# 2002 Priority Setting for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings under Existing Legislation

October 

## 26,2001

## FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The enclosed data sheetsreflect the priorities proposed for Fiscal Year 2002 by the Department of Energy, Office of BuildingResearch and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. Theseproposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance StandardsProgram will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2002. Final priorities will be based on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Once rulemakings are completed low priority actions will be added to the highlmedium priority lists. Written comments should be submitted by November 20,2001, to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000Independence Ave., S W, Washington, D.C. 20585-0 121,Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-41, or by e-mail at 

## Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-961 

## 1.

### Table of Contents

' Drops to Low Priority upon completion 

### * final Rules for these productshave been recently published Produet CommercialA~Cooled Central AIC & Au-Source HP, 65-240 kBtu/h Central NC& HP, 3 phase, < 65 kBtum Clothes Lhyers Clothes Washers Commerc~al Water-Cooled AIC & WaterSource Heat Pumps Commerc~al A/C & HP(a1l types & SEW) Commercial Furnaces Commercial011and Gas-Flred Packaged Bo~lers Commercial Furnaces Comrc~al Water Heaters - - - Cookmg Products Dmct Heatlng Equ~pment, Gas Dishwashers D~stnbuhon Transfomgrs Electnc Motors, 1-200 HP FluorescentLarnp Ballasts* Rulemaking Detemunahon Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards* Test Procedure Standards1 Test Procedure' Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards* Test Procedure* Standards* Test Procedure Detemnation Test Procedure Rulemaking Standards Standards Standards Test Procedure Standards* Test Procedure* Standards Test Procedure Standards Swds Test Procedure Test Procedure Standards

- Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Pwedure* Standards Test Procedure Priority Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low mgh Low Low Low Low

- Low Low - Med for Compacts Bgh HI& Med~um

mgh Low Low Low Low Low Medrum

High Low Priority

agh Medium

Low Low Low Low Low High Low Medlum

Low Hz& Low

- agh Low Low Low Low Low HI& High Low Low Low Low Low Pagt 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

- 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Product HI& Intens~ty Discharge Lamps Lamps, Fluorescent Lamps, IncandescentGeneral Se~ce Lmaps, Incandescent Reflector PackagedTemnalAIC & Heat Pumps Plumhmg Ftxtures/FiMngs Pool Heaters, Gas Rebgerators Res~denhal CenhalAIC & HP Res CentralAM3 & HP -Ductless Split Res~denhal Furnaces and Boders Res~denhal Water Heaters Room Au Condihoners
Heater Standards Tankless Gas-Fued Instantaneous Water Small Electnc Motors

## Summarv ofPriorities Standards and Determinations 

# (Dl

Test Procedures Page 9 13 15 17 19 23 25 Comm

27 29 3 1 

### 33 36 38 40 47 49 High Priority Products Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps, 65-240 

### kBtu/h DistributionTransformers Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Residential Central AC/HP1 Residential Furnaces and Boilers Small Electric Motors (D) Medium Priority Products Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 3 Phase, <65 

### kBtu/h Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Tankless Gas-Fired InstantaneousWater Heaters Low Priority Products Clothes Dryers ClothesWashers* Commercial Water-Cooled A/C and WaterSourceHeat Pumus*
Commercial A/C and Heat Pws 

## 1 8 

## 1 

# 1 Direct Heating Eauiument, Gas* 

## 1 18 High Priority Products 

# I Page 

## I Page

21 35

Low Priority Products (cout.) 

## I Page Commercial Water Heaters 

# 1 14 

# 1 I Electric Motors, 1-200 HP* 

# 1 24 Dishwashers' 

# 1 20 

# 1 

# 1 FluorescentLamp Ballasts 

# 1 26 LOW Priority Products (cont.) Commercial Furnaces* Commercial Water Heaters* t 

### Cooking Products

- - 

### Commercial Furnaces Residential Central A/C and Heat Purno' 

## 1 43 

## 1 

# I Hi& IntensitvDischarge Lam~s 

## 1 28 42 45 52 2 10 5 1 3 5

12
Medium PriorityProducts 

# 1 

# I 1 Lamps, Incandescent General Service* 

# 1 32 Comuact Refrigerators 

# 1 41 

# 1 1 Lamps, Incandescent Reflector* 

# 1 34 

# / Direct HeatingEquipment, Gas 

# 1 Dishwashers

Electric Motors, 1-200 

### HP Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts* High IntensityDischarge Lamps (D) Lamps, Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent General Service Lamps, Incandescent Reflector PlumbingFixturesEittings Pool Heaters, Gas Refrigerators* ResidentialWater Heaters*

- - 

### Ductless Solit Central AC/HP 

## 1 44 

## 1 I PlumbingFixturesEittings* 

## 1 37 

# I DistributionTransformers 7

22 

# I Lamps, Fluorescent*

ClothesWashers* 

## 1 6 

## 1 

# I ResidentialWater Heaters* 

## 1 48 Room Air Conditioners*

30
Low Priority Products Clothes Dryers Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

# / 11 

# I I Room Air Conditioners 

# 1 50 Cooking Products* 

## 1 16 

## 1 

# I Small Electric Motors 

## 1 53 % to Low Pnonty upon Complet~on 

### * Flnal Rules for these products have been recentlypubl~shed 

### 4 Pool Heaters, Gas Refrigerators Residential Furnaces and Boilers* 39 4 1 46

## Standards Product: Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps, 65-240 

### kBtu/h Priority: High 0.50' (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels) 

### 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.4 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998)



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Carbon emissions reduction - est. 7 million tons. 

### Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

## .......................................................................... Other Regulatory Actions

Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 

## ............................................................................................................... 90.1 into the CFR early in FY 2002. See page 8. 

### -. Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

### ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### ..................................................................................... Issues



## ........................................................ FY 2001 Priority DOE plans to initiaterulemaking in FY 2002. 

### ........................................................................................................................................ 

