### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

# Department Energy Washington, DC 20585 

### July 25, 2000 FISCAL YEAR 2001 PRIORITIES FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

## The enclosed data sheets provide information relating to the Department of Energy (Departmen

_ t), Office of Building Research and Standards (Office) proposed rulemaking priorities for FY 2001. The Office requests comments on the information contained in the data sheets, the proposed priorities, and the proposed schedules. The proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the fighting and A ppliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2001. The Department will' base its final priorities on consideration of comments received and funds available . If. based on the comments received , the Department considers changing the priorities from these proposed, it will consult with interested parties before establishing final priorities. The priority levels will assist the Department in determining the allocation of available resources during the coming year
. The Department plans to devote considerable resources to each high
-priority rulemaking, for activities including the preparation of technical feasibility and economic impact analyses, the conduct of public meetings, and the issuance of various rulemaking notices , as appropriate. For the medium

-priority products. the Department intends to conduct preliminary screening and analyses. The Department does not intend to devote significant resources to low-priority products . Work on low
-priority product categories will be limited to certification and compliance enforcement. On May 15, 2000 , the Department published in the Federal Register a summary of the energy and economic impacts of the standards for commercial heating , air-conditioning and water heating equipment found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, and requested comments on which ASHRAE standards to adopt. The Department is considering these comments , and requests, as part of the priority setting process , comments on whether to adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90. 1-1999 efficiency levels . The ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels are estimated to save 2
.2 quads and more stringent standards are estimated to save as much as an additional 0.8 quarts energy. The full rulemaking process requires several years for a final rule , and several additional years before the effective dates , so the cumulative energy savings would be diminished by the delay. In particular, the Department is interested in receiving comments , data, and information respecting energy savings for split system and single package commercial air conditioners and heat pumps 65,000 Btu/h to 135,000 Btu/h. Our preliminary screening analysis indicates that 1 .3 quads of energy would be saved from 2001-2030 by adopting now the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels . While our preliminary analysis shows no additional savings for this class, we received comment on the May 15 Federal Re i g ster notice that higher efficiencies , at lower cost than we estimated , can be achieved
. We seek additional information on possible energy savings of more stringent standards and the energy savings that would be lost by the delay in the effective date of any standard set by the Department through a rulemaking. Written comments should be submitted by letter or by e-mail not later than August 17, 2000 . The mailing address is: U.S
. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW , Washington, DC 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-41. The e-mail address is: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. The final priorities will be reflected in the Regulatory Agenda . After publication of the Regulatory Agenda, the Department will provide copies to interested parties . If you have anquestions , please contact Michael Raymond by telephone at (202) 586-9611 , by telefacsimile at: (202) 586-4617, or by e-mail at the aforementioned address. Sincerely, 

# >j. ,^GI ^ award O. Pollock, Jr., Director Office of Building Research and Standards Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosure YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTIN<S COMMENT 01 

# Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

## FISCAL YEAR 2001 PRIORITIES FOR THE APPLIANCE STAl'I'DARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

## July 25, 2000
The enclosed data sheets provide information relating to the Department ofEnergy (Department), Office of Building Research and Standards (Office) proposed iulemaking priorities for FY2001. The Office requests comments on the information contained in the data sheets, the proposed priorities, and the proposed schedules. The proposed priorities are based onthe presumption that the Ligliting and Appliance Stanaaras Program will be fUnded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2001. The Department winbase its final priorities on consideration ofcomments received and funds available. If, based on the comments received, the Department considers changing the priorities from these proposed, 

## itwill consult with interested parties before establishing final priorities. The priority levels will assist the Department in determining the allocation ofavailable resources during the**comm~** 

## year. The Department plans to devote considerable resources to each high-priority rulemaking, for activitIes including; the preparation oftechnical feasibility and economic impact analyses, the conduct ofpublic meetings, and the Issuance ofvarious rulemaking notices, as appropriate. For the medium-priority products, the Department intends to conduct**prelimin~** 

## screening and analyses. The Department does not intend to devote sigtlificant resources to low-priority products. Work on low-priority product categories will be limited to certIfication and compliance enforcement. On May 15,2000, the Department published inthe Federal**Re~ister** 

## a summary ofthe energy and economic impacts ofthe standards for commercial heating, air-conditiorung and water heating equipment found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, and requested comments on whicn ASHRAE standards to adopt. The Department is considering these comments, andrequests, as part ofthepriority setting process, comments on whether to adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels. The ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels are estimated to save 2.2 quads and more stringent standards are estimated to save as much as an additional 0.8 quaas**energy~** 

## The full rulemaking process requires several years for a final rule, and several additional years Defore the effective dates, so the cumulative energy savings would be diminished by the delay. In particular, the Department is interested in receiving comments, data, and information respecting energy savings for split system and single package commercIal air conditioners and heat pumps 65,000 BtuIh to 135,000 Btulh. Our preliminary screening analysis indicates that 1.3 quads ofenergy would be saved from 2001-2030 by adoptmg now the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels. While our preliminary analysIs shows no additional savings for this class, we received comment on the May 15 Federal Register notice that higher efficiencies, at lower cost than we estimated, can be achieved. We seek additional information on possible energy savings ofmore stringent standards and the energy savings that would be lost by the delay in the effective date ofany standard set by the Department through a rulemaking. Written comments should be submitted by letter or bye-mail not later than August 17, 2000. The mailing address is: U.S. Department ofEnerg).', 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-41. The e-maIl address is: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. The final priorities will be reflected in the Regulatory Agenda. After publication ofthe Regulatory**A~enda,** 

## the Department will provide copies to interested parties. Ifyou have any questions, please contact MIchael Raymond by telephone at (202) 586-9611, bytelefacsimile at: (202) 586-4617, orbye-mail at the aforementioned address.

Enclosure Sincerely, .., A",

# d

# Ah YLt. 

# 7**~(** 

# ,=c;;tt..**~w~d** O. Pollock, Jr., Director Office ofBuilding Research and Standards Office ofBuilding Technology, State

and Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# 2001 Priority Setting for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

# 2001 Priority Setting for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings

Draft July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

## FISCAL 2001 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for Fiscal Year 2001 by the Department of Energy, Office of Codes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposed priorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2001. 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 high/medium priority lists. Written comments should be submitted by July 31, 2000, to the U. S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121 , 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) 586-9611. YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

## FISCAL 2001 PRIORITY SETTING FORTHE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

## The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed for Fiscal Year 2001 by the Department ofEnergy, Office ofCodes and Standards. The Office requests comments on the data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposedpriorities are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2001. Final priorities will be based onthe Department's consideration ofcomments received and funds available. Once rulemakings are completed lowpriority actions will be added to the high/medium priority lists. Written comments should be submitted by July 31,2000, to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-41 , orbye-mail at Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. If

## youhave any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611.

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

# Table of Contents
Product Rulemaking Priority Page Product Rulemaking Priority Page Central A/C & HP 65-240 kBtu Standards High 1 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts* Standards Low 27 Central A/C & HP, 39, < 65 kBtu Standards Medium 2 Test Procedures Low 28 Clothes Dryers Standards Low 3 High Intensity Discharge Lamps Determination Low 29 Test Procedure Low 4 Test Procedure Low 30 Clothes Washers Standards' High 5 Lamps Standards Low 31 

### Test Procedure* Low 6 Test Procedure* Low 32 Commercial A/C & Heat Pumps 

### Standards' High 7 Mobile Home Furnaces Standards Low 33
Test Procedure' High 8 Test Procedure* Low 34 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers 

