers in most applications, the test procedure does not have a component which evaluates the energy required to pull down the temperature of warm beverages loaded into the
machine. EEI commented that the Department should work cooperatively with ASHRAE to create energy efficiency standards for beverage merchandisers (EEI, No. 16)

. DOE agrees that the energy savings estimate should include the recovery condition (versus steady stat e) and differentiate between indoor and outdoor product performance, and sees the need for test procedures that reflect these scenarios.

The Department believes that vending machines and beverage merchandisers energy have moderate to high energy savings p otential (1.0

–1.43 quads). Currently, EPCA prescribes no efficiency requirements for these products. Hence DOE intends to examine covering them under provisions of the statute that concern commercial products. If they are classified as covered under t he statute, DOE will review and

47 Source: Appendix

A, TSD.4

- 12

decide what if any action to take with respect to adoption of test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards. 48

4.5 General Comments on Consumer Electronics

Three issues are significant to energy effi ciency standards for consumer electronics products: 49 (1) short product life

- cycles relative to the rulemaking cycle; (2) rapid evolution of product features, including multi

- functionality; and (3) the possibility that energy consumption caps might result in products that cannot support the otherwise desired breadth of features (i.e., de

- featured products). The distinct possibility exists that an efficiency standard for one of these products could be obsolete by the time of its promulgation because the typ ical consumer electronic product is manufactured for a period significantly shorter than the typical rulemaking cycle. Furthermore, the variety and rapid evolution of features for these products complicate rulemaking. For instance, emerging digital TV te chnology may account for a large portion of the new TVs sold by 2006 and their power consumption characteristics may change significantly relative to today’s analog TVs. Finally, concern exists over the possibility that an “energy budget”
for electronics products would limit the ability to add energy consuming features desired in the marketplace, resulting in decreased product utility.

Bose, EEI, CEI, EMPA, and ITI provided comments regarding technology changeover, product convergence, and innovation with respect to consideration of standards for new products. EEI and ITI noted that given the rate of evolution for these products, new regulations would most likely lag far behind product development and potentially be obsolete before finalization (Boss, No. 32; EEI, No. 5; ITI, No. 30). EEI specifically
cited desktop PCs, computer monitors, compact audio systems, RACK audio systems, VCRs, and the convergence of any of these technologies with other products (e.g., Web TV and TV/VCR combinations) (EEI, No. 5)

. CEI added that most previously regulated appliances had been on the market for several decades before being regulated, and hence incorporated mature technologies that manufacturers had had sufficient time to develop (CEI, No. 8 and 24).

Commentators al so asserted that expansion of a standards program would have the effect of increased consumer prices and/or a decrease in product utility. CEI, ECA, WIFE, NAFEC, SBSC, First Company, EMPA, and ACGA all provided comments with regard to this issue and the i nterests of consumers. Additionally, WIFE, NAFEC, and ACGA commented that rural Americans would feel the greatest impact of higher prices and/or less useful consumer electronics, especially in efforts to overcome the digital
divide (WIFE, No. 19; NAFEC, N o. 22; ACGA, No. 35). First Company, SBSC, and

48 Proposed legislation pending in the Congress would amend EPCA to authorize the Department to treat commercial products as “covered products” under Section 322 of EPCA, and to specifically include commercial unit heaters and certain commercial re frigeration equipment among the products covered by the statute. If such legislation is adopted, we would re

- assess what action to take concerning these products.

49 VCRs, Component and RACK Audio, Compact Audio, Monitors, Desktop PCs, Televisions, and Set

- top Boxes4

- 13

EMPA extended this defense to affordability for all Americans ( FC, No. 26; SBSC, No. 27, EMPA, No. 38 and 25). With respect to specific products, CEA commented that DOE should withdraw computers, monitors, s et top boxes, and televisions from consideration (CEA, No. 28), and ITI commented that computers, monitors, servers, printers, copiers, fax machines and multifunctional devices should not be considered for future rulemakings (ITI, No. 30). In summary, CEI commented that “NAECA contains provisions to protect consumers from conservation standards that may diminish product choice, features, and performance 50 ” (CEI, No. 8 and 24).

CEA and ITI commented about the success of ENERGY STAR ® for consumer
electroni cs products. CEA asserted that “by voluntarily supporting the ENERGY
STAR ® program, the electronics industry has increased consumers’ awareness and use of energy efficient products; such industry involvement has been vital to the past
success of ENERGY ST AR ® and will be important to the evolution of the program” (CEA, No. 28). Furthermore, CEA commented that it is important for reasons of product convergence that electronic product specifications remain voluntary and market

driven (CEA, No. 28). ITI com mented that, given the substantial success of ENERGY
STAR ® in the U.S., and growing international support for the program as is, it would be “unduly burdensome” for the Department to create redundant energy efficiency regulations and labeling programs for information technology products (ITI, No. 30).

ACEEE provided suggestions regarding grouping of similar product classes for the purpose of rulemaking. ACEEE recommended, for the reasons stated, that the following groups of products each be considered a s a general group for rulemaking:



### • Televisions, VCRs, DVDs, and audio equipment

–opportunities for reducing their standby energy use are similar;



### • Set

- top boxes

–digital, analog, and wireless may be considered as separate product
classes but should be con sidered together for rulemaking; these could also be included as part of a TV/VCR rulemaking; and



### • Desktop PCs and monitors

–these devices are used in tandem (ACEEE, No. 39).

The following subsections address product

- specific comments and issues.

4.5.1 RACK/C omponent Audio

RACK/Component Audio systems, with an installed base of 74 million units and annual shipments of 10.6 million units, systems consumed 0.11 quads of energy in 1998. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the current
ENERGY STAR ® level (2 watt standby); (2) the ENERGY STAR ® 2003 level (1 W standby); and (3) the best available level (0.26 W standby). Using these levels as

50 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(4) as taken from (CEI, No. 8 and 24).4

- 14

standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.10, 0.20, a nd 0.27 quads, respectively. 51

Presently, more than 25 RACK/Component audio models draw one W or less in standby
mode. Further evidence of market

- driven or voluntary approaches is evident in
ENERGY STAR ®’ s target market penetration rate of 54 percent (200 0). However, standby mode only accounts for about 10 percent of RACK/Component audio energy consumption.

EEI commented that the analysis should not focus on standby mode energy use as the potential impact of such use on annual energy usage and peak dem and will be minimal (EEI, No. 5) . The only existing test procedure is the guideline for measurement of standby power in the “ENERGY STAR ® Program Requirements.” Given that the standby mode only accounts for about 10 percent of RACK/Component audio energy consumption, results from applying the existing test procedure are likely to provide a poor indication of actual energy consumption. Furthermore, the test procedure likely does not accurately evaluate peak load conditions, as many units are in “active” m ode during peak load time periods.