## ..F.!?l~~~edse!?E!!!?!!? .................... Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ None known.

__._ 

### .......................................................... Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999,which would save an estimated2.2 quads from 2005-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for



## ........................................................................................... ad$!?on?!.ene!m.2?.%*g?: High



## ' Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929.

## Standards Product: Central Air Conditionersand Heat Pumps, 3 phase, 45 kBtu/h 

### Priority: Medium 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005-



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 

# I Energy Security Benefits

Status of Required Changes 

# 1 DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in 1.2g2 

### 2030 

## ....................._.__ 

### Potential Economic Benefitsmurdens PotentialEnvironmental or to Test procedures ASHRAJi Standard90.1 into the CFR early in FY 2002. See page 

### 8. 

## ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.2 (estimatedNPV, billions of $1998)



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon emissions reduction - est. 25 million tons.


### Improvements 

### ..................................................... Issues Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency



### ........................................................................................................................................ Revised ASHRAJi 90.1 standardsapproved June 1999. Efficienciesofthese products were lefi unchanged. Single-phaseproducts are regulated by NAECA, and it is desirable to have the same standards for single and three phase products. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known.
A DOE rulemaking is inpogress for sing!ejhaseproducts. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................................... FY 2001 Priority Medium 

### Prooosed Scheduleand Rationale

Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE plans to initiaterulernaking for three phase equipment when rulemaking for residential (single phase) products is completed. 

### .................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy savings are significant.

## Standards Product: ClothesDryers 

## - (GasiElectric) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads)2008

# - 2030 

## ...................................................... PotentialEconomic Benefitsmurdens 

## ...................................................... PotentialEnvironmental or Energy Security Benefits 

## ...................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

### ...................................................... Other Regulatory Actions

...................................................... Recommendationsby Interested Parties 

### ...................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### ...................................................... Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority Heat Pump Elec. Dryer (5.2 EF) = 3.5' Microwave Elec. Dryer (3.4 EF) = 1.03 Modulating Gas Dryer (3.8 EF) = 0.29' Best AvailableGas Dryer (2.8 EF) = 0.0tj3 

## ..................................................................................................................................... Not available

....................... Not available



## ..................................................................................................................................... Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation ofnew product class for condensingdryers. 

### ..................................................................................................................................... DOE regulation of clothes washers. DOE regulation of white goods for 111line manufacturers. 

### ..................................................................................................................................... There appears to be a general consensusamong stakeholders that updating clothes dryer standards should be given low priority. 

### ..................................................................................................................................... At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficiency clothes washers, which are likelyto have improved moisture extraction. Significant dryer savings potential has been consideredin clothes washer rulemaking (greatermoisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated to be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction. New electric dryers advertise 30% reduction in energyusage. 

## ..................................................................................................................................... Proposed Schedule and Rationale


# ' Based on ADL rough estimate, September 2001. Proposed Schedule



### ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring of voluntary



### ...................................................................................................................... .l?I!!g.ams: Interested Partiesbelieve this is a low priorityproduct. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white goodsmanufacturers.

## Test 

# Procedure Product: ClothesDryers 

## - (GasiElectric) 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changes in Standard Prioritv of Standard International or Other CoordinatineActivities Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard. 

# I Low 

### ........................................................................................................................................ CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests and has asked DOE to consider revisionsto the test ~rocedure.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### ...............................................................................................................................................................................................


## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... A new product class needs to be defined for condenser dryers. Currently there is one waiver in effect. There are numerous changes that are required prior to a standards rulemaking for clothes dryers. Investigatesame test cloth issues as was done in the clothes washer rulemaking. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Considered to be a low priorityby stakeholders.

# Standards Product: Clothes Washers 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004-2030



### Potential Economic BenefitsBurdens 

## ................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

## ................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

## ................................................... Other Regulatory Actions



## ................................................... Recommendations by Interested Parties 

## ................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

## ................................................... Issues


## ................................................... FY 2001 

### Priority Total range considered: [0.28 

## - 7.7014 Specific examples below: 

### Efficiency Improvement Over the Base Case 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 35% 40% 45% 50% 

### MEF 

# - 0.860 

### Range of Energv Savings 0.28 

# - 0.28 0.93 

## - 0.94 1.74 

## - 1.76 2.13 

## - 2.15 4.06 

# - 4.08 5.94 

## - 6.09 5.98 

# - 6.13 6.98 

# - 7.28 7.36 

## - 7.70 The Final Rule energy savings equals 5.5 quads over 2004-2030. Required MEF of 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007. 

## ........................................................................................................................................... The Net Present Value (XPV) is $15.3 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in 1997 dnllars. 

## -- . . -- - . 

### ........................................................................................................................................... For period 2004- 2030,95 million memc rons of carbon and 254 thousand menic 

# 1 tons-ofNO,. 

## ........................................................................................................................................... Final Rule issued January 12,2001. Changes to the test procedure were incorporated into the standards rulemaking. 

## .......................................................................................................................................... DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

## ..........................................................................................................................................



## .......................................................................................................................................... Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Starprogram. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. 

## .......................................................................................................................................... Proposed Schedule and Rationale

Based on DOE Technical Support Document, January 2001.



### * Proposed Schedule



## ........................................................................................ Rationale for Priority Level ANOPR 

# - PublishedNovember, 1998 NOPR 

## - July, 2000 Final Rule 

# - January 200 1 -2 

## ................................................................................................ Final Rule published January 12,2001. Reviewed April 12,2001.

## Test Procedure Product: ClothesWashers Priority: Low Relationshipto Changes in - Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

## ...................................................... Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities 

## ...................................................... Recommendation

### bv Interested Parties 

### ..................................................... Statutory Deadline Test Procedure was changed as part 

### of the standardsrulemaking. Low 

## ...................................................................................................................................... 

# I Issues 

## I Pro~osed Scheduleand Rationale: Proposed Schedule



### ........................................................ Rationalefor Priority Level Published as part 

### of standardsrulemaking. 

### NOPR 

## - July, 

### 2000. Final Rule 

# J!?!?!?%a.z?!?.'.: .............................................................................................................. Test procedure was revised recently

### to implementthe standardsrulemaking.

## Standards Product: Commercial Air Conditioners& Heat Pmps (All products for which DOE proposes to accept ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005-

Recommendations by 

# I 0.6' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Interested Parties 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary EGciency 

# 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Specificestimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparativeemission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard90.1 into the CFR early 

### in FY 2002. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA phase out of HCFC refrigerants.

Proposed Scheduleand Rationale Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standardsa~froved June 1999. 