### Standards' High 9 Packaged Terminal A/C & Heat Pumps Standards 

### High 35 Gas-Fired Boilers Standards Medium 10 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Standards Low 36 Commercial Boilers Test Procedure' High 11 Test Procedure* Low 37 

### Commercial Furnaces Test Procedure' High 12 Pool Heaters (Gas) Standards Low 38 Commercial Water Heaters Standards' High 13 Test Procedure* Low 39 Test Procedure' High 14 Refrigerators Standards* Low 40 Commercial Water Source HP Test Procedure Medium 15 Test Procedure Low 41 Cooking Products - Electric Standards* Low 16 Res. Central A/C and H. P. Standards' High 42 Cooking Products - Gas Standards' High 17 Test Procedure' High 43 Cooking Products Test Procedure* Low 18 Res. Central A/C & HP - Ductless Split Test Procedure Medium 44 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas Standards Low 19 Res. Furnaces and Boilers Standards Medium 45 

### Test Procedure* Low 20 Test Procedure* Low 46 Dishwashers Standards Low 21 Residential Water Heaters Standards' High 47 Test Procedure' High 22 Test Procedure* Low 48 Distribution Transformers Standards High 23 Room Air Conditioners Standards* Low 49 Test Procedure Low 24 Test Procedure Low 50 

### Electric Motors, 1-200 HP Standards Low 25 Small Electric Motors Determination High 51 Test Procedure* Low 26 Test Procedure Low 52 I Drops to Low Priority upon completion 

### * Final Rules for these products have been recently published. 

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

# Table ofContents
Product Rulemaking Priority Page Product Rulemaking Priority Page Central AlC 

### & HP 65-240 Standards High 1 FluorescentLamp Ballasts* Standards Low 27 kBto Central AlC 

### & HP, 3cp, < 65 Standards Medium 2 Test Procedures Low 28 kBto Clothes Dryers Standards Low 3 High Intensity Discharge Determination Low 29 Lamps Test Procedure Low 4 Test Procedure Low 30 Clothes Washers Standards! High 5 Lamps Standards Low 31 Test Procedure* Low 6 TestProcedure* Low 32 Commercial AlC 

### & Heat Standards! High 7 Mobile Horne Furnaces Standards Low 33 Pumps TestProcedure! High 8 Test Procedure* Low 34 Commercial Furnaces 

### & Standards! High 9 Packaged Terminal AlC & Standards High 35 Boilers HeatPumps Gas-Fired Boilers Standards Medium 

### 10 PlumbingFixtureslFittings Standards Low 36 Commercial Boilers Test Procedure! High 11 TestProcedure· Low 37 Commercial Furnaces Test Procedure! High 12 Pool Heaters (Gas) Standards Low 38 Commercial WaterHeaters Standards! High 

### 13 TestProcedure· Low 39 Test Procedure! High 14 Refrigerators Standards* Low 40 Commercial Water Source HP Test Procedure Medium 15 TestProcedure Low 41 Cooking Products

- Electric Standards· Low 16 Res. Central AlC and 

### H. P. Standards! High 42 Cooking Products

- Gas Standards! High 17 TestProcedure! High 43 CookingProducts Test Procedure* Low 18 Res. CentralAlC 

### & HP
- TestProcedure Medium 44 Ductless Split Direct Heating Equipment, Standards Low 19 Res. Furnaces and Boilers Standards Medium 45 Gas Test Procedure* Low 20 Test Procedure* Low 46 Dishwashers Standards Low 21 Residential Water Heaters Standards! High 47 TestProcedure! High 22 Test Procedure· Low 48 Distribution Transformers Standards High 23 Room Air Conditioners Standards* Low 49 Test Procedure Low 24 Test Procedure Low 50 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP Standards Low 25 Small Electric Motors Determination High 51 TestProcedure* Low 26 Test Procedure Low 52 I Drops to Low Priority upon completion 

### * Final Rules for these products have been recently published.

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 Summary of Priorities 

## Standards and Determinations (D) High Priority Products Page Low Priority Products Page Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu I Clothes Dryers 3 Clothes Washers' 5 Cooking Products - Electric* 16 Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps' 7 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas 19 Commercial Furnaces & Boilers' 9 Dishwashers 21 Commercial Water Heaters' 13 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP 25 Cooking Products - Gas' 17 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts* 27 Distribution Transformers 23 High Intensity Discharge Lamps (D) 29 Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 35 Lamps 31 Residential Central AC/HP' 42 Mobile Home Furnaces 33 Residential Water Heaters ' 47 Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings 36 Small Electric Motors (D) 51 Pool Heaters, Gas 38 Refrigerators* 40 Medium Priority Products Page Room Air Conditioners* 49 Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 3 phase, <65 kBtu 2 Gas Fired Boilers 10 Residential Furnaces and Boilers 45 

## Test Procedures High Priority Products Page Low Priority Products (con't) Page Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps' 8 Distribution Transformers 24 Commercial Boilers' 11 Electric Motors, 1-200 HP* 26 Commercial Furnaces' 12 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 28 Commercial Water Heaters' 14 High Intensity Discharge Lamps 30 Dishwashers' 22 Lamps* 32 Residential Central A/C and Heat Pump 43 Mobile Home Furnaces* 34

Medium Priority Products Page Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings* 37 Commercial Water Source Heat Pumps 15 Pool Heaters, Gas* 39 Compact Refrigerators 41 Refrigerators 41 Ductless Split Central AC/HP 44 Residential Furnaces and Boilers* 46

Low Priority Products Page Residential Water Heaters* 48 Clothes Dryers 4 Room Air Conditioners 50 Clothes Washers* 6 Small Electric Motors 52 Cooking Products* 18 Direct Heating Equipment, Gas* 20 ' Drops to Low Priority upon Completion * Final Rules for these products have been recently published. 

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

## Summary ofPriorities Standards and Determinations (D) High Priority Products Page Low Priority Products Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 

### 1 Clothes Dryers**65~240** 

### kBtu Clothes Washers] 

### 5 Cooking Products

- Electric* Commercial AlC 

### and Heat PumpS1 

### 7 Direct Heating Equipment. Gas Commercial Furnaces & 

### Boilers! 

### 9 Dishwashers Commercial Water Heaters! 13 

### Electric Motors, 

### 1**~200** 

### HP Cooking Products**~** 

### Gas! 

### 17 FluorescentLamp Ballasts* Distribution Transformers 

### 23 High Intensity Discharge Lamps (D) Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

### 35 Lamps Heat Pumps Residential Central ACIHP! 

### 42 Mobile Home Furnaces Residential Water Heaters ! 

### 47 Plumbing FixtureslFittings Small Electric Motors (0) 

### 51 Pool Heaters, Gas Refrigerators* Medium Priority Products Page Room Air Conditioners* Central AirConditioners and Heat Pumps, 

### 2 3phase, 

### <65 kBtu Gas Fired Boilers 10 

### Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

### 45 

## TestProcedures High Priority Products Page Low Priority Products (con't) Commercial AlC 

### and Heat Pumps] 

### 8 Distribution Transformers Commercial Boilers! 11 Electric Motors,**1~200** 

### HP* Commercial Furnaces] 

### 12 Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Commercial Water Heaters1 

### 14 High futensity Discharge Lamps Dishwashers] 

### 22 Lamps* Residential Central AlC 

### andHeatPump] 

### 43 Mobile Home Furnaces* Medium Priority Products Page Plumbing FixtureslFittings* Commercial Water Source Heat Pumps 

### 15 Pool Heaters, Gas* Compact Refrigerators 

### 41 Refrigerators Ductless Split Central ACIHP 

### 44 

### Residential Furnaces and Boilers* Low Priority Products Page Residential Water Heaters* Clothes Dryers 

### 4 Room Air Conditioners Clothes Washers* 

### 6 Small Electric Motors Cooking Products* 

### 18 Direct Heating Equipment. Gas* 

### 20 Page 

### 3 

### 16 19 21 25 27 29 31 33 36 38 40 49

Page



### 24 26 28 30 32 34 37 39 41 46 48 50 52

1 . 