Bose raised several questions regarding power budgets, product convergence, and technology changeover for RACK/Component audio and compact audio products. Bose suggested that the power ‘budget’ should be specified by f unction rather than by product category. For example, if a product were to consist of a receiver, digital video devise (DVD) player, powered speaker, and video display all with separate line cords, each should get its own energy budget. Furthermore, Bose commented that many of its products contain components traditionally thought of as ‘computers,’ including hard drives, video displays, and mother boards, which raises the issue of product convergence and allowed power consumption. Bose suggested that pro ducts currently on the market at the time of promulgation should be allowed to live out their normal product lives (i.e., more than eight years), as it would be impractical to redesign all products in less than seven or eight years in order to comply with a new rulemaking. Furthermore, Bose commented that the DOE should consider the negative effect of energy conservation regulations on innovation in the high end of the industry, which is U.S.

- based and in which there is a high technology turnover (Bose, No . 32).

Bose also provided comments clarifying the degree to which RACK/component audio manufacturers are already subject to electromagnetic regulations and power factor regulations in many of the countries to which it exports. Bose suggested that to mit igate the impact of regulatory burden, DOE could ensure that testing and certification are permitted by existing agencies (Bose, No. 32). DOE considers overall regulatory burden as one criteria in its rulemaking process.

51 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 15

Given the low energy savings pote ntial (0.10

–0.27 quads), DOE does not plan to take actions for RACK/Component audio products other than support for ENERGY STAR ® levels that include standby energy.

4.5.2 Compact Audio

Compact audio products, with an installed base of 47 million units (1998) and annual shipments of 11.8 million units (2000), consumed 0.057 quads of energy in 1998. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the current
ENERGY STAR ® level (2 watt standby); (2) the ENERGY STAR ® 2003 level (1 W standby); and (3) the best available level (0.25 W standby). Using these levels as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.49, 0.55, and 0.60 quads, respectively. 52

Presently, at least 50 compact audio models draw one wat t or less in standby mode.
Further evidence of market

- driven or voluntary approaches is evident in ENERGY
STAR ® ’s target market penetration rate of 54 percent (2000).

The only existing test procedure is the guideline for measurement of standby power in
the “ENERGY STAR ® Program Requirements.” Standby energy consumption accounts for about 50 percent of compact audio energy consumption, and therefore, the existing test procedure correlates somewhat with actual energy consumption. The test procedure
likel y fails, however, to evaluate peak load conditions, as many units are in “operation” mode during peak load times. EEI and Bose made the same comments for compact audio as for RACK/Component audio regarding inappropriate focus on standby mode and technolog y evolution (EEI, No 15; Bode, No. 32).

Given the low to moderate energy savings potential (0.49

–0.60 quads), DOE does not plan to take actions for compact audio products other than support for ENERGY
STAR ® levels that include standby energy.

4.5.3 Monitor s

Monitors, with an installed base of 60 million commercial units and 51 million residential units, consumed 0.22 and 0.05 (commercial and residential sectors respectively) quads of energy in 2000. The identified technologies considered for energy effici ency standards are: (1) the current minimum ENERGY STAR ® standard (at its current enabling rate) and maximum 1 W sleep level (and 17

- inch cultivate ray tube (CRT) screen); (2) the current minimum ENERGY STAR ® standard, 100 percent enabled (and 17

- inch CRT screen); and (3) the current ENERGY STAR ® rate with liquid crystal display (LCD) screen (15

- inch screen). Using these three technologies as standards, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.44, 2.6, and 3.6

52 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 16

quads respectively in the co mmercial sector, and 0.32, 0.1, and 0.84 quads in the
residential sector. 53 Note that the ranking of the energy savings potential for the three options differs between the two sectors.

The energy savings potential for monitors depends in large part upon increasing the
ENERGY STAR ® enabled rate

–a software option. Although ENERGY STAR ® is prevalent in new monitor sales, the user often disables the power management feature, leading to 60 percent and 59 percent ENERGY STAR ®

- enabled rates for the
commercia l and residential monitor stocks, respectively. Increasing the ENERGY
STAR ® enabled rate may require software modification (e.g., permanent enabling of

power

- down features). 54

Although LCD monitors offer a large energy savings potential, they have a cos t premium of about 85 percent relative to CRT technology. This translates to a payback period for commercial use for a 15

- inch LCD of 11 years, and 33 years for residential use, both relative to a 17

- inch CRT. 55 Both far exceed the average monitor lifetim e of three years. It should be noted that the market share of LCD monitors is growing. Although LCDs represented less than three percent of the total monitor stock as of 2000,
their sales doubled from 1999 to 2000.

EEI commented that computer monitors f or the residential sector may not be subject to standards according to NAECA because the unit energy consumption is less than the criteria of 100 kWh per year. EEI also commented that the focus should not be on standby energy usage and that the most effic ient available products may be “de

featured” products (EEI, No. 16).

In response to these issues and comments, DOE plans to pursue activities to increase the enabling rate of ENERGY STAR ® power management features (and other ENERGY
STAR ® initiatives) but will not give further consideration to other actions at this time.

4.5.4 Desktop Personal Computers

Desktop Personal Computer (PC) energy conservation standards are considered separately for the commercial and residential sectors. For the commercial sector, w ith an installed base of 59 million units, desktop PCs consumed 0.21 quads of energy in 2000. For the residential sector, with an installed base of 51 million units, they consumed 0.03 quads of energy in 2000. Total annual shipments are 44 million units (2000).

53 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

54 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

55 In practice, a 15

- inch LCD screen effectively replaces a 17

- inch CRT screen due to the LCD’s more efficient use of screen space for viewing and higher display resolution.4

- 17

The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) 1 W sleep (current ENERGY STAR ® enabled rate) with standard microprocessor; (2) 50 percent ENERGY STAR ®

- enabled; (3) 100 percent ENERGY STAR ®

- enabled,
standard cen tral processing units (CPU); (4) laptop computer; and (5) low

- power CPU design. The five technologies have cumulative energy savings potentials (2008

- 2030) of 0.16, 0.89, 1.9, 3.8, and 3.6 quads, respectively, 56 for the commercial sector and 0.11, 0.03, 0. 08, 0.35, and 0.48 quads, respectively for residential desktop PCs.

Like all consumer electronics, issues are raised concerning focus on standby energy consumption, use of de

- featured products, technology convergence, and innovation. The energy savings a nalysis found that the laptop computer and a low

- power computer options yielded the largest energy

- savings potentials. However, EEI commented that using a laptop computer as the “best available” unit energy consumption is not logical because laptop comput ers may have less features when compared to standard desktop computers. EEI further commented that laptop and desktop computers should be analyzed separately (EEI, No. 16) . DOE acknowledges (and mentioned in the data sheets presented at the meetings) tha t many of the low

- power strategies used in commercially

- available laptop computers (e.g., low

- power CPUs) often command a price premium.