## ................................................................................................................................. ..................................................... 1.. High

Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Notice of Availability 5/00. Final Rule published January 12, 2001. 

### ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Standards set by EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No further action.

## Test 

## Procedure Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (DOE accepts ASHRAE 90.1-1999 test procedures for all commercial air conditionerand heat pump products.) 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changes in Standard 

### .............................. 

## ____ Priority of Standard

Provosed Schedule and Rationale: Standards set by EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as of January 12,2001. 

### ..................................................................................................................................................... Low for most products. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................................................................................



### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -June, 2000 Final Rule - October, 2001 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final Rule should be published early in FY2002.

## Standards Product: Commercial Furnaces 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings 0S6(ASHRAEStandard 90.1-1 999) 

### from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 

## ................................................. PotentialEconomic BenefitslBurdens


## .................................................. PotentialEnvironmental or Energy Security Benefits Not available.



## ............................................................................................................................................ 

# 1 Specific estimates of emission reductionshave not been developed however,

estimated energV savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

# I -- 

# I ............................................................................................................................................................................................. emission benefiis that &e likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in 

# I to Test ~rocedures AS- Standard 90.1 into the CFR early in 

### FY 2002. 

# I Recommendations by

Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known 

### or Voluntary Efilciency Proposed Schedule and Rationale Improvements Issues FY 2001 Priority 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999 

## .................................................................................................................................. ! 

## ......... : 

## ............................................. High

Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationalefor Priority Level Notice of Availability May, 2000. Final Rule published January 12, 2001. Standards set by EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No fixther action.

## Standards Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

### Priority: Medium 

### Potential Energy Savings O.2a7(to go beyond ASHRAE Standard90.1

## - 1999 levels) 

### from Regulatory Action; Cumulative IOuadsb 5-2030 Potential Economic 

# I 0.2 (estimatedNPV, billions of $1998)



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ BenefitsrBurdens Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction -est. 4 million tons. 

### to Test Procedures 

# ASH^ standard 90.1 into the CFR e&ly in FY 2002: 

# I I Recommendations by 

### I I

Interested Parties 

# I I or Voluntary Efficiency 

# I I

Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale 

## ....................................................... FY 

### 2001 Priority Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking 

### Rationalefor Priority Level 

# 1 Energy savings are significant. estimated0.06 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for .ad$!ion?!.en5!a.??.%ng?: 

### ............................................................................................ NIA

Based on Screening AnalysisReport for Commercial WACStandards, see 65 FR 30929.

## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changes in Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

### ...................................................... Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities 

### ...................................................... Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties 

### ..................................................... Statutory Deadline Standards set by EPACT are being amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Medium 

### .................................................................................................................................



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule



### ....................................................... Rationalefor Priority Level NOPR -August, 2000



### .......................................................................................... .~?~~!.~~i~.z~~!~~~?*.~ooi Final rule should be published early in FY2002.

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces Priority: Low 

# I Recommendationby 

# 1

Relationship Changes 

### in Standards 

### set by EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as 

# I Interested Parties

StatutoryDeadline 

# 1 Standard Priority of Standard International or Other
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: ofJanuary 12,2001. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Low 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

Proposed Schedule



### .......................................................................................... Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -

### December, 1999 Final Rule -

### October 2001 2

### ......... : 

### ......................................................................................... Final rule should be published early in FY2002.

# Standards Product: Commercial Water Heaters 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslSurdens PotentialEnvironmental or Energy Security Benefits



## ................................................. Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

## ............................................................................................................................................ 

# I Not available.



## ............................................................................................................................................



# 1 Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however,

estimated enerw savines indicated above are indicative of the comuarative 

# I

-< 

# - emission benefitsthat are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

## ............................................................................................................................................. DOE plans to publish the Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR early in FY 2002. 

## ............................................................................................................................................. 

## I Recommendations by 

## I I 

# I Interested Parties 

# I I or Voluntary Efficiency 

# / 

# I Proposed Schedule and Rationale Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999. 

### ......................................................................................................................................................................................... High



# ' Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial WACStandards, see 65 FR 30929. 

### ..~.?.!?PFE!.?~!!E!!!!~ Rationale for Priority Level Notice of AvailabiliQ May 

## ......... 2000 Final Rule January 2001. 

## ............................................................. -1 : 

## .............................. 2

## ............................................... Standards set by EPACT have been amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1- 1999 levels for gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters

## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Water Heaters 

### Priority: Low 

# ' Relationshipto Changes in Standards set by EPACThave been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as of



### Standard 

# 1 January 12,2001 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Priority of Standard 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Internationalor Other 

# 1 is in orocess ofmevising (SPC 118.1). Will include heat ourno water -. A 

### Coordinating Activities heaters. 

### Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule



### ................................................... Rationale for Priority Level NOPR - June, 2000 

## .Final.Ru!~.~OctoberI..?.OO! .......................................................................................... Final rule should be published early in FY2002.

## Standards Product: Cooking Products

# - Gas & Electric Ovens, Cooktops, and Microwave Ovens 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Ouads) 

## .- , 1999

# - 2030 

## ...................................................... Potential Economic



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

## ..................................................... Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties 

## ..................................................... Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efticieucy Improvements 

## ..................................................... Issues 

### FY 2001 

### Priority Total ranges considered (Gas only): 

### Ovens Cooktoos [0.2 

## - 0.41 [O.l 

# - 0.21



## ...................................................................................................................................... Total ranges considered (Gas only):



### Ovens Cooktoos [(I.4) 

# - 0.21 f(0.9) 

## - 0.11 Cumulative Net Present Value, 1999-2030, billions 1990% @ 7% discount rate 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Total ranges considered (Gas and Electric not includingMicrowave):



### Ovens Cooktoos NOx 

### [I 1

## - 2391 NOX[ 0 

# - 65 ] C02 [6 

## - 1331 C02 [0

# - 361 Cumulative emission reductions, 1999-2030, in (kt) for NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. 

## ......................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................... DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

### ......................................................................................................................................