### . Drops to Low Prionty upon CompletIon 

## *Final Rules for these products have been recently publIshed
.

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu Priority: High


### Potential Energy Savings 0.50 - 4.711 (in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 Potential Economic 0.4 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998) 

### Benefits/ Burdens Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction - est. 7 million tons. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in 

### to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. See page 8. Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and re tonal environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 2.2 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. FY 2000 Priority N/A Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule 

### Rationale for Priority Level DOE plans to initiate rulemaking in FY 2001. Energy savings are significant.



### 1 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 1 

## Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu Priority: High
Factors for Priority Setting Assessment Potential Energy Savings 0.50

- 4.711 (in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 Potential Economic 0.4 (estimated NPV, billions of$1998) BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction

- est. 7 million tons. Enerln' Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes DOE plansto publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to TestProcedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. See page 8. Other RegulatorvActions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air aualitvt Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 2.2 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will considerhigher standards for additional energy savings. FY 2000 Priority N/A Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate rulemaking in FY 2001. Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant.



### 1Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

## 1 

## Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 3 phase, <65 kBtu Priority: Medium


### Potential Energy Savings 1.29-4.092 from Regulatory Action; 

### Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic 1.7 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998) Benefits/

Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction - est. 25 million tons. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. See page 8. Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. Efficiencies of these products were left unchanged. Single-phase products are regulated by NAECA, and it is 

### desirable to have the same standards for single and three phase versions. A DOE rulemaking is in progress for single phase products, FY 2000 Priority N/A Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate rulemaking when rulemaking for residential (single phase) products is completed. Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant.



### 2 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 2 

## Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 3 phase, <65 kBtu Priority: Medium


### Factors fhr PriQrity Setting Assessment Potential Energy Savings 1.29-4.olf from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic 1.7 (estimated NPV, billions of$1998) BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction

- est. 25 million tons. EneraY Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans 

### to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR byDecember 2000. See page 8. OtherRegulatoryActions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air qUality). Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. orVoluntaryEfficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 

### 6/99. Efficiencies ofthese products were left unchanged. Single-phase products are regulated by NAECA, and it is 

### desirable to have the same standards for single and three phase versions. A DOE rulemaking is in progress for single phase products. FY 2000 Priority N/A 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate rulemaking when rulemak:ing for residential (single phase) products is completed. Rationale for PriorityLevel Energy savings are significant



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

## 2**~**



## Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Clothes Dryers - (Gas/Electric) Priority: Low F f P i i f S actors or r or ett in

y Potential Energy Savings Assessment The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available Benefits/

Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation of new to Test Procedures product class for condensing dryers. Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of clothes washers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

### Recommendations by There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders that updating clothes Interested Parties dryer standards should be given low priority. Evidence of Market

-Driven At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficiency clothes washers, or Voluntary Efficiency which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. Improvements 

### Issues Significant dryer savings potential will be considered in clothes washer rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated to be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings 

### are low. Other DOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white goods manufacturers.



## 3 Draft -July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Clothes Dryers
- (GaslElectric) Priority: Low Factors for Priority Setting Assessment Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Not available EnergySecuritv Benefits Status ofRequired Changes Reduced annual cycles needs to be considered, definitions and creation ofnew to Test Procedures product'class for condensing dryers. OtherRegulatory Actions DOE regulation ofclothes washers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by There appears to be a general consensus among stakeholders thatupdating clothes Interested Parties dryer standards should be given low priority. Evidence ofMarket-Driven At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficiency clothes washers, orVoluntary Efficiency which are likelyto have improved moisture extraction. Improvements Issues Significant dryer savings potential will be considered in clothes washer rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated to be 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplanto actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low. OtherDOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white goods manufacturers.



## 3 

## Draft

- July 

## 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


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

### Relationship to Changes in Standard Assessment Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard 

### Priority of Standard Low International or Other Coordinatin Activities CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests and has asked DOE to consider revisions to the test procedure. Recommendation by 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. Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders.



## 4 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Clothes Dryers
- (GaslElectric) Priority: Low

Issues

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level spe:cializ(:<i dIyer tests and has asked DOE to consider revisions to the test

A new productclass needs to be defined for condenser dryers. Currently there is one waiver in effect. There are numerous changes that are required priorto a standards for clothes

Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders.



## 4 

## Draft - July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Clothes Washers Priority: High - drops to Low priority upon completion Factors %r Priority Setting , Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2004-2030

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 2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Assessment 

### Total range considered: [0.28 - 7.70]3 Specific examples below: Efficiency Improvement over the Base Case (MEF)
5% (0.860) 10%(0.908)_ 15% (0.961) 20% (1.021 ) 25% (1.089) 0.28-0
.28 0.93-0.94 1.74-1.76 2.13-2.15 4.06- 4.08
35% (1.257) 40% (1.362) 45% (1.485) 50% (1.634) 5.94-6
.09 5.98-6
. 13 6.98 -7.28 7.36-7.70

The Net Present Value (NPV) is $ 14.3 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in 1997 dollars. For period 2004- 2030, 95 million metric tons of carbon and 254 thousand metric tons of NO,,. Final Rule issued August 27, 1997. However, during this standards rulemaking, it was discovered that the test cloth used for determining the remaining moisture content (RMC) gave inconsistent results. Changes to the test procedure will be incorporated into this standards rulemaking. DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Star program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. 

### High

Proposed Schedule ANOPR -Published 11/19/98 NOPR - 7/00 

### Final Rule - 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy savings are large.
3 Based on preliminary National Energy Savings (NES) data used for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 

## 5 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Clothes Washers Priority: High

- drops to Low priority upon completion Factor) f(lr Priority Settinj:( Assessment Potential Energy Savings ToW range considered: [0.28

- 7.70]3 Specific examples below: from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) EfficiencyImprovement over the BaseCase

### (MEF) 2004-2030 5%(0.860) 10%(0.908) 15%(0.961) 20%(1.02]) 25% (1.089) 0.28

- 0.28 0.93 -0.94 1.74-1.76 2.13

- 2.15 4.06-4.08
35%(1.257) 40%(1.362) 45%(1.485) 50%(1.634)

5.94 -6.09 5.98

- 6.13 6.98 -7.28 7.36 -7.70

Potential Economic The Net Present Value (NPV) is $14.3 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in BenefitslBurdens ]997 dollars. Potential Environmental or Forperiod 2004- 2030, 95 million metric tons ofcarbon and 254 thousand metric Enerl!V Security Benefits tonsofNOx' Status ofRequired Changes Final Rule issued August 27,1997. However, during this standards rulemaking, it to Test Procedures was discovered that the test cloth used for determining the remaining moisture content (RMC) gave inconsistent results. Changes to the test procedure will be incorporated into this standards rulemaking. OtherRegulatory Actions DOE regulation ofclothes dfyers. DOEregulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Starprogram. or Voluntary Efficiency Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. Improvements manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. Issues FY2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule ANOPR

- Published Ill]9/98 NOPR-7/00 Final Rule

- 12/00 Rationale for PriorityLevel Generally considered to be a high priority by stakeholders. Potential energy savings are large.
3 Based on preliminaryNational Energy Savings (NES) data used for the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 

## 5 Draft

- 

## July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Clothes Washers Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard 

### Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard, and is being changed as of the standards rulemaking. Priority of Standard 

### High International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

### Revise as part of standards rulemaking. Statutory Deadline Issues Final Rule issued August 27, 1997. (See clothes washer standards write-up.) Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### rulemaking. NOPR - 7/00. Final Rule 12/00. Proposed Schedule Publish as part of standards Rationale for Priority Level Test procedure needs to be revised to implement the standards rulemaking. 