The DOE data sheet also stated that the low

- power design desktop computer is not commercially available, but it is tec hnically feasible to design and build. Such a model takes advantage of low power elements and components found in a laptop but avoids the high costs of tight packaging and liquid

- crystal displays. A hurdle, in addition to the lack of implemented low

- powe r desktop designs, is the cost premium of these chips.

However, several commentators raised different views regarding the low power design option. CEA and ITI commented that, contrary to the DOE data sheet, a low

- power or
power

- aware desktop computer is commercially available (CEA, No. 28; ITI, No. 30). Both commentators also believe that the correlation of a computer’s power consumption with a microprocessor significantly over

- simplifies the analysis for this product. ITI
also commented that correlati on of low

- power design with only one manufacturer (e.g., Transmeta) is misleading as other manufacturers have developed and market low power processors for laptop PCs and certain desktop PCs, including some which cost less than the $50 quoted for the Trans meta processor (ITI, No. 30).

As noted previously, uncertainty regarding the authority of DOE to promulgate of standards for desktop PCs based on NAECA’s 100 kWh annual household energy consumption threshold were raised by several commentators. EEI comme nted that desktop computers for the residential sector may not be subject to standards according to NAECA because the unit energy consumption is less than the criteria of 100 kWh per

year (EEI, No. 16) . On the other hand, Shaver commented that computers a nd computer

56 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 18

peripherals should be included in the standards program because the energy consumption of a household computer system (including a monitor, printer, and computer) meet NAECA’s threshold (Shaver, No. 7). Given the NAECA threshold, it might wel l be necessary to declare a household computer system as a product in order to legally regulate these products.

The energy savings potential for desktop PCs, like monitors, depends in large part upon increasing the rate at which ENERGY STAR ® power manage ment software is enabled. For example, although more than 90 percent of desktop PCs sold in 2000 were
ENERGY STAR ®

- compliant, only 25 percent of desktops in stock are ENERGY
STAR ®

- enabled. Due to the very rapid evolution of PCs and their functionality, t he Department does not plan to take any actions for this product at this time other than
support ENERGY STAR ® initiatives.

4.5.5 Televisions

Televisions, with an installed base of 212 million units (1998) and annual shipments of 31.4 million units (2000), cons umed 0.348 quads of energy in 1998. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) future ENERGY
STAR ® (1 W standby); (2) the best available model (0.1 W standby); and (3) LCD screens. Using these three levels as standa rds, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 1.4, 1.7, and 1.1 quads, respectively. 57

The present focus on standby instead of active mode energy consumption is the primary issue for the energy conservation potential of televisions. The “ac tive” mode dominates TV energy consumption (89 percent 58 ), and the DOE test procedure measures both active and standby power draws. On the other hand, the ENERGY STAR ® test procedure measures only standby power and will not measure potential energy savings from approaches that decrease the active power draw of TVs (such as LCD). CEC commented that the current mandatory federal test method is not accepted or used by industry, and that, it is therefore a hindrance to other organizations that want to take

ene rgy efficiency action either by mandatory standards or by incentive programs. CEC recommends that the Department withdraw the current test method, thus giving the opportunity for others to develop a new test method without the threat of Federal preemption (CEC, 38). EEI commented that the energy savings analysis should focus on the active mode and that peak demand impact should consider that the average home likely has more than one television (EEI, No. 16) . The TSD reflects these views.

Several other

issues complicate the establishment of effective energy standards for televisions. First, digital TV will probably have a major impact on the future of the television. A federal mandate to convert all television programming to digital signals by

57 Source: Appendix A, TSD.

58 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 19

2007 wi ll require either the purchase of new TVs with a built

- in digital receiver box or deployment of digital receivers (set

- top boxes) to enable digital signals to function with existing analog TVs. Either adaptation will strongly impact television energy

cons umption. Second, high

- definition TVs (HDTV), which offer much higher resolution than conventional analog TVs, exist in the marketplace and are expected to capture a significant market share in the future. HDTV will likely impact the active (and possibly the standby) power draw of TVs. Third, the quantity of multi

- function TVs (TV/VCR, TV/DVD, TV/Monitor, electronic programming guide functions, etc.) could increase in the future, impacting overall device unit energy consumption (UEC).

Due to the rapid evolution that will likely occur to televisions, the Department does not plan to take any actions for this product at this time other than to support ENERGY
STAR ® initiatives.

4.5.6 Set

- top Boxes

We have considered set

- top box energy conservation standards sep arately for cable and wireless product classes. Currently, analog and digital cable set

- top boxes, with installed bases of 45 million and 3.8 million units (1999), consume 0.047 and 0.008 quads annually respectively. The 13 million wireless set

- top boxes installed in 1999 consumed an additional 0.02 quads, for a total of 0.075 quads for all set

- top boxes. However, because of the Federal government’s mandate that all television broadcasting transition to digital signals by 2007, digital set

- top boxes are e xpected to displace all analog cable set

- top boxes before 2008. Consequently, all subsequent analysis of cable

set

- top boxes assumes that the entire 1999 population of cable set

- top boxes will become digital devices in the 2008

- 2030 period.

The identifie d technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) current
ENERGY STAR ® minimum level (15 watt standby); (2) ENERGY STAR ® 2004 minimum level (7 W standby); and (3) best available (1 W standby). Using these three levels as standards, the p otential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings for digital set

top boxes are 0.45, 0.95, and 1.3 quads, respectively. For wireless set

- top boxes, the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.02, 0.15, and 0.25 quads, respectively. 59

The ENERG Y STAR ® program addresses set

- top boxes; however, only two products for digital cable TV meet the ENERGY STAR ® power draw requirement of 15 W or less. In addition, the feasibility of a one

- watt standby level for a set

- top box is unclear. With respect to t he use of potential standard levels that are not necessarily feasible, CEA commented that only “real

- world” feasibility should be used to estimate energy savings potential (CEA, No. 28).

59 Source: Appendix A, TSD.4

- 20

The ENERGY STAR ® test procedure, which calls for measurement of stan dby power only, sufficiently accounts for current set

- top box energy consumption, as analog and digital boxes consume more than three times more energy annually in standby mode than in active mode. In addition, the boxes consume little additional energy i n active mode (relative to standby): analog boxes require an average of 1.4 W (13 percent) more to operate in the active mode, digital boxes 0.7 W (three percent). 60 EEI commented that a more proper way to define the energy usage modes of set

- top boxes wo uld be “processing” mode and “processing plus transmission” mode. According to EEI, set

top boxes are never in “standby” mode as they are constantly downloading and processing hundreds of channels of information (EEI, No. 16)

.

Two issues complicate the establishment of an energy standard for set

- top boxes. First, although presently consisting of cable and wireless boxes, the set

- top box category may grow in the future to include a wide range of products, including digital TV, personal VCF, video game co nsoles, Internet access devices, videophone, and multifunction devices. Second, the functionality of future set

- top boxes may expand to encompass several different tasks, e.g., receiving and recording TV content, computer network access, telephony, etc. All product evolutions will impact the feasibility of different standards levels. As a result, the Department does not plan to take any actions for this product at this time other than to support ENERGY STAR ® initiatives.