.......... None known.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Pilotless designs may require installation of an electrical outlet. Loss ofconsumer



### ................. 

## .uMl!x.!f 

# lfloss.~felect'ica!.~~wef:..!f.alossofelect'ic?.ty.~.c.~o!.useoven: High (Gas);Low (Electric) 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale

Based on Draft Report, April 1996 and Supplemental Analysis, November 1997. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule, no new standards for electric cooking products includingmicrowave ovens, issued 

## - September 8, 1998 Final Rulegas cooking~p~oducts 

## - To Be Determined. 

### ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Analysis too old to use 

## - requires new analysis for rulemaking.

## Test Procedure Product: Cooking Products 

## - Gas & 

### Electric Ovens, Cooktops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low 

# IRelationship to Changes in

Standard 

## .................................................. Priority of Standard 

### ................................................. International or Other 

# I
.................................................. Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

# I
.................................................. Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Test Procedure needed to be changed for 

### standard. 

# I

....................................................................................................................................... Low 

### ....................................................................................................................................... 

# I I Issues 

# I I Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: 

### .??!!P%.!.%?!E!!?!!? 

### ..................... Rationale for Priority Level .Fka!.Ru!e.!s?ued.:.*~!0&!.3>.1997 

### .............................................................................

# Standards Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### 2030 (78.0% Modulat. Oper. 87.0%AFUE



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................... I..Potential Economic 1..[(1.4) 

## - 0.11 NPV, Billions of 1990% @ 7% I 

### BenefitsfSurdens

Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits

Prooosed Schedule and Rationale 0 0.1 (0.6) ( 1.4) 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. SO2 0 

### (7) (1 40) (320) NOx 0 

### (6) (132) (301) 

## co, 0 (3) (72) (165) 

### Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures 

### ............................................................................... Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues PV 7nnl ~rinritv ~Gssion reductions in (kt) for SO, and NO& and (Mt) for CO,. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final rule published 5/12/97.



### ............................................................................................................ 

## - None known that will impact product. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known.



### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Fuel switching. Rural communitiesuse for backup heating duringpower outages. Utility concern with electronicignition. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Tow

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. lo Examples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27 

## - 46 kBtuihr). 

### Proposed Schedule



## ..................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limitedto basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring of voluntary 

### .Ef!!ke??s.. 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested parties believe this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are low.

## Test 

# Procedure Product: Direct HeatingEquipment 

### (Gas) Priority: Low 

## I Relationshipto Changesin 

## I Test Procedurenot needed to be changed for standard



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: - 

### Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Low 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................



### .............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................


## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

## ..~~~~~~ed.~~~ed~!~.. Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 

### May 12 1997. 

### ............................................................................................ ........................................................... .$

# Standards Product: Dishwashers 

### Priority: Low 

### from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

# - Current Energy Star Dishwasher (0.58 EF) = 0.45" 

### 2030 

## ................................................ Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens 

## ................................................ Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

## ............................................... Status of

### Required Changes to Test Procedures 

### ............................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

### ............................................... Recommendations by Interested Parties 

### ............................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Emciency Improvements 

### ............................................... Issues



## ................................................ FY 2001 Priority Not available.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Not available.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Test vrocedure is being revised to properly reflect energy consumptionfor new techiologies (e.g. adaptive controis) &d reduced annual cycles. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... DOE regulation of white goods for 

### N1 line manufacturers. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard shouldbe given a low priority. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Energy Saversprogram. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least two U.S. manufacturers are marketing adaptive control dishwashers. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing of dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordablemodels (contract 

### Pronosed Schedule and Rationale


# " Based on ADL rough estimate, September 200 1. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigationand monitoring of voluntary programs. Estimated potential energy savings are moderate.

## Test Procedure Product: Dishwashers 

### Priority: High 

### Relationship to Changes in Test Procedureneeded to be changed for standard. 

### Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard Low 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International or Other Efforts underway to harmonize internationaltest procedures should include 

### Coordinating Activities dishwashers. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendation by Manufacturers support a test procedure revision for more accuratetesting ofnew 

### Interested Parties adaptive control models. Industry working on revising its test procedure suggestionsto encompass the variety of sensor techniques now in the market. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Statutory Deadline


## .............................................................................................................................................................................................

Issues New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fiuzylogic. 

### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -published September, 1999 Reopening Notice -July, 2000 

# ..w?!.Fiu!?.r. JE??u??X..z!?%?

## ........................................................................................... New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, 

### hizylogic.

## Standards Product: DistributionTransformers 

### Priority: High 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995-

Proposed Scheduleand Rationale [0.39-10.7]'* 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

### ......................................................................... Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### .____............. .____ Issues FY 2001

### Priority 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Not available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Specificestimates of emission reductionshave not been developedhowever, estimatedenergy savings indicated above are indicativeof the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

## ................................................................................................................... -

## ....................................................................... Need to publish a test procedure before rule.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ None known. ____ 

### .................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................ EPA Energy Starprogram for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's TP-1 promotes energyefficientelectricalproducts.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................... Most efficient designs include proprietarytechnology. NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specifiedin TP-1. Potential enera savings from regulatory action questioned by NEMA. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................. High



# '' Based on DOE determination notice, October 22, 1997. 

### Proposed Schedule 

## ..................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

## ................................................................... ..F?%.k.engagedi* 

### .?!%?kd~.+em.~g.. Potential for significant energy savingsthrough regulatory action under EPCA, as amendedby EPAct.

## Test Procedure Product: Distribution Transformers 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changes in Standard Priority of Standard 

### .................................................... Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities 

### .................................................... Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties 

### ..................................................... Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedureneeds to be established for standard.



## ...................................................................................................................................... High 

### ......................................................................................................................................