# I Test Procedure

6 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: 

### Clothes Washers Priority: 

### Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

Publish as part ofstandards rulemaking. NOPR

- 7/00. Final Rule 12/00. Test procedure needs to be revised to 

### implement the standards rulemaking.



## 6 Draft

- July 

## 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Standards Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (All products for which DOE proposes to accept ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) Priority: High - drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking. (Not a full rulemaking - DOE is adopting the standards of ASHRAE 90.1-1999)


### Potential Energy Savings 2.9° (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/

Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits 

### that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. 

### Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of HCFC refrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market
-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Notice of Availability 5/00. Final Rule 11/00. Standards set by EPACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1



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

## 7 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (All products for which DOE proposes to accept ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) Priority: High

- drops to Low upon completion ofrulemaking. (Not a full rulemaking

- DOE is adopting the standards of ASHRAE 90.1-1999)**k~** 

### Fadors for Priority Setting ",c ' " '1, "-**';x~sessment ~,** **:,~ ~ ~** **v~ ~**  '"**~"" ,,~y**  " Potential Energy Savings 2.94 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to TestProcedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. OtherRegulatory Actions EPA phase out ofHCFC refrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues RevisedASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Notice ofAvailability 5/00. Final Rule 11100. Rationale for Priority Level Standards setbyEP ACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1



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

## 7 ,



## Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (All products for which DOE proposes to accept ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) 

### Priority: High - drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking Factors for Priority Setting„ ,„r ... ;.; .tssessrnent Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard W 

### Standards set by EPACT and are being amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 High International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Proposed Schedule NOPR - 6/00 Final Rule 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 8 Draft - July 17

# , 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Commercial 

### Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (All products for which DOE proposes to accept ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) Priority: High

- drops toLow upon completion ofrulemaking
Standards set by EP ACT and are being amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR-6/00 Final Rule 12100 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the 

### test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 8 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers 

### Priority: High - drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking. (Not a full rulemaking - DOE is adopting the standards of ASHRAE 90.1-1999)

11 tm Potential Energy Savings 0.55 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

### emission benefits that are 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 to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by August 2000 (furnaces) and December 2000 (boilers). Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Notice of Availability 5/00. Final Rule 11/00. 

### Standards set by EPACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1



### 5 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 9 

## Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Commercial Furnaces and Boilers Priority: High

- drops to Low upon completion ofrulemaking. (Not a full rulemaking

- DOE is adopting the standards of ASHRAE 90.1-1999)**~** 'Factors for Priority**Settin~M"*"** "**~** ,} "" " .'\ssessment " " 2**~ ~** **"'~** Potential Energy Savings 0.55(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductionshave notbeen developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefitsthat are likely to be possible. Expected oil savingS are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publish Final Ruleto incorporate thetestproceduresreferred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFRby August 2000 (furnaces) and December 2000 (boilers). Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 

### 6/99. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Notice ofAvailability 5/00. Final Rule 11100. Rationale for Priority Level Standards set by EP ACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1



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

## 9 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


## Standards Product: Commercial Gas-Fired Boilers Priority: Medium


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 0.12 - 0.60 6(in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic 0.2 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998) Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction - est. 4 million tons. Energy Security Benefits 

### Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties 

### Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency 

### Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 

### 0.06 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. 

### FY 2000 Priority N/A Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking I Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant.



### 6 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 10 

## Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Commercial Gas-Fired Boilers Priority: Medium


### Factors for Priority Setting Assessment Potential Energy Savings 0.12

- 0.60 6(in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic 0.2 (estimated NPV, billions of$]998) BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction

- est. 4 million tons. Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate thetest procedures referred to in to TestProcedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. OtherResmlatory Actions Possible State and**re~ional** environmental**re~lation (e.~.**  air Quality). Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven NoneknoWD. orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 0.06 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. FY2000 Priority N/A Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate work in support ofruiemaking Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant.



### 6 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HV AC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

## 10 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Boilers Priority: High - drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking

^ 

### Factors for Relationship to Changes in Standard Asse%sr nent Standards set by EPACT are being amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Priority of Standard High International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

### Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR - 6/00 

### 'Final Rule 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 11 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Boilers Priority: High

- drops to Low upon completion ofrulemaking
Standards setby EP ACT are being amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Scbedule and Rationale: Proposed Scbedule NOPR-6/00 'Final Rule 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



### 11 

## Draft

- July 

## 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces Priority: High

- drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking Relationship to Changes in Standard 

### Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities 

### Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Standards set by EPACT are being amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Schedule NOPR - 12/99 Final Rule - 8/00 

### Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 12 Draft -July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces Priority: High

- drops to Low upon completion ofrulemaking
Standards setby 

### EPACT are being amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR-12/99 

### Final Rule

- 8/00 

### Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 12 Draft - 

## July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High - drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking. (Not a full rulemaking - DOE is adopting the standards of ASHRAE 90.1-1999) 

### Potential Energy Savings 0.07 7(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; 

### Cumulative (Quads)1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

### Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are 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 to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. 

### Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Notice of Availability 5/00. Final Rule 11/00. Standards set by EPACT and are being amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1



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


## 13 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High

- drops to Low upon completion ofrulemaking. (Not a full rulemaking

- DOE is adopting the standards of ASHRAE 90.1-1999) 

### Factors for Priority Setting Assessment Potential Energy Savings 0.07 1(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy SecurityBenefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likelyto be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to TestProcedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR byDecember 2000. Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Notice ofAvailability 5/00. Final Rule 11100. Rationale for Priority Level Standards set by EPACT and are being amended 

### to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1

7 Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HV AC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

## 13 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


## Test Procedure Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High - drops to Low upon completion of rulemaking Factors for Priority Settin Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating_Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

### Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Assessment 

### Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 High

Proposed Schedule NOPR - 6/00 Final Rule - 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in 

### ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR.



## 14 Draft -July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: High

- drops toLow upon completion ofrulemaking
Standards set byEPACT and will be amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR-6100 Final Rule

- 12/00 Rationale for PriorityLevel DOE needs to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR



## 14 Draft

- July 

## 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Water Source Heat Pumps Priority: Medium Relationship to Changes in 

### Standards set by EPACT and will be amended upon revision of ASHRAE 90.1 Standard Priority of Standard High International or Other 

### Coordinating Activities Recommendation by ARI has adopted the international test procedure ISO Standard 132561-1 effective Interested Parties January 2000 in lieu of ARI Standards 320, 325 and 330. Statutory Deadline Issues The former ARI test procedures give different efficiency results than the ISO test procedures. NIST is testing water source heat pumps using both procedures to 

### quantify the differences. Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level This is the first ISO test procedure adopted by ARI.