60 Sour ce: Appendix A, TSD.5

- 1 5 Products Not Considered

This se ction summarizes comments received on products which DOE did not select for further analysis or give explicit consideration.

5.1 General Comments

CEC provided several comments that addressed a group of products under existing energy efficiency programs. Fi rst, as a priority, CEC commented that the Department should publish final rules on the following commercial products for which rulemaking workshops have already taken place:



### • Central air conditioners and heat pumps;



### • Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps;



### • Central furnaces;



### • Packaged boilers;



### • Water heaters; and



### • Hot water storage tanks.

As another priority, CEC commented that the Department should take action concerning test procedures for these products as well as for water heaters that are consu mer products. CEC stated that the scope of the energy efficiency provisions for water heaters is very clear, but that the test method, which was developed before NAECA became law, has a much more limited scope and has resulted in confusion over Federal

pr eemption of State standards (CEC, No. 38).

5.2 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential of packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps (PTACs) is 0.03

- 0.56 quads. 61 EEI and ARI p rovided comments in favor of adopting ASHRAE standards for PTAC and heat pumps. ACEEE
commented that ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999 is not the maximum level of energy efficiency that is technically feasible and economically justified and therefore should not be adopted by DOE. ACEEE recommends that the Department conduct a rulemaking for PTACs once higher priority rulemakings are completed. EEI and ARI commented that the Department should adopt the ASHRAE 90.1 (1999 or 2001) energy efficiency standards for packaged te rminal conditioners and heat pumps (EEI, No. 16; ARI, No. 36). They further commented that any other Department action may result in less energy savings

61 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Products.5

- 2

due to the delay in standards implementation. EEI further commented that the Department should then w ork with ASHRAE to update the standards (EEI, No. 16)

.

PTACs were classified high priority products for rulemaking during the 2001 priority setting. The Department plans to maintain the high priority and reassess the energy savings potential. The Depar tment will also reconsider adopting the ASHRAE 90.1

– 1999 standard levels.

5.3 Ground Source Heat Pumps

Southern Company commented that given that most ground

- coupled heat pumps are significantly more efficient than air

- source heat pumps, it would be count erproductive to set standards for ground

- coupled heat pumps (SC No. 6). Southern Company further commented that setting standards for ground

- coupled heat pumps would likely increase their cost, thus encouraging consumers to purchase the less efficient and less expensive
air

- source heat pump equipment (SC No. 6).

The Department decided not to consider ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) due to the low energy savings potential that could be expected from minimum efficiency requirements.

5.4 Cooking Products

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for cooking products is
0.1

- 0.2 quads for gas cooktops and 0.2

- 0.4 quads for gas ovens. 62 This product category was not selected for further consideration, primarily because of its low to medium

en ergy savings potential. Comments received regarding these products are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Southern Company commented that changes in efficiency levels for competing products with different fuel types should be implemented at the sam e time to reduce effects on competition. Southern Company further commented that, therefore, standards for gas

cooking products should be issued as soon as possible since new standards for electric

cooking products (only) were issued in 1998 (SC, No. 6 an d 17) . Furthermore, EEI commented that it is concerned that gas cooking products were demoted to low priority in 2001 from high priority in the previous year (EEI, No. 5).

EEI commented that microwave ovens are shown as a NAECA covered product under
“coo king products” in the 2002 priority setting document dated August 31, 2001. EEI asked whether or not the Department wants to define microwave ovens as a separate product category (EEI, No. 5). Shaver commented that microwave ovens should be

62 Source: Appendix B. Data Sheets for Existing Products5

- 3

included in t he energy efficiency program, because the annual average per

- household energy consumption meets NAECA’s threshold (Shaver, No. 7). AHAM commented that it opposes any new rulemaking on microwave ovens, which were subject to a final

no

- standard determinatio n in 1995 (AHAM, No. 10). AHAM further commented that microwave ovens are relatively efficient cooking products and there are serious technical and economical issues in significantly improving their efficiency (AHAM, No. 10).

AHAM commented that coffeema kers should not be the subject of regulation, as their energy savings potential is small (AHAM, No. 10). AHAM further commented that the California Energy Commission agrees with this view in its pending rulemaking (AHAM, No. 10).

Given their low potentia l energy savings the Department is not considering further analysis for microwave ovens or coffeemakers. (The Department notes that, as indicated by AHAM’s comments, microwave ovens are already a covered product and DOE has place then in a separate produc t category.)

5.5 Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

A final rule was issued on May 23, 2002 for these product categories establishing a 12 SEER standard for most products. Comments received regarding these products are
summarized below. 63

CEC commented that the Department’s highest priority should be the completion of its rulemaking for residential air

- cooled air conditioners and residential air source heat pumps. Furthermore, CEC commented that the Department should maintain the original seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) 13 standard and its effective date (CEC, No. 38). EEI and ARI commented that the Department should not consider this equipment until 2011 because the new, higher efficiency standards are scheduled to go into effec t in 2006 (EEI, No. 5; ARI, No. 36).

ACEEE commented that it supports revisions to the test procedure and recommended that a key part of a rulemaking be to look at the accuracy of the test procedure relative to field conditions. In particular, ACEEE com mented that the current test procedure underestimates fan energy use and does not fully adjust for the benefits of thermal expansion valves in the field (ACEEE, No. 39).

EMPA provided comments regarding the energy savings analysis. EMPA commented
that th ere are limitations to the data used to make estimates about air conditioners and heat pumps (EMPA, No. 3). EMPA also commented that the time period for the payback calculation should be the amount of time that the appliance remains in the

63 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Product.5

- 4

ownership and u se of the initial purchaser, as opposed to the entire useful lifetime of the product (EMPA, No. 3).

5.6 Residential Refrigerators and Freezers

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for refrigerators, refrigerators/freezers, and freeze rs is 1.4 quads. 64 A final rule for this product category was issued on April 28, 1997, and became effective July 1, 2001. Thus, these products were not selected for further consideration for new energy efficiency standards at this
time.

W.C. Wood comm ented that household freezers (and other classes/sizes of refrigerators) are a logical extension of the ENERGY STAR ® Program. W.C. Wood also recommended that in addition to “automatic defrost” type freezers, “manual defrost
chest” freezers and “manual def rost upright” freezers should be included in a proposed rulemaking. W.C. Wood further commented that in some models and sizes, the electrical savings of manual defrost type freezers are equal to or greater than those
available from the automatic defrost t ype freezers (W.C. Wood, No. 4).