### ...................................................................................................................................... NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test standard.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Sampling Plan; Definitionsof Covered Products 

### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -publishedNovember 12, 1998 ReopeningNotice - June, 1999 Another ReopeningNotice - January-February, 2002 Final Rule - Summer 2002 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Test procedure needs to established for Standard in 

### FY 2002.

## Standards Product: Electric Motors, 1 

## - 200 HP 

### Priority: Low 

## I from Regulatory Action; 

# I standards that became effective 1997. Certification program to be take effect in 

# I 

# I Interested Parties 

### ................................................................................................................ "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities. 

# 1 cumulative (Quads) 

## ............................................................................... Potential Economic Benefitsmurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

### ................................................................................... Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations bv early 2002. ____ 

## ............................................................................................................. Not Available.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not Available.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final rule for test procedures published October 5, 1999. 

### ____.



### .......................................................................................................... None known that will impact product. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Enforcement



### Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### ............................................................................ Issues 

## ..____............. _.__ 

### FY 2001 Priority -. Motor Challenge. Motor Master+

__._

### ................................................................................................................ DOE regulates system efficiencies(e.g. HVAC) where motors are components of such systems. 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................ Low 

### Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limitedto basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### .P!*R.ams.. 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Determination required by EPCA

## Test Procedure Product: Electric Motors, 1

## - 200 HP 

### Priority: Low 

### Relationshipto Changes in 

## - Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

### ...................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities

..................................................... 

### Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties 

### ...................................................... Statutory Deadline Issues Test Procedure needed to be revised to support the standard -- . . ...................................................................................................................................... Natural Resources Canada: Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electric Motors

. - International Electrotechnical~&mission/~nternational StandardsOrganisation (EC/ISO) 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates support test procedure rulemaking.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Expect DOE test procedure to be revised for compatibilitywith global (IECIISO) 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule



## ........................................................ Rationale for Priority Level Proposed Rule Issued -November 27, 1997 

# .F?nal.R~!~.~,~s?~!!er.~~.l.9.9.9 ....................................................................................... Final Rule recently published 

## .

## Standards Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2005-2030 

# I""""'."

......................................... 

### Potential Economic BenefitdBurdens 

## ..................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

## ..................................................... Status ofRequired Changes to Test procedures 

## ...................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

### ....................................................................................................................................... 

# 1 1.4 -2.6 NPV, billions of 19974 @ 7% 

# / None required.

In Canada,Natural Resources Canada has proposed to adopt similar ballast standardswith an effective date in 2005 (for both new and replacementballasts). Some ballast manufacturers also make electricmotors. 

# I Recommendations by 

# I I

Interested Parties or Voluntary Efftciency Procurement Guidelinesand Federal Relighting Initiative,EPAct 1992Voluntary 

## 1 Improvements 

## I Luminaire Testing and Rating Program, The Energy Cost Savings Council, and 

## I some utility DSM programs. 

### Issues Standards, for electronic ballasts,may adverselyaffect U.S. manufacturers. 

# I Impact on U.S. employment levels. 

### ......................................................................................................................................................................................... FY 

### 2001 Priority Low 

### Provosed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule



### ........................................................................................... Rationale for PriorityLevel NOPR -March, 2000 Final Rule 

## - September 2000 

### ............................................................................................... 

### .'. Final Rule in FY2000.

# Test Procedure Product: FluorescentLamp Ballasts 

### Priority: Low Relationshipto Changes in 

## I Efficiency levels for new standards are already in the market and are covered by 

### Standard existing standardsand test procedures. 

### Priority of Standard Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline


## ............................................................................................................................................................................................

Issues 

# 1 Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level

## Standards Determination Product: High Intensity Discharge 

### (HID) Lamps 

### Priority: Low



### BenefitsBurdens 

## ...................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developedhowever, 

### Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- Energy Security Benefits [4.4 

## - 8.31')



## ..................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

## ..................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

### ..................................................... Recommendations by estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

## ........................................................................................................................................

IES and ANSI procedures are in place. Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. 

## ........................................................................................................................................

EPA mercury disposal requirementsmay apply. 

### ........................................................................................................................................ 

# I Interested Parties 

## I or Voluntary Efficiency 

## / lamps.



### Pronosed Schedule and Rationale Improvements Issues



## ........................................................ FY 2001 Priority Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are high. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Concern aboutnon-equitable impact of possible eliminationofmercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (eliminationofmercury vapor lamps will require fixture 

## ~e~.?!aceme.!??~: ................................................................................................................ Low

l3 Based on LBNL rough estimate, September2001.

# Test Procedure Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low 

## 1 Relationship to Changesin 

# 1 Test Procedure needs to be developed for standard. 

# I - 

### Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard 

# 1 Low 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International or Other 

# I Issues 

# I I

Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................................................................................

f 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level No work expected during FY200 

### 1. 

### ........................................................................................................................................................................................

# Standards Product: Lamps, Fluorescent 

### Priority: Low



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

# - 2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2001 Priority BestAvailable FEMP procurement recommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and Utube lamps) = 2. 1414 Recommended FEMP procurement recommendation levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and Utube lamps) = 1.2614 T8 efficacy levels (technology shift from T12 to T8) = 0.11 l4 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not Available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Not Available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedureFinal Rule issued May 29, 1997. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Existing EPA mercury disposal requirementsapply, but EPA issued a final rule July 6, 1999, including lamps as Universal Hazardous Waste. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................ EPA Green LightsIEnergy Star Buildings,ASHRAJ3 90.1, FEMP Procurement Guidelines and Federal RelightingInitiative, and some utility DSM programs.



### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more difficult. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Low

l4 Based on ADL and LBNL rough estimate, September 200 1. 

### Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary 

### .-??r%E??E 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999for adding additional general service fluorescent and incandescentlamps.

## Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Fluorescent Priority: Low 

# I Relationshipto Changes in 

## I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard

Standard Prinritv of 

### Standard Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendationby Interested Parties 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Statutory Deadline 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................

Issues Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: 

## ..E!-?P!-?%!.~~!%!!?!~ ...................... Rationale for Priority Level 

### .!?i??!?!.%!e.!iE?@. 

## !?!ax .?9.>..!9997 

### .................................................................................

## Standards Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service 

### Priority: Low

.- . 