## 15 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# TestProcedure Product: Commercial Water Source Heat Pumps Priority: Medium

Intlern:ativlnal or Other Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Issues

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Standards set by EP ACT and 

### will be amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1

has adopted the international test nrn,cedluTe ISO Standard 132561-1 effective 2000 in lieu ofARl 330. The former ARl test procedures give different efficiency results than the ISO test procedures. NIST is testing water source heat pumps using both procedures to the differences.

This is the first ISO test procedure adopted byARl.



## 15 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Standards Product: Cooking Products - Electric Ovens, Cook Tops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low Factors for Priority 'Setting Potential Energy Savings N.ssessnien from Regulatory Action; 

### Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes 

### to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Final Rule published September 8, 1998 Proposed Schedule 

### Recent Final Rule.



## 16 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01 

# Standards Product: Cooking Products

- Electric Ovens, Cook Tops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low Factors for Priority Setting Assessment 

### Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic Benefits!Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Cbanges to Test Procedures Otber Ret!ulatory Actions DOE regulation ofwhite**~oods** 

### for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2000Priority Low Proposed Scbedule and Rationale Proposed Scbedule Final Rule publisbed September 8, 1998 Rationale for Priority Level Recent Final Rule.



## 16 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


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

^tors for, Priority Se tinFA Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered:" from Regulatory Action; 

### Cumulative (Quads) Ovens Cook Tops 2000-2030 0.1- 2.1 0 - 0.5 Potential Economic [(9.3) - 0.1] [(4.0) - 0.02] BenefitsBurdens NPV, billions of 1990$ @ 7% Potential Environmental or NOx [11 - 239] NOx [ 0 - 65 ] 

### Energy Security Benefits CO2 [6 - 133] CO2 [ 0 - 361 Emission reductions in (kt) for NOx, and (Mt) for C02. 

### Status of Required Changes Final rule issued October 3, 1997. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market
-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Pilotless designs may require installation of an electrical outlet. Loss of consumer 

### utility if loss of electrical power. If a loss of electricity, cannot use oven. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule - TBD Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking. This 

### rulemaking will remain high priority until the final rule is published. Once the final rule is published, it will become a low priority.

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


## 17 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Cooking Products

- Gas Ovens, CookTops Priority: High

- Drops to Low Priority upon completion**f'actor~** for Priorit)' Seiting Assessment Potential Energy Savings Total ranges considered: 8 from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) Ovens Cook Tops 2000-2030 [0.1- 2.11 rO

- 0.51 Potential Economic [(9.3)

- O. I] [(4.0)

- 0.02] BenefitslBurdens NPV, billions of 1990$ 

### @ 7% Potential Environmental or NOx [1 I - 239] NOx [0-65] Energy Security Benefits CO2 [6
- 133] CO2 [0

- 36 ] Emission reductions in (kt) for NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. Status ofRequired Changes Final rule issued October 3, 1997. to Test Procedures Other Re2ulatorv Actions DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Pilotless designs may require installation ofan electrical outlet Loss ofconsumer utility 

### ifloss ofelectrical power. 

### If

### a loss ofelectriCity, cannot use oven. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule

- TBD Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties recommended high priority. Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Limited DOE resources needed to complete rulemaking. This rulemaking will remain high priority until the fmal rule is published. Oncethe final rule ispublished, it will become 

### a low priority.

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

## 17 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product : Cooking Products - Ovens, Cook Tops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low Facto r.s for Priority Sett n. Relationship to Changes in Standard A Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard. Priority ofStandard High International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Final Rule issued - October 3, 1997



## 18 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTtNG COMMENT 01


# TestProcedure Product: CookingProducts

- Ovens, Cook Tops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low Factors for Priority Setting 

### Assessment 

### Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard. Standard Priority ofStandard High International or Other Coordinatinl!Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued

- October 3, 1997 Rationale for PriorityLevel



## 18 Draft

- July 

## 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0 - 0.1]9 Specific examples below:"' from Regulatory Action; Previous 

### Cumulative (Quads) 1998

- Piezo ignit. & 

### Previous & Condens. & 2030 

### Piezo ignit. Derate 20% Induced Draft Modulat. Oper. (64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) (78.0% AFUE) (87.0% AFUE) 0.1 0 (0.3) (1.0) Potential Economic [(1.4) - 0.1] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/Burdens 0 0.1 (0.6) (1.4) Potential Environmental or SO2 0 (7) (140) (320) Energy Security Benefits NOx 0 (6) (132) (301) 

### co, 0 (3) (72) (165) Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2. 

### Status of Required Changes Final rule published 5/12/97. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market
-Driven None known. 

### or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would 

### be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings 

### are low.

9
10 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.

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



## 19 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) 

### Prio Fm:tors for Priority Setting .;\ssessment 

### Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0

- 0.1]9 Specific examples below: 1o 

### from RegulatoryAction; 

### Previous, Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### Piezo ignit. 

### & Previous 

### & Condens. 

### & 2030 

### Piezo ignit. Derate 20% Induced Draft Modulat. Oper. (64.8% AFUE) (66.9% AFUE) (78.0% AFUE) (87.0% AFUE) 

### 0.1 0 (0.3) (1.0) Potential Economic [(1.4)

- 0.1] NPV, Billions ofl990$ @ 7% BenefitslBurdens 0 0.1 (0.6) (1.4) Potential Environmental or S02 0 (7) (140) (320) Energy Security Benefits NOx 0 (6) (132) (301) CO2 0 (3) (72) 

### (165) Emission reductions in (let) 

### for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2• 

### Status ofRequired Changes Final rule published 5/12/97. to Test Procedures OtherRel!ulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Fuel switching. Rural communities use for backup heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking inthe nextyear. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

9 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 10 Examples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27

- 46 kBtu/hr).



## 19 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


## Test Procedure Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low Factors for Priority Setting ... , Assessment Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities 

### Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Low

Final Rule issued 5/12/97



## 20 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# TestProcedure Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low Factors for Priority Settinj? 

### Assessment Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinatin2Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties StatutOry Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued 5/12/97 Rationale for Priority Level



## 20 

## Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low

'actors tor Priority , ett Ing P, ssessinen 

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

Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available. Energy Security Benefits 

### Status of Required Changes Test procedure is being revised to properly reflect energy consumption for new to Test Procedures technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles. Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Some manufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should be Interested Parties given a low priority. Evidence of Market Driven Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement 

### or Voluntary Efficiency initiative. At least two U.S. manufacturers are marketing adaptive control Improvements dishwashers. Issues Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing of dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability of affordable models (contract 

### housing). FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary 

### programs. Rationale for Priority Level Estimated potential energy savings are small.



## 21 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Dishwashers Priority: Low F·actors for Priority Setting Potential Energy Savings from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherReeulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues
FY 2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

Assessment The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product. Not available. Not available. Test procedure is being revised 

### to properly reflect energy consumption for new technologies (e.g. adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles. DOE regulation ofwhite**~oods** for full line manufacturers. Some manufacturers believethat updating the dishwasher standard should be given a low priority. Energy Savers program. Federal Energy ManagementProgram for procurement initiative. At leasttwo U.S. manufacturers are marketing adaptive control dishwashers. Increased efficiency may impact productutility (e.g. may require pre-rinsing of dishes orcleaning offilters) orthe availability ofaffordable models (contract housing). Low

DOE does notplan to actively pursue rulemaking in thenext year. Workwould be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Estimated potential energy savings are small.



## 21 Draft

- July 17. 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


## Test Procedure Product: Dishwashers Priority: High Factors for,prloritv Relationship to Changes in Standard Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard. 

### Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Efforts underway to harmonize international test procedures should include dishwashers. Recommendation by Interested Parties Manufacturers support a test procedure revision for more accurate testing of new adaptive control models. Industry working on revising its test procedure suggestions to encompass the variety of sensor techniques now in the market. 

### Statutory Deadline Issues New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic. Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR - published 9/99 Reopening Notice - 7/00 Final Rule - 11/00 Rationale for Priority Level New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic.



## 22 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Dishwashers Priority: High Factors f(u- Priority Setting 

### Relationshipto Cbanges in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinatinl[Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule
Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure**Asses~mC'n(** 

### Test Procedure needed to be cbanged for standard. Low Efforts underway to harmonize international test procedures should include dishwashers. Manufacturers support a test procedure revision for more accurate testing ofnew adaptive control models. Industry working on revising its test procedure suggestions 

### to encompass the variety ofsensor**techniq~es** 

### now in the market. Newtechnology in product, i.e. smart 

### controls, fuzzy 

### logic.

NOPR

- published 9/99 

### Reopening Notice

- 7/00 

### Final Rule

- 11100 New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, 

### fuzzy logic.



## 22 Draft

- July 

## 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High l ii i; Factors for l riorityz""e in Potential Energy Savings Ass essftlenU: [.39-10.7]" from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic Not available. 

### Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes Need to publish a test procedure before rule. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None known. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven EPA Energy Star program for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's TP-1 and or Voluntary Efficiency the National Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy efficient electrical Improvements products. Issues Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. NEMA recommends adoption of voluntary standards as specified in TP-1. Energy savings questioned by NEMA. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to begin actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2001. Rationale for Priority Level Potential for significant energy savings.

11 Based on DOE determination notice , October 22, 1997.


## 23 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High Factors for Priority Setting Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Ttl$t Procedures Other**R~ulatory** 

### Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues
FY2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

Assessment (.39-10.7] II



### Not available. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have notbeen developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to bepossible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Need to publish a test procedure before rule. None known.
EPA Energy Star program for liquid immersion transformers. NEMA's TP-l and the National Business Awareness Campaign to promote energy efficient electrical products. Most efficient designs include proprietary technology. NEMA recommends adoption ofvoluntary standards as specified in TP-l. Energy savings questioned byNEMA. High

DOE plans to begin 

### actively pursuing standards rulemaking in 2001. Potential for significant energy savings.

11 Based on DOE detennination notice. October22. 1997. 

## 23 

## Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard 

### Test Procedure needs to be established for standard. Priority of Standard High International or Other Coordinating Activities 

### Recommendation by Interested Parties NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test standard. Statutory Deadline 

### Issues Sampling Plan; Definitions of Covered Products Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Proposed Schedule NOPR -published 11/12/98 Reopening Notice 6/99 Final Rule - 8/00 Rationale for Priority Level Test procedure should be completed during FY 2000.



## 24 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule
Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

NEMArecommends using NEMATP-2 test standard.

NOPR

- published 11112/98 Reopening Notice 6/99 Final Rule

- 8/00 Test procedure should be 

### completed during FY 2000.



## 24 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Electric Motors, 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings Estimate 31.3 billion KW/yr could be saved through enforcement of EPCA 

### from Regulatory Action; efficiency standards for electric motors - enough electricity to meet the lighting Cumulative (Quads) needs of all U.S. households for 4 months.. Potential Economic Not Available. Benefits/

Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Not Available. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes Final rule for test procedures published 10/5/99. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Enforcement Interested Parties Evidence of Market Driven ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium for Energy Efficiency" program with utilities. or Voluntary Efficiency Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ Improvements 

### Issues DOE regulates system efficiencies (e.g. HVAC) where motors are components of such systems. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work 

### would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Determination required by EPCA



## 25 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Electric Motors, I - 200 HP Priority: Low**Fltctor~** I(u' Priority**Settin~** Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or EnergySecurity Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other R(l2ulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
Rationale for PriorityLevel 

# Standards

Assessment Estimate 31.3 billion KW /yr could be saved through enforcement ofEPCA efficiency standards for electric motors - enough electricity to meet the lighting needs ofall U.S. households for 4 months
.. Not Available. Not Available. Final rule for test procedures published 10/5/99. None known that will impact product. Enforcement ASHRAE 90.1. "Consortium forEnergy Efficiency· program with utilities. Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ DOE regulates system efficiencies (e.g. HV AC) where motors are components of such systems. Low

DOE does notplan to actively pursue rulemaking 

### inthe next two years. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntaIy programs. Interested Parties believethis is a low priority product Potential energy savings are unknown atthistime. Determination required by EPCA



## 25 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Electric Motors, I - 200 HP Priority: Low


### ""''^ F t fi i it S t

-P ors ac n r or ^ e tfn Relationship to Changes in Standard Assessment, Test Procedure needed to be revised to support the standard Priority of Standard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Natural Resources Canada: Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electric Motors International Electrotechnical Commission/International Standards Organisation (IEC/ISO) Recommendation by Interested Parties Manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates support test procedure rulemaking. 

### Statuto Deadline Issues Expect DOE test procedure to be revised for compatibility with global (IEC/ISO) test procedure. Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Proposed Rule Issued - 11/27/97 Final Rule - 10/5/99 

### Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule recently published.



## 26 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Electric Motors, I - 200 HP Priority: Low Factor!> for Prioritj' Setting 

### Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

Assessment 

### Test Procedure needed to be revised to support the standard Low Natural Resources Canada: Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electric Motors International Electrotechnical CommissionlInternational Standards Organisation (IEC/ISO) Manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates support test procedure rulemaking, Expect DOE test procedure to be revised for compatibility with global (IECIISO) test procedure.

Proposed Rule Issued

- 11127/97 Final Rule

- 10/5/99 Final Rule recently published.



## 26 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: 1.2 - 2.3 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2000-2030 Potential Economic 1 .4 - 2.6 NPV, billions of 1997$ @ 7% Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

### Status of Required Changes None required. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Some ballast manufacturers also make electric motors. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven EPA Green Lights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's Federal or Voluntary Efficiency Relighting Initiative (FEMP), The Energy Cost Savings Council, and some utility Improvements DSM programs. Issues Standards, for electronic ballasts, may adversely affect U.S. manufacturers. 

### Impact on U.S. employment levels. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule NOPR - 3/00 Final Rule - 8/00 

### Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule in FY2000.



## 27 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low Factors for Priority**Settin~** Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cuinulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Enerlff Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

Assessment Total range considered: 1.2

- 2.3

1.4

- 2.6 NPV, billions ofl997$ @ 7%

None required. Some ballast manufacturers also make electric motors.
EPA Green Lights and Energy Star buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE's Federal Relighting Initiative (FEMP), The Energy Cost Savings Council, and some utility DSM programs. Standards, for electronic ballasts, may adversely affect U.S. manufacturers. Impact on U.S. employment levels. High

NOPR-3/00 Final Rule

- 8/00 Final Rule in FY2000.



## 27 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product : Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard Efficiency levels for new standards are already in the market and are covered by existing standards and test procedures. Priority ofStandard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level



## 28 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low Factors 1'01' 

### Priority Setting 

### Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinatin2Activities Recommendation by 

### Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationalefor PriorityLevel 

# Test Procedure

Assessment 

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

### and test procedures, Low



## 28 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Determination Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings MEMO= [0.11-0.22]12 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 Potential Economic Not Available. 

### Benefits/ Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

### Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes IES and ANSI procedures are in place. 

### to Test Procedures Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. Other Regulatory Actions EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure sodium or Voluntary Efficiency lamps. 