ACEEE commented that a 20

- 30 percent increase in residential refrigerator efficiency is possible, as opposed to the 10 percent improvement used in DOE’s analysis, and would result in savings of 2.8

- 4.2 quads. Thus, ACEEE recommended that DOE pursue a new rulemaking on residential refrigerators in the next few years (ACEEE, No. 39).

5.7 Residential Furnaces and Boilers

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for residential furnaces
and boilers is 1.8

- 15 .1 quads. 65 A rulemaking for these products was initiated in 2001. ACEEE commented that it supports the current rulemaking on residential furnaces. ACEEE further commented that the DOE analysis should include improved efficiency
of furnace fans. ACEEE e stimates that the use of high

- efficiency variable speed motors in furnace blowers can save 2.8 quads of energy (ACEEE, No. 39). The Department notes that in the course of the residential furnaces and boilers rulemaking analysis it will assess the impact of design options on electricity use as well as AFUE, and will seek comment on whether to regulate electricity use.

5.8 Commercial Boilers

ACEEE recommended that DOE adopt the ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999 standard for steam boilers but that nothing be done for hot wate r boilers at this time. ACEEE commented that the ASHRAE standard represents a three percent efficiency increase for steam

64 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Products.

65 Source: Appendix B, Data Sheets for Existing Products.5

- 5

boilers over the current EPAct standard. For hot water boilers, the ASHRAE standard represents little change from the current EPAct standard. ACEEE further commented that if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE standard, it would not be able to act again unless and until ASHRAE develops another set of new efficiency standards, an undertaking ASHRAE has shown little interest in (ACEEE, No. 39)

.

The Department proposes to move commercial oil and gas

- fired packaged boilers, from medium to high priority for a standards rulemaking. The Department will also reassess the energy savings potential and reconsider adoption of ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999.

5.9 Commer cial Laundry

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potentials for commercial clothes dryers (gas) and commercial clothes washers are 0.40

- 0.81 quads and 0.26

- 0.72 quads respectively. 66 These products were not selected for further considerati on for regulatory activity, primarily because they did not meet the one

- quad criterion. However, Alliance Laundry Systems (ALS), AHAM, and the Multi

- Housing Laundry Association (MLA) provided comments regarding commercial washers and dryers. Their commen ts are summarized in the following sections.

MLA commented that washers and dryers in common

- area laundry rooms in residential buildings (i.e., coin

- operated laundry) should be included in the existing program for residential laundry machines and that “na tionwide uniformity” should be added to the list of criteria for including new products in an energy efficiency program (MLA, No. 29). MLA commented that coin

- operated laundry machines generally fall within the definition applied to residential clothes wa shers and dryers and that these machines are used directly by consumers, not businesses. MLA suggested that only an interpretive ruling stating that the existing standard applies to coin

- operated laundry machines is needed (MLA, No. 29).

MLA further com mented that manufactures and suppliers at present face the prospect of having to comply with State regulations that are different from any Federal standard (i.e., Texas and California). According to MLA, machines in common

- area laundry rooms are approxima tely three percent of all 7.5 million washers and dryers manufactured each year. MLA commented that manufactures would find it either very inefficient economically or in practice unfeasible to produce one set of machines for the
residential market and the n several thousand other machines to meet any one State’s energy efficiency standard (MLA, No. 29).

ALS and Maytag commented that they support expansion of the Energy Conservation Program to include commercial clothes washers (ALS, No. 9 and 37; Maytag, N o. 18). ALS commented that a Federal energy efficiency standard for commercial clothes

66 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.5

- 6

washers is needed to preempt State regulations that have been adopted (i.e., California, February 6, 2002) or are being considered (i.e., Maryland, with legislation int roduced into its Senate on February 1, 2002) (ALS, No. 9 and 37).

Maytag, AHAM, and ALS commented that the existing definition of clothes washers in NAECA should be interpreted to include “commercial” units (Maytag, No. 18; AHAM, No. 10; ALS, No. 9) . AH AM noted that commercial/residential

- style clothes washers are products that are essentially the same as residential clothes washers, and therefore DOE should use its discretion to extend coverage of NAECA to these commercial products. Maytag added that c ommercial clothes washers should be included under the existing energy efficiency standards required for residential clothes washers since commercial clothes washers are “distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals” (42 U.S.C. 62 91. Sec. 321(1)(B), (Maytag, No. 18)

. Maytag noted that, earlier in the year, DOE recognized the similarities between residential and commercial clothes washers by allowing commercial units to carry the
ENERGY STAR ® label. (Maytag, No. 18)

.

While supportin g the inclusion of commercial washers into the standards program, ALS commented that any proposed commercial clothes washer standard must be set at
MEF=1.15 ft 3 /kWh/cycle, and not at the consumer home

- style washer standard of MEF = 1.26 ” (ALS, No. 9).

EE I and Maytag provided comments regarding the test procedure for commercial clothes washers. EEI commented that there are too many issues with test procedures and baseline efficiency parameters to warrant setting a standard for commercial clothes
washers ( EEI, No. 16) . On the other hand, Maytag commented that the same test procedure that is used for residential units could also be used for commercial units (Maytag, No. 18).

ALS and AHAM commented that the Department should not add commercial clothes dryer s to the Energy Conservation Program ( ALS, No. 9; AHAM, No. 10). ALS further commented that it bases its recommendation on the recognition in previous Department rulemakings that more substantial impact on the energy from laundering can be made through in creasing spin extraction speeds of the clothes washer (ALS, No. 9). AHAM similarly commented, adding that since residential dryers are not subject to new standards, it will provide very little energy benefit to apply existing standards to
commercial cloth es dryers (AHAM, No. 10). ALS further commented that no states have initiated any energy efficiency rulemakings for commercial clothes dryers at this time (ALS, No. 9).

The Department intends to investigate, in a context other than this priority setting activity, the possibility of covering residential

- style commercial clothes washers under existing requirements for residential washing machines.5

- 7 5.10 Oil Unit Heaters

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for oil unit heaters is
0.01 quads. 67 Oil unit heaters were not selected for further consideration primarily because of their low energy savings potential.

Similar to its comments for gas unit heaters and gas duct furnaces, EEI commented that the Department should not set standards for oil unit heaters because they fall under
ASHRAE 90.1

- 1999 standards. EEI believes that the Department should work with ASHRAE to change the efficiency levels of this equipment (EEI, No. 16) . EEI also commented that peak load impact should refer to n atural gas/petroleum peak demand, not electricity (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.11 Exit Signs

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for exit signs is 0.06

- 0.41 quads. 68 This product category was not selected for further consideration, primarily
b ecause of its low energy savings potential. Comments received regarding this product are summarized in the following paragraph.

EEI commented that the best available technology, in terms of energy efficiency, should be an (LED) exit sign that meets all a pplicable codes. EEI commented that the Department should not use electro luminescent or photo luminescent exit signs, as they do not meet current fire and safety codes, especially with regards to visibility (citing January 1994 National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP) Specifier Report) (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.12 Traffic Signals

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for traffic signals is 0.3

- 0.6 quads. 69 This product category was not selected for further consideration primaril y because of its low to moderate energy savings potential and the strong market

- based demand for (more efficient) LED traffic signals.