# 1 2;ntial Economic Not Available.



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

# - Technology shift to incandescenthalogen lamp, 10% efficacy increase = 3.7315 3% efficacyincrease = 1.1915 1.5% efficacy increase = 0.61 

# I to Test procedures

Other Regulatory Actions BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes 

# 1..
.............. .:. 

### ........................................................................................................................................................................ Recommendations bv 

# 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not Available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 

### Interested Parties 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Evidenceof Market-Driven EPA Green LightsJEnergy Star Buildings,ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal 

### or Voluntary Efficiency 

# 1Relighting Initiative, and some utility DSM programs, VoluntaryLurninaire Testing and Rating Program. 

### Issues Because lamps are componentsof systems, establishment of standards is more difficult. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ FY 2001 

### Priority Low 

### Provosed Scheduleand Rationale

" Based on ADL and LBNL rough estimate, September 2001. 

### Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring of voluntary



## ...................................................................................................................... ..F?fORE2. Interested Parties believe this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999 for adding additional general service fluorescentand incandescentlamps.

## Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service Priority: Low

Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: Standard Priority of Standard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Low 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................


## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ..*!9E"?!?!!.%??!?!!!!!e 

### ..................... Rationale for Priority Level .Fina!.RU!e.??sU9d..Max29>.!997 

### ...................................................................................

# Standards Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

# - 2030


### ...................................................... Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens 

### ...................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

### ...................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

### ...................................................... Other Regulatory Actions


## ...................................................... Recommendations by Interested Parties 

## ...................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

## ..................................................... Issues Technology shift to halogen infrared reflector lamp, 30% efficacyincrease =2.23" 3% efficacy increase = 0.2816 1.5% efficacy increase = 0.1416



### ........................................................................................................................................ 

# 1 Not Available. 

# I

....................................................................................................................................... Not Available. 

# I

........................................................................................................................................

IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 29, 1997. 

### ........................................................................................................................................



## ........................................................................................................................................

EPA Green LightstEnergyStar Buildings,ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and someutility DSM programs, Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating Program. 

## ........................................................................................................................................

Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more 

# IFY 2001 

### Priority 

## 1 Low 

### Proposed Scheduleand Rationale

l6 Based on 

### ADL and LBNL rough estimate, September 2001. 

### Proposed Schedule



### ...................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary



### ..................................................................................................................... .2f!!W%. Interested Parties believe this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999 for adding additionalgeneral service fluorescentand incandescent lamps.

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Priority: Low

-- - 

# 1 Relationshipto Changes in 

# I Test Procedure not neededto be changed for standard

Standard

__._ 

### ....................................................................................... 

# I 1 International or Other 

# I
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties 

### ...........

### ........____ ......... 

## ____ Statutory Deadline Issues 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................


## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Proposed Schedule 

### ............................................................................................. Rationale for PriorityLevel Final Rule issued May 29 1997 h

### ...........................................................................................

# Standards Product: Packaged Terminal Air Conditionersand Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High



### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens


### ...................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 

# I

...................................................... 

### Status of Required Changes 0.55 - 0.7817(togo beyond ASHRAE Standard90.1-1999 levels)



### to Test ~roc&ures 

## -
...................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 0.6 (estimatedNPV, billions of $1998).



### ....... .................................................................................................................... Specific estrmates of emission reductions have not been developed however, energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparativeemission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### ........................................................................................................................................

DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by September200 1. 

### ........................................................................................................................................

EPA phase out of HCFC refrigerants. 

### Recommendationsby 

### Interested Parties 

## ................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

## ................................................... Issues



### .................................................... FY 2001 

### Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

## ......................................................................................................................................... None known.



### Proposed Schedule DOEplans to initiaterulemaking in FY2002. 

### ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Rationalefor Priority Level Energy savings are significant. 

## ...

l7 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

## .........................................................................................................................................

Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6199, which would save an estimated 0.1 1 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional



### ............................................................................................................ 

# .ene!m...sa.~!!!~s: NlA

# Standards Product: PlumbingFixturesiFittings Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

## .................................................. Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens 

### .................................................. Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

## .................................................. Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

## .................................................. Other Regulatory Actions 

### .................................................. Recommendations by The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Not available.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Not available.



## ...................................................................................................................................... None. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Interested Parties or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Issues 

# IAs flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be carefUl1,y considered. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................................................... FY 2001 Priority Low Prooosed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule



## ........................................................ Rationale for Priority Level 

### DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technologyinvestigation and monitoring of voluntary 

### &?!om: 

## ...................................................................................................................... Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASMEiANSI A1 12.18.1 and ASh4EiANSI A1 12.19.6.

# Test Procedure Product: Plumbing FixturesRittings 

### Priority: Low 

# I Relationshipto Changesin 

### 1 Recommendation 

### bv 

## I I

Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities 

# I
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

# 1 

# I ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Low 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Issues Proposed Scheduleand Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule 

# - March 18, 1998 

## ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

# Standards Product: 

### Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: 

### Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic PotentialEnvironmental or Energy Security Benefits 

### Total range considered: [0.2 

# - 0.91'' Specific examples below: IID. (78% 

### &) Non-condensing limit, (82.2% 

### &) Condensing, (90.8% E,) 0.2 0.4 0.7 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Total range: [ 

### (1.4) 

## - 0.2 ]I6 

### Cumulative Net Present Value, Billions 1990% @ 

### 7% IID, (78% 

### &) Non-condensing limit, (82.2% 

### &) Condensing,(90.8% ETJ 0.2 0.2 (0.6) 

## ...................................................................................................................................... IID. (78% 

### &) Non-cond. limit, (82.2% 

### &) Condensing, (90.8% ET) NOx 42 42 42 

### CO, 11 18 35 Cumulative Emission reductions in (kt) 

### for SO2and NOx, and (Mt) for CO, to Test Procedures Recommendations bv 

# I Interested Parties 

# I or Voluntary Efficiency 

# / 

# I Issues 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. FY 2001 Priority 

### Low Proaosed Schedule and Rationale



# '* Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

### DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limitedto basic technology investigationand monitoring of voluntary 

### .E!!?kx?!G?: 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a low priorityproduct. Potential energy savings are low.