### Improvements Issues Concern about non-equitable impact of possible elimination of mercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination of mercury vapor lamps will require fixture replacement). FY 2000 Priority Medium Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Potential energy savings are low.

12 Based on DOE rough estimate, May 1996.


## 29 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Determination Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps Priority: Low 

### Factors fm' Priority SettillA Assessment Potential Energy Savings [0.11-0.22] 12 from RegulatoryAction; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic NotAvailable. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savin!1$ are minimal. Status ofRequired Cbanges lES and ANSI procedures are in place. to Test Procedures Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. OtherRel!ulatorv Actions EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure sodium or Voluntary Efficiency lamps. Improvements Issues Concern about non-equitable impact ofpossible elimination ofmercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination ofmercury vapor lamps will require fixture replacement). FY2000 Priority Medium Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Scbedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the nextyear. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are low.

12 Based on DOE rough estimate, May 1996. 

## 29 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low Factors for Priority Setting' A ssessment Relationship to Changes in Standard 

### Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

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

### Test Procedure needs to be developed for standard, Low

No work expected during FY2001.



## 30 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

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

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

# Test Procedure

Proposed Schedule No work expected during FY2001. Rationale for PriorityLevel



## 30 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Standards Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low 

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

Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Not Available. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued to Test Procedures 5/29/97 Other Regulatory Actions 'Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, but EPA issued a final rule 

### July 6, 1999, including lamps as Universal Hazardous Waste. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility DSM or Voluntary Efficiency programs, FEMP. 

### Improvements Issues Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more difficult. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. 

### Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. 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 fluorescent and 

### incandescent lamps.



## 31 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low 

### Factors for Priority Settina Assessment Potential Energy Savings NotAvailable. from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not Available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or NotAvailable. Ener2Y Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued to Test Procedures 5/29/97 Other RegulatoryActions ·Existing EPA mercury disposal requirements apply, butEPA issued a final rule July 6,1999, including lamps as Universal Hazardous Waste. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven EPA Green lights, Energy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, and some utility DSM or Voluntary Efficiency programs, FEMP. Improvements Issues Because lamps are components ofsystems, establishment ofstandards is more difficult. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does notplan to actively pUrsue rulemaking inthe nextyear. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level 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 fluorescent and incandescent lamps.



## 31 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low ^:Fattor% for Priority Settin Relationship to Changes in Standard Assessment Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Priority of Standard Low International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Final Rule issued 5/29/97



## 32 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Lamps, Fluorescent and Incandescent Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

# Test Procedure

Proposed Schedule Final Rule issued 5/29/97 

### Rationale for Priority Level



## 32 Draft

- July 

## 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low 

# Standards

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

### Imprv. fan Impt.v. fan motor & burner 

### motor box damper Condensing (91.7 Gas (76.6% AFUE) (79.6 AFUE) AFUE) Imprv. fan motor, ht. exchgr., Imprv. fan Imprv. fan condens. & full motor motor modulation Oil 82.1% AFUE (82.1% AFUE 93.7% AFUE)

0.1 0.1 0.5 Total range considered: [ 0 .1 - 0.6 ]13 Specific examples below: Potential Economic [ (0.8) - 0.11 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/Burdens 0.1 0.1 (0.2) Potential Environmental or SO2 16 17 4 

### Energy Security Benefits NOx 15 16 4 CO2 9 9 2 

### Emission reductions in (kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for C02- Status of Required Changes Final rule issued 5/12/97. to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Fuel switching. Limited space for installation. FY 2000 Priority Low Pro used Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would 

### be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Higher standards levels requiring technologies, such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

13 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.


## 33 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01


# Standards Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Prio Factors for Pri{}rity SeWn!! Assessment Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 

### Imprv. fan Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 

### Imprv. fan 

### motor & 

### burner 2030 

### motor box damper Condensing (91.7 Gas (76.6% AFUE) (79.6AFUE) AFUE) 

### Imprv. fan 

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

### Imprv. fan 

### condens. & 

### full motor motor modulation Oil iC82.1% AFUE) (82.1% AFUE) i(93.7% AFUE) 0.1 0.1 0.5 Total range considered: [ 

### 0.1

- 0.6 

### ]13 Specific examples below: Potential Economic 

### [(0.8)

- 0.1 ] NPV, Billions of 

### 1990$ @ 

### 7% BenefitslBurdens 

### 0.1 0.1 (0.2) Potential Environmental or 

### SOz 16 17 4 Energy Security Benefits NOx 

### 15 16 4 CO2 

### 9 9 2 Emission reductions in (let) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for 

### COz. Status ofRequired Changes Final rule issued 

### 5/12/97. to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Fuel switching. Limited space for installation. FY 2000 Priority Low P edShedl dRa'

ro os c u ean tiona e Proposed Schedule DOE does notplanto actively pursue rulemaldng in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigai:ion and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are lowto moderate. Higher standards levels requiring technologies, such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

13 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

## 33 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low actors for Priority Settings Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior

### ity Level :1sseS ,menf,,.j 

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

Final rule issued 5/12/97.



## 34 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Mobile Home Furnaces Priority: Low 

### Factors for Priority Setting Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

## TestProcedore

, , 

### A-ssessment Test Procedure notneeded to be changed for standard Low

Final rule issued 5/12/97.



## 34 Draft

- July 

## 17, 2000

### -YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Priority: High Potential Energy Savings 0.55-0.78 14(in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 2030 

### Potential Economic 0.6 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998). Benefits/ Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in 

### to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR by December 2000. Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of HCFC refrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99, which would save an estimated 0.11 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. FY 2000 Priority N/A Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE plans to initiate rulemaking in FY2001. Energy savings are significant.



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

## 35 Draft - July 17, 2000 ·YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Packaged Tenninal 

### Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Priority: High**F~ct()rs** 

### for**~rj(JLity ~~tting**  Ah A%Sh&**~** 'SA**"s~%%** h ,," X,**"~%** 'S% ,%% %'%",7'm**J},~t;;~!il}t£lJ~h "'~**  U**&~%,*"*****0"AM~Y%WsY** Ax AS**X4f7f~fq!l@** 

### Potential Energy Savings 0.55

- 0.78 14 

### (in addition to savings due to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 

### 2030 Potential Economic 0.6 (estimated NPV, billions of$1998). BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be**~ossible.** 

### Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in to Test Proeedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR 

### by December 2000. OtherRegulatory Actions EPA phase out ofHCFCrefrigerants. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven None known. orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 

### 6/99, which would save an estimated 0.11 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. FY 2000 Priority N/A 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate rulemaking in FY2001. Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant.



### 14 Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HV AC Standards, see 65 FR30929.


## 35 

## Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low

_ - -l-I.-Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic Not available. 

### Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Im provements 

### Issues As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects on utility need to be carefully considered. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. Rationale for Priority Level Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI Al 12.18.1 and ASME/ANSI Al 12.19.6.



## 36 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Plumbing FixtureslFittings Priority: Low 

### Factors for Priority**Settin~** 

### " Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Ener2Y Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency ImJl.rovements Issues FY 2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule
Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

Assessment ,**~** " '" w-! X**,,~d'"'~** 00v40Sd;6,jift"B'A 

### The Department has notconducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product. Not available. Not available.

None.
None known.
As 

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

DOE does not plan to actively pursuerulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technolOgy investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Dependent upon revision by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASME/ANSI AI12.1S.1 and ASME/ANSI Al 12.19.6.