EEI provided two comments regarding the energy savings estimates for traffic signals (EEI, No. 16):

1. Variations in the physical size of traffic lights lead to variations in wattage of the lighting system (e.g., 9

- inch disc versus 12

- inch disc).
2. Ambient temperature impacts the energy usage of LED traffic lights. The

67 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

68 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

69 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.5

- 8

California Energy Commission’s proposed standard sets d ifferent levels for 25 o C and
74 o C.

EEI also commented that the peak load impact estimates should be reevaluated. EEI added that the CEC uses a 34 percent coincident demand factor (EEI, No. 16).

5.13 Dehumidifiers

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energ y savings potential for dehumidifiers is
0.19

- 0.53 quads. 70 This product category was not selected for further consideration primarily because of its low to moderate energy savings potential.

AHAM commented that the ENERGY STAR ® Program for dehumidifiers should be sufficient for dehumidifiers considering their modest energy use (AHAM, No. 10). EEI commented that seasonal usage patterns should be taken into account for determining impact on peak demand. High correlation may occur in summer, but little or no correlation occurs in the winter (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.14 Copy Machines

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for copy machines equals 0.1

- 0.7 quads in the commercial sector and 0.08

- 0.11 quads in the residential

sector. 71 This produc t category was not selected for further, primarily because of its low energy savings potential.

EEI commented that the analysis for copiers should focus on the “active” mode. EEI does not agree that energy savings depends on the technical abilities to l ower “sleep power” as it likely constitutes only 10.5 percent of the total energy usage (EEI, No. 16)

. Regarding the test procedure, EEI commented that the procedure should measure energy usage in all modes (e.g., active, standby, sleep and off) with appr opriate weighting
factors for each (EEI, No. 16) . Finally, EEI agreed with using total annual energy usage as the metric rather than watts for particular modes (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.15 Fax Machines

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for fax machines is
0.12

- 0.24 quads in the commercial sector and 0.04

- 0.07 quads in the residential sector. 72 This product category was not selected for further consideration primarily because of its low energy savings potential.

70 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

71 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

72 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.5

- 9

EEI commented that fax machines may not meet NAECA’s 100 kWh per year annual energy consumption criterion (EEI, No. 16) . Furthermore, EEI commented that if fax machines are becoming an obsolete technology, it does not make sense for the Department to create standards (EEI, No. 16) . Similar to its comments for desktop computers, EEI stated that there is an incorrect focus on standby energy usage and that best available products may be “de

- featured” products (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.16 Laser Printers

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) e nergy savings potential for laser printers is 0.2

- 0.5 quads in the commercial sector and 0.0 quads in the residential sector. 73 This product category was not selected for further consideration, primarily because of its low energy savings potential.

EEI c ommented that laser printers for the residential sector may not be subject to standards according to NAECA because the unit energy consumption is less than the criteria of 100 kWh per year. EEI further commented that only laser printers in the
commercial sector use more than 100 kWh per year (EEI, No. 16) . EEI also commented that the analysis of commercial laser printers should account for the different usage patterns between a desktop and networked printer (EEI, No. 16) . Finally, EEI commented that, lik e copiers, laser printers are likely to have multiple “standby” modes (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.17 Low

- End Servers, Commercial

The estimated cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings potential for low

- end commercial servers equals 0.19 to 0.92 quads. 74 This product cate gory was not selected for further consideration primarily because of its low energy savings potential and the rapid
evolution of low

- end server products. Comments received regarding this product are summarized in the following paragraph.

EEI commented th at the amount of time in “sleep” mode for low

- end commercial servers is probably very small. Therefore, the 90 percent energy savings shown for the best available unit may be overstated (EEI, No. 16). EEI further commented that if
power management system s affect server performance, they will not likely be accepted in the marketplace (EEI, No. 16)

.

73 Source: Appendix C, Data Sheets for New Products.

74 Source: Appendix C, Data Sh eets for New Products. 5.18 Wine Chillers

Although wine chillers were not on the list of potential new products under consideration, one comment was received regarding this product. CEC commented that5

- 10

the Department should publish the proposed rule that would change the wording of the Code of Federal Regulations to make it clear that wine chillers are exempt products under federal regulation. CEC commented that this ruling is needed to clear the question of federal preemption of state standards for wine chillers (CEC, 38).

5.19 Power Supplies and Battery Chargers

The product categories of external power supplies and battery chargers were not on the list of potential new products for c onsideration for regulation but were raised for consideration at the November 26, 2001, meeting. ACEEE, EEI, and Southern Company thereafter provided comments on these products.

ACEEE commented that DOE should add external power supplies and battery charg ers to its analysis. ACEEE commented that both have relatively high standby energy use and thus provide opportunities for significant energy savings. ACEEE estimates that the average household has 3

- 5 of these devices and that standards can reduce the st andby power of these products by at least 3 watts (from an average of about 4.5 watts to an average of 1

- 1.5 watts), resulting in 1.6

- 2.8 quads of cumulative energy savings. In summary, ACEEE recommended that the Department conduct rulemaking activity on external power supplies and battery chargers as a priority at this time (ACEEE, No. 39).

On the other hand, Southern Company commented that the Department does not have authority to regulate power supplies and battery chargers because they do not meet the NAECA criterion of unit energy consumption of 100 kWh per year, and EEI asserted that stand alone battery chargers likely fail to meet this criterion (EEI, No. 16; SC, No. 17) . The 100 kWh criterion, however, does not apply to energy consumption by a uni t of a product per household, but rather applies to consumption by a product per household (i.e., by all units in a household). Southern Company added that it seems incorrect to interpret the law to lump these products into one group that would meet the
1 00 kWh criterion (SC, No. 17). EEI commented that external power supplies and many battery chargers are appliance components, and that energy efficiency standards should not be set for such products without regard for the appliance system of which they ar e part, as this could result in increased energy usage by the system (EEI, No. 16)

.

5.20 Video Cassette Recorders

VCRs, with an installed base of 129 million units (1998) and annual shipments of 24 million units (2000), consumed 0.10 quads of energy in 199 8. The identified technologies considered for energy efficiency standards are: (1) the new ENERGY
STAR ® compliant level (2 W standby) and (2) a 1 W standby level (proposed 20035

- 11

ENERGY STAR ® level). Using these two levels as standards, the potential cumu lative (2008

- 2030) energy savings are 0.25 quads and 0.38 quads, respectively. 75

Currently, 45 VCRs in the market meet ENERGY STAR ® standards (i.e., the ENERGY
STAR ® website lists 45 models by eight different manufacturers, available as of September 1, 200 1). A test procedure does not exist for VCRs, but future revisions of
the “ENERGY STAR ® Program Requirements” will include test procedures that call for the use of a power meter to measure VCR power draw in standby mode. However, this test procedure woul d have a low correlation with VCR energy consumption as standby mode accounts for only about 35 percent of VCR annual energy consumption. Accordingly, EEI commented that the energy conservation impact of reducing “standby” energy usage would be minimal an d may prevent important innovations (EEI, No. 16) . EEI added that the “best available” products (i.e., low standby power) might not have the features necessary for market appeal (EEI, No. 16) . As for product peak load impact, the degree of correlation fo r VCRs is unknown because it depends upon the distribution of VCR operational mode during peak power demand periods which cannot be readily determined.