## Test Procedure Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

### Priority: 

### Low 

## I Relationshipto Changes in 

## I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard.



### Standard Internationalor Other



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................

Issues Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale: 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................
..??!?P.%%!.%??!?!!!?!~ Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued May 12 

### ......... 1997 

### ............................................................. 7 : 

### ...................................................................................

# Standards Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: Low PotentialEnergy Savings Energy Star (-10% more efficient) = 1.4019 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998-



## ................................................... 

# 1

E:ntial Economic BenefitslBurdens 

### .................................................... Potential Environmental or 

# I
.................................................... Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test ~roc&ures 

## -

.................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

## ........................................................................................................................................ 

# 1 Not available



## ........................................................................................................................................ 

# I Not available



## ........................................................................................................................................



# 1 No changesrequired for standards.

EPA phase out of insulationHCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation of white goods for fkll line manufacturers. InterestedPaties 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Evidence ofMarket-Driven Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing or Voluntary Efficiency 

# 1 Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantities of
Pro~osed Schedule and Rationale lmproveme&ts Issues 

## ................................................................................................... FY 2001 Priority Final Rule Issued 

## - April 28 1997 

## ................................................................ ...................................................................................... 

## ..

## !?.r!!~%?.d.s!4!?.d!!!e 2.. Rationale for Priority Level Rule issued, will be effective July 1,2001 new high efficiency models are being marketed. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final Rule Issued 

## - April 28 1997. ! 

## ....................................................................................... Low

l9 Based on 

### LBNL rough estimate,September, 2001. No formal analysis has been conducted for Department since the Final Rule was issued in 1997.

## Test 

# Procedure Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, & 

### Freezers Priority: Medium for compact refrigeratorsand refrigeratorifreezefs, Low for all others.

- -- 

### helationshipto Changes in 

# I Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard.

Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard Low 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International or Other Coordinating Activities 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Statutory Deadline 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Issues Tests at NIST have revealed deficiencies in the compactrefrigerator test procedure. These will 

### be researched and corrected, probablyby revising the test procedure for compact refrigerators. Proposed Scheduleand Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NIST tested compact refrigerators,and proposed a modification of the compact refrigerator test procedure. A 

### rulemakingto modify the test procedure will 

### begin in 2002. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Compact refrigerator manufacturers have obtained inconsistent results when testing each other's products. Deficiencies in test procedurehave been identified.

# Standards Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & 

### Heat Pumps Priority: High 

## - drops to Low priorityupon completion Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2006 

# - 2030 

## ...................................................... PotentialEconomic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status 

### of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

## ..................................................... Other Regulatory Actions Total range considered: [I.7 - 

### 8.812' Specific examplesbelow: 11 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER 18 SEER 

# ----

1.7 3.0 4.2 8.8



## ..................................................................................................................................... Net Present Value, Cumulative 2006-2030, Billions 1998$ @ 

### 7% discount rate 20 

### 1 1 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER 18 SEER 

# ----

2 2 1 (10) 

## ..................................................................................................................................... Cumulative 2006-2030, Carbon in Mt, NO, in kt 

## '' 11 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER 18 SEER 

# ---- C: 13 24 33 63 NO.: 

### 37 73 94 184 

### Changes are not required for standards.



## ..................................................................................................................................... EPA phase out ofHCFC-22 refrigerant 

## - 20 10 DOE realation of furnaces.

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efticiency Improvements Issues FY 2001 Prinritv 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Starprogram recommendinga 12 SEER.



## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation. 

## ......................................................................................................................................................................................... High

2o 

### Based on DOE analysis for Supplemental NOPR, see \+ 6% era J3b 20 Irrriiainz~ iscccie., \u=lrdards rnder 

### Pim Proposed Schedule



## ........................................................ Rationalefor Priority Level SANOPR -

### November, 1999 NOPR - 

### October, 2000 Final Rule -January 22,2001



### .................................... 

# .Su~~!~~~.~~!..~.~~.~.Ei!!al..Ru!e.~thdra~"~.1..~'?.!x.?S.~2!!!!!.. Potential energy savingsare large.

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners& Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High 

# I Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. 

# 1 

# 1
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. High 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................. Would like to see it published. 

### Issues Many changes to accommodate new technology. ARI has submitted data for and developed new default cyclic degradationcoefficients. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Prooosed Schedule and Rationale: NOPR - January, 200 1 Final Rule to be issued in early FY 2002. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Test procedure revision long overdue.

## Test Procedure Product: 

### ResidentialCentral Air 

### Conditioners & 

### Heat Pumps - 

### Ductless Split Systems Priority: 

### Medium Relationshipto Changes in Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

### ...................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities 

### ..................................................... Recommendationby Interested Parties ..................................................... Statutory Deadline Issues Prouosed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard.



## ...................................................................................................................................... High 

### ......................................................................................................................................



### ...................................................................................................................................... Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimetertest.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Calorimeter test (which is used for room air conditioners)is more suitable and accurate for testing ductless split central air conditioners, but this test is not currently in the DOE central air conditioning test procedure. Proposed Schedule 

## ................................................. 

## ..~~~~l!an?.to.&~Liatew~!~.k.~~.su~~!~!ff.of.ru!e~.*g .................................................. Rationale for Priority Level 

### Changewould make test procedure more accurate for this product.

# Standards Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers 

### Priority: High 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2012

# - 2042 

# I..

......................................................................................................................................................................................... Potential Economic 

# { Not available. 

# 1 Gas Fumaces Gas 

# I Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicativeofthe compamtive emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are more 

### to Test ~rocedures 1.8 8.5 15.1 + fan motor, & two stage oper. (81.8% AFUE) 1ID& vent damper Previous + condensing (90% AFUE) Adv. venting & 

# wrv. insul.



### Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Proposed Schedule and Rationale modulation & 

### imprv. HX (96% AFUE) Condensing & 

# mrv. HX

air conditioningproducts. 