## 36 Draft - July 

## 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Test Procedure Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low 'actors tour Priority ettine Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Low



### Final Rule - March 18, 1998



## 37 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

Final 

### Rule· March 18, 1998



### 37 

## Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: (0.2 - 0.911$ Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) IID, (78% ET) Non-condensing limit, (82.2% ET) Condensing, (90.8% ET) 

### 2000-2030 0.2 0.4 0.7 Potential Economic [ (1.4) - 0.21 NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 7% Benefits/ Burdens 0.2 0.2 (0.6) Potential Environmental or SO2 0 0 0 Energy Security Benefits NOx 42 42 42 

### CO2 11 18 35 Emission reductions in (kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for C9_2. Status of Required Changes Final rule issued 5/12/97_ to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions None known that will impact product. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency 

### Improvements Issues FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring of voluntary programs. 

### Rationale for Priority Level Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

15 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.



## 38 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) 

### Priority: Low Factors for Pri{)rity Setting 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic BenefrtslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits
Status ofRequired Cbanges to Test Procedures OtherRe«ulatory Aetions Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Scbedule
Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

Assessmtmt 

### Total range considered: [0.2

- 0.91 15 

### Specific examples below: lID, (78%Er)Non-condensing limit, (82.2% Er) Condensing, (90.8% Er) 0.2 

### 0.4 0.7**[(~.4)** - 

### 0.2] NPV, Billions of 1990$ @ 

### 7% 0.2 0.2 (0.6) S02 

### 0 0 

### 0 NOx 42 42 42 CO2 

### 11 18 35 Emission reductions in (kt) 

### for S02 and NOll, and (Mt) for CO2 . Final rule issued 5/12/97. 

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

Low

DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntaty programs. Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

15 Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995.**~** "



## 38 Draft

- July 

## 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Test Procedure Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low 

### Factors for Priorit } Scttm Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior

### ity Level Low

Final rule issued 5/12/97.



## 39 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: 

### Low

Proposed Scbedule and Rationale: Proposed Scbedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Test Procedure

Final rule issued 5/12/97.



## 39 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy 

### from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030 Potential Economic Not available Benefits/

Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits 

### Status of Required Changes No changes required for standards. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of insulation HCFCs in 2003. 

### DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by Interested Parties 

### Evidence of Market

-Driven Super Efficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing or Voluntary Efficiency Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantities of Improvements new high efficiency models are being marketed. Issues Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997 Rule issued, will be effective July 1, 2001



## 40 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorlFreezers, & 

### Freezers Priority: Low 

### Factors for Priority Setting**Asse~sment ~**  

### Potential Energy Savings The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from RegulatoryAction; savings forthis product. Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030 Potential Economic Not available BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Not available Enerl!V Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes No changes required for standards. to TestProcedures OtherRegulatory Actions EPAphase out ofinsulation HCFCs in 2003. DOE regulation ofwhite**~ods** 

### for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven SuperEfficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing or.voluntary Efficiency Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantities of Improvements new high efficiency models are**bein~** 

### marketed. Issues Final Rule Issued

- April 28, 1997. FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Final Rule Issued

- April 28, 1997 Rationale for Priority Level Rule issued, will be effective July 1,2001**~~**



## 40 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers Priority: Medium for compact refrigerators and refrigerator/freezers, Low for all others. Victors t^r f rioritt ,Settin ^.s^tstiment 

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

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Low

Tests at NIST have revealed deficiencies in the compact refrigerator test procedure
. These will be researched and corrected , probably by revising the test procedure for compact refrigerators.

Proposed Schedule NIST is testing compact refrigerators, and overseeing round robin testing of 

### compact refrigerators at independent test labs. Several deficiencies have been identified, work is continuing. A proposed modification of the compact refrigerator test procedure will be drafted in 2001. Rationale for Priority Level Compact refrigerator manufacturers have obtained inconsistent results when testing each other's products. Deficiencies in test procedure have been identified.



## 41 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorlFreezers, & Freezers Priority: Medium for compactrefrigerators and refrigerator/freezers, Lowfor all others.

Recommendation by Interested Parties Issues

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule

Rationale for Priority Level Tests atNIST have revealed deficiencies inthe compactrefrigeratortest procedure. These will beresearched and corrected, probably byrevisingthetest nrn,,,,..tiIJlTf> for

NIST is testing compactrefrigerators, and overseeinground robin testing of compact refrigerators at independent test labs. Several deficiencies have been identified, work is continuing. A proposed modification ofthe compact refrigerator testprocedure will be 

### drafted in 2001. Compact refrigerator manufacturers have obtained inconsistentresults when testing each other'sproducts. Deficiencies in testprocedure have been identified.



## 41 Draft - July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High - drops to Low priority upon completion 

### Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [2.2 -10.4] 1fi Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995
- 11 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER 18S EER 

### 2030 2.2 3.8 5.4 10.4 Potential Economic [(22) - 0] NPV, Billions of 1998$ @ 7% Benefits/Burdens 0 1 ( 5) (22) 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

### emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes Changes are not required for standards. to Test Procedures 

### Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant - 2010 DOE regulation of furnaces. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market
-Driven Energy Star program recommending a 12 SEER or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation. 

### FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule SANOPR - 11/99 

### NOPR - 8/00 Final Rule - 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are large.

16 Based on DOE analysis for NOPR, see www.eren.doe.gov /buildings/Codes

stmdards/index.htm.



## 42 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High

- drops to Lowpriority upon completion 

### Fnctors for Priority Setting , "$**,~~ Assess(!l~n!**  '" "'"'''' :P**'0~*,** =oiEf;=X 1MJ:?if%<7'\fw1h;MS,,*,_1%riiifffi Potential EnergySavings Total range considered: [2.2 -10.4]16 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- 11 SEER 12 SEER 13 SEER 18 SEER 

### 2030 2.2 3.8 5.4 10.4 Potential Economic [(22)

- 0] NPV, Billions of 1998$ @ 7% BenefitslBurdens 

# o (1) (5) (22) Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status ofRequired Changes Changes are notrequired for standards. to Test Procedures OtherRegulatory Actions EPAphase out ofHCFC-22 refrigerant

- 2010 DOE regulation offumaces. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Energy Starprogram recommending a 12 SEER. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation. FY 2000 Priority High Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule SANOPR

- 11199 NOPR-8/00 Final Rule

- 12/00 Rationale for PriorityLevel Potential energy savings are large.

16 Based on DOE analysis for NOPR, see www.eren.doe.govlbuildings/codes_standards/index.htm.



## 42 Draft

- 

## July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High ii', Selliiil~.,, .» ._^ #tises lent Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

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

Would like to see it published. Many changes to accommodate new technology.



### Proposed Schedule NOPR - 8/00 Final Rule - 2/01 Rationale for Priority Level Work is complete for technical content of proposed test procedure.



## 43 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



## Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & 

### Heat Pumps Priority: High

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR-8/00 Final Rule

- 2/01 Rationale for Priority Level Work is complete for technical content ofproposed test procedure.



## 43 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps - Ductless Split Systems Priority: Medium 

### Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. Standard Priority of Standard Hi 

### International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimeter test. Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 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 and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking 

### Change would make test procedure more accurate for this product.



## 44 Draft -July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps
- Ductless Split Systems Priority: Medium

Issues

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimeter test.
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 ""T1,p.nTlv 

### in the DOE central air test

DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking Change would make test procedure more accurate for this product.



## 44 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Medium 

# Standards
Yactor.^ for Priority Settjo,- Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0.6 - 10.2] 7 Specific examples below: 

### from Regulatory Action; Insul ., lID, imprv. Cumulative