Given the low energy savings potential (0.25

–0.38 quads) and the general issues of product life

- time relative to the rulemaking cycle, rapid evolution of features, and the potential for a “de

- featured” product, DOE does not plan to take actions for VCRs at this time other than support for ENERGY STAR ® levels that include standby energy.

75 Source: Appendix A, TSD.6

- 1 6 Summary of Propo sed Actions

A summary of the proposed actions for each currently regulated product considered is given in Table 6

- 1

.

For each product under consideration the Department is proposing one or more of the following future actions:



### • C hanging the priority of standards and test procedures;



### • Conducting additional analysis;



### • Supporting ENERGY STAR ®
76 and other voluntary efforts;



### • Exploring research opportunities

Table 6

- 1 : Summary of Proposed A ctions for Currently Regulated Products under Consideration

Product Energy Savings (Quads) Proposed Action

Dishwashers 0.40

– 1.4 • High priority test procedure

• Move from low to medium rulemaking priority for standards

Fluorescent Lamps 0.14

– 0.47 • Mainta in low priority for standards

• Conduct additional analysis

• Explore research opportunities
High Intensity Discharge Lamps 1.4 • High priority for standards determination

Residential Clothes Dryers 0.06

– 3.8 • Low priority for standards

Incandescent General Service Lamps 0.8

– 8.52 • Low priority for standards

• Support voluntary efforts encouraging CFL and Halogen

• Explore research opportunities
Incandescent Reflector Lamps 0.19

– 3.7 • Assess possibility of classifying as a “covered product” for 2 currently exemp t lamps (e.g., BR and ER)

Dishwashers : The Department estimates the potential cumulative (2008

- 2030) energy savings from new dishwasher standards between 0.40 and 1.4 quads. Before these savings can be obtained, however, a revised test procedure is nee ded to properly reflect the energy consumption of products that use adaptive control technologies. Consequently, the Department considers the development of new dishwashers test procedures a high priority. Furthermore, given the relatively high

- energy sa vings

76 DOE and EPA jointly administer the ENERGY STAR ® program, and the DOE supports all products in the program. The “Support ENERGY STAR ® “ comment is intended to signify products for which the ENERGY STAR ® program offers greater energy savings potential; its absence is not intended to signify exclusion of certain products6

- 2

potential of new standards, the Department proposes to move dishwashers from low to medium priority for standards.

Fluorescent lamps are subjects of numerous mandatory and voluntary initiatives including the ENERGY STAR ® program, ASHRAE 90.1 buildi ng energy efficiency standards, the FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and utility DSM programs. Furthermore, new ballast standards, which go into effect in 2005, are expected to accelerate to market shift to T8 lamp technology. Given the rapidly changi ng lamp market, the Department proposes to maintain fluorescent lamps in the low priority category for standards development. However, given the large energy savings potential resulting from even a small efficiency improvement, the Department will conduct additional analysis.

High Intensity Discharge Lamps : Due to the potential, yet uncertain, energy savings, for this product, the Department considers HID lamps a high priority (determination) product.

Residential Clothes Dryers : The Department’s analy sis indicates that the Clothes Dryer design options with large potential energy savings (i.e., heat pump and microwave electric dryers) are not yet commercially viable. Also limiting the potential benefits of a new standard is the expectation that the new descriptor for clothes washer efficiency, (Modified Energy Factor or MEF), will led to more washer designs that strive to reduce the remaining moisture content of clothes. In conclusion, given the low energy savings potential identified DOE considers res idential clothes dryers a low priority product for both standards and test procedures and is not considering further actions at this time

.

Incandescent General Service Lamps (A

- type): At this time, DOE considers development of new standards for incandesc ent general service lamps a low priority because the more efficient technologies do not appear to be economically viable for this very mature technology . Support for voluntary programs encouraging CFL or halogen substitution will continue and the Departme nt will explore research opportunities to reduce the cost of halogen alternatives (e.g., IR coatings).

Incandescent Reflector Lamps: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established minimum average lamp efficacy standards (lumens per watt) for many incandescent reflector lamps, although BR, ER and some PAR and R lamps remain exempt. The Department estimates that the potential energy savings from both regulated and unregulated lamps are large. The Department will assess whether to classify currently exempt inca ndescent reflector lamps as covered products under EPCA. If these lamps become covered products then the Department will consider moving all incandescent reflector lamps from low to high priority for standards.6

- 3

Incorporating the proposed actions just des cribed for new products, Table 6.2 presents the appliance standards programs’ revised priorities for standards and determinations.

Table 6

- 2: Revised Priorities

- Standards and Determination

High Medium

Residential Central AC/HP Dishwas hers

Distribution Transformers Central AC/HP, three

- phase <65 kBtu

Residential Furnaces and Boilers HID (Determination) # Small Electric Motors (Determination)
Central AC/HP, 65

- 240kBtu

Oil

- and Gas

- Fired Commercial Packaged
Boilers #

Tankless Gas

- Fired Instantaneous Water
Heaters# Packaged Terminal AC/HP

# Indicates change in priority status compared to 2001 priority

Comparing table 6

- 2 with table 1

- 6 illustrates the change in priorities since the 2001 priority setting. The Small Electric Motors determination process is continuing and remains a high priority.

The test procedure priorities are shown in table 6

- 3. These are unchanged from the 2002 priorities shown in table 1

- 17.

Table 6

- 3: Revised Priorities

– Test Procedures High Medium

Dishwashers Compact Refrigerators

Residential Central AC/HP Ductless Split Central AC/HP

Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps

Commercial Furnaces

Commercial Water Heaters6

- 4

A summary of the recommended actions for each new product considered i s given in
Table 6

- 4.