### ...............................................................................................................................................................................................



### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensingfumaceiboilerprogram. ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. 

### Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Venting and electricity use. 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Low


# " Based on LBNL rough estimate for gas only, September 200 1. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Rulemaking

### was initiated in 2001. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Potential energy savings are significant. Higher standards levels requiring technologies such as condensingfurnaceswould impact utility to consumers.

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Furnaces & 

### Boilers Priority: Low
Coordinating Activities appliances. Recommendationby 

### Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. The test procedure for combined space- and water-heating appliances (a separate product class within the standardsrulemaking) needs to be developed. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. High 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ASHRAE SPC 124 has released for public review a test procedure for combined

Provosed Schedule and Rationale: Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................


## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued May 12, 1997. 

### ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

# Standards Product: Residential Water Heaters 

# - Gas, Oil & Electric 

### Priority: Low



### Potential

# E~G Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004-2030 Total ranges con


### Electric



# 1 idered: 3.3 - 11.52qpecific examples below:


### Bottom 

### Ht. Traps, 3" Insul. & 

### Plastic Tank 3" Insul., 

# I Sidearm 

### w/ 80%Flue Baffle & 

### ED



# +

............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 

# IPotential Economic 

# 1 The Net Present Value (NPV) is $2.0 billion cumulative &om2004 to 2030 in 1997 

# I The Final Rule energy savings equals 4.6 quads over 2004-2030. 

### BenefitsJBurdens dollars. 

### ............................. Potential Environmental or For period 2004- 2030, 152 million metric tons of carbon and 273 thousand metric tons of 

### Energy Security Benefits Test Procedures 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

# I EPA phase out of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Commission



### ................................ ....................................................................................................................................................................... initiative for prevention of ignition of flammable vapors by gas water heaters.
___ 

### Recommendations by 

### Interested

Pro~osed Scheduleand Rationale Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2001 Priority 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Demand-side management programs for high efficiencywater heaters.



## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Fuel switching.Replacement blowing agent for insulation. Installation in small spaces. 

### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. High

22 Based on DOE Technical Support Document, January 200 1.



### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR - April, 2000 Final Rule 

## - January, 200 1 Final Rule published January 17,2001. Reviewed April 12,2001.

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Water Heaters

## - Gas, Oil & Electric 

### Priority: Low 

# I Relationship to Changes in 

# I No change needed 

# I

Standard 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard 

# 1 Low 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International or Other



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I Issues 

# 1 

# I

Coordinating Activities Recommendationby 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Provosed Schedule and Rationale: 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Test procedure published in May, 1998.

# Standards Product: Room Air Conditioners 

### Priority: Low 

# I 2008 

### -2030

Potential Economic Not available 

# I PotentialEnergy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

# IEnergy Security Benefits 

# I -7% more efficientthan Energy 

### Star (-10.8 EER) =0.7" -15% more efficient than Energy Star (-1 1.5 EER) = l.223



### to Test ~rocednres 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# 1 

# I Improvements Issues 

# I Recommendations

### by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. DSM programs. Labeling program very effective.

23 Based on LBNL rough estimate, September, 2001. No formal analysis has been conducted for Department since the Final Rule was issued in 1997. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule Issued 

## - September 24, 1997 

### ..........................................................................................................................................................................................

## Test Procedure Product: 

### Room Air Conditioners Priority: 

### Low Relationshipto Changesin Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

### ...................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ..................................................... Recommendationby Interested Parties ...................................................... Statutorv Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Test Procedurenot needed to be changed for standard 

# I Low 

### ...................................................................................................................................... 

# I

...................................................................................................................................... There are no other existing or proposed test procedures specifically targeted at room air conditioners. The only possible alternativewould be to develop a seasonal energy efficiency measure analogous to the SEER used for central air conditioners. It 

### is uncertain how valuable such a seasonal standardwould be in Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

# Standards Product: Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters 

### Priority: Medium 

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

## ............................................... Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens ................................................ 

### Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits



### ................................................ Status of Required Changes to Test Procidures 

## -
................................................ Other Regulatory Actions 0. (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels)



## .............................................................................................................................................. Not available.

............................................................................................................................................. 

# 1 Specific estimates of emission reductions have nor been developed however, 

# I 

# I estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative



### ............................................................................................................................................. emission benefitsthat are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. DOE plans to publish the Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in AS-~RAE standard 90.1 into the CFR in September 2001.



### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency 

### Improvements Issues FY 2001

### Priority 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards a~roved 6/99. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................................................... High

24 Based on Screening AnalysisReport for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 

### 65 FR 30929. 

### Proposed Schedule 

## ...................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

## 11!!E.~!an%toi!!itiat.e. 

## .wor.k.i. !!.suF!E~G.~.$ .rUle~i.~g..... 

## ............................................. Energy savings are significantifDOE decidedto go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels

## Standards Determination Product: Small Elecmc Motors 

### Priority: High 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- Potential Economic BenefitdBurdens 

### .................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits



### .................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures 

### .................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

### .................................................... Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties 

### .................................................... Evidenceof Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### ................................................... Issues 

## ................................................... FY 2001 Priority 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Not available.



### ...................................................................................................................................... Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicativeofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... IEEE 114test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review.



### ...................................................................................................................................... Small motors used in NAECA "covered products" (e.g. white goods) are exempt. 

### ......................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................... None known.

...... None. 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Prouosed Schedule and Rationale 

# - DOEjlans to initiate determinationin FY2002. 

## ..................................................................................................................................... 

## ..W!PE$!!!.%!!!?.~!!!~ .................... Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are significant. Determination required by EPCA. 

# *' Based on draft DOE report, May 1996. Other estimates are in preparation and should be ready by the end of 2001.

## Test Procedure Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low 

# 1 Relationshipto Changes in 

# I

Standard Priority of Standard Internationalor Other Coordinating Activities 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendationby 

# 1 Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Pr0~0Sed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Dependent on Determination. 

### ..........................................................................................................................................................................................