Table 6

- 4: Summary of Proposed Actions for New Products under Consideration

Product Energy

Savings
(Quads) Recommended Actions

Torchieres (0.83

– 1.7) • Ass ess possibility of classifying as

“covered product”

• Support ENERGY STAR ®Consumer Products

Ceiling Fans (excluding lighting)
(including lighting) (0.47

– 1.6)
(4.17

– 5.3) • Assess possibility of classifying as

“covered product”

• Support ENERGY STAR ®CommercialHeating Gas Unit Heaters and Gas Duct
Furnances (0.72

– 1.6) • No further action at this time”

Walk

- in Coolers, Freezers, and Combinations (0.35

– 0.37)

Supermarket Refrigeration Systems (0.39

– 0.44)

Water Coolers (0. 24

– 0.26)

Ice Machines (0.0

– 0.31) • No further actions at this time

Reach

- in Freezers
and Reach

- in Refrigerators (0.09

– 1.16) • Assess possibility of classifying as

“covered product”Commercial Refrigeration

Vending Machines and Beverage
Merchandisers (1.0

– 1.43) • Assess possibility of classif ying as

“covered product”

RACK / Component Stereo Audio (0.10

– 0.27) • Support ENERGY STAR®

Compact Audio (0.49

– 0.60)

Monitors (.76

– 4.44)
Desktop PC (0.27

– 4.15)

Televisions (1.1

– 1.7)

Set

- Top Boxes (0.47

– 1.55)Consumer Electronics6

- 5

Torchieres: The Department found that substantial energy savings could be achieved through wider use of torchieres that are more energy efficient than those which now predominate in the marketplace. EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency require ments for torchieres, and therefore DOE intends to assess whether to classify them as “covered products” under Section 322 of the statute. If they are classified as covered products, the Department will then review and decide what if any action to take wi th respect to adoption of test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE plans to support energy efficiency for torchieres through ENERGY STAR  initiatives.

Ceiling Fans: Based on the potential for high energy savings from use of more efficient ceiling fans, DOE plans to consider the development of efficiency requirements for this product. Since EPCA currently prescribes no efficiency requirements for ceiling fans, as with torchieres, DOE intends to assess whether to classify them as “covered

pr oducts” under Section 322 of the statute. If they are classified as covered products, the Department will then review and decide what if any further action to take DOE plans to support energy efficiency for torchieres through ENERGY STAR  initiatives.

Ga s Unit Heaters and Gas Duct Furnace : The Department believes that substantial energy savings could be achieved through wider use of gas unit heaters and duct furnaces that are more energy efficient than those which now predominate in the marketplace. Als o, it might be beneficial to develop a test procedure for these products that take into account seasonal efficiency. Since EPCA prescribes no efficiency requirements for these products, DOE does not plan to take any further action for these products at th is time. 77

Walk

- in Coolers, Freezers, and Combinations; Supermarket Refrigeration Systems; Water Coolers; and Ice Machines : The Department analyzed and received comments on several additional types of commercial refrigeration equipment. Given their low

e nergy savings potential, the Department does not plan to take any further actions for these products at this time.

Reach

- in Refrigerators and Reach

- in Freezers; Vending Machines and Beverage
Merchandisers: The Department believes that substantial energy savings could be achieved through wider use of more efficient commercial refrigeration equipment of these types. Since EPCA prescribes no efficiency requirements for these products, DOE intends to examine covering them under the statute. If they are clas sified as covered, DOE would then review and decide what if any further action to take.

Consumer Electronics: Most consumer products present significant issues such as their product life

- time relative to the rulemaking cycle and rapid evolution of featur es. Given

77 Proposed legislation pending in the Congress would amend EPCA to authorize the Department to treat commercial products as “covered prod ucts” under Section 322 of EPCA, and to specifically include commercial unit heaters and certain commercial refrigeration equipment among the products covered by the statute. If such legislation is adopted, we would re

- assess what action to take concernin g these products.6

- 6

consideration of these concerns, the Department does not plan to take any further action for these products at this time. Instead, DOE plans to support energy efficiency for consumer electronics products through ENERGY STAR ® initiatives. This includes pursuing development actions to support more user

- friendly ENERGY STAR ® power management interfaces for office equipment. ENERGY STAR ® already has consensus

based efficiency levels tailored to each consumer electronics product, as well as widespr ead industry participation for most products.1 References

The commentators are listed in order of receipt by the Department and as numerically labeled by the Department. Numbers (1,2, 11, 12, and 13) were not assigned to a comment. Number (34) was the same as number (14).

Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA, No. 3). Glenn R. Schleede. September 11, 2001.

W.C. Wood Company Limited (W.C. Wood, No. 4) . David M. Scheach. September 14,
2001.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI, No. 5). Steve Rose nstock, P.E. October 9, 2001.

Southern Company (SC, No. 6). Donald M. Brundage, P.E. October 10, 2001.

Gary Shaver (Shaver, No. 7). October 11, 2001.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI, No. 8). Ben Lieberman. October 11, 2001.

Alliance Laundry Sys tems LLC (ALL, No. 9). Phil Manthei. October 15, 2001.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM, No. 10). Charles A. Samuels. October 29, 2001.

Controlled Energy Corporation (California Energy Commission, No. 14). Mary Moffroid. November 12, 2001.

Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA, No. 15). Glenn R. Schleede. November 20, 2001.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI, No. 16). Steve Rosenstock, P.E. November 30, 2001.

Southern Company (SC, No. 17). Donald M. Brundage, P.E. December 4, 2 001.

Maytag Corporation (Maytag, No. 18). Ron Fey. December 5, 2001.

Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE, No. 19). Sheila Massey. December 5,
2001.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA, No. 20). Edward Gray. December 5, 2001.R

- 2

Sony Ele ctronics Incorporated (Sony, No. 21). David L. Traver. December 5, 2001.

National Association of Farmer Elected Committees (NAFEC, No. 22). Paul Clark. December 4, 2001.

Electric Consumers Alliance (ECA, No. 23). Robert K. Johnson. December 5, 2001.

C ompetitive Enterprise Institute (CEI, No. 24). Ben Lieberman. December 5, 2001.

Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA, No. 25). Glenn R. Schleede. December 6, 2001.

First Company (FC, No. 26). James H. Nation. December 6, 2001.

Small Business S urvival Committee (SBSC, No. 27). Karen Kerrigan. December 5,
2001.

Consumer Electronics Association (CEA, No. 28). Douglas Johnson. December 6,
2001.

Multi

- Housing Laundry Association (MLA, No. 29). David Field. December 7, 2001.

Information Technol ogy Industry Council (ITI, No. 30). Ken J. Salaets. December 6,
2001.

Dominion Virginia Power (DVP, No. 31). Harold Crowder. December 6, 2001.

Bose Corporation (Bose, No. 32). Joseph L. Veranth. December 5, 2001.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI, No. 3 3). Steve Rosenstock, P.E. December 19, 2001.

American Corn Growers Association (ACGA, No. 35). Larry Mitchell. December 4,
2001.

Air

- Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI, No. 36). Deborah E. Miller. January 22, 2002.

Alliance Laundry Systems LLC (ALL, No. 37). Phil Manthei. February 15, 2002.

California Energy Commission (CEC, No. 38). R. Michael Martin. October 16, 2001.

American Council for an Energy

- Efficiency Economy (ACEEE, No. 39). Steven Nadel. November 30, 2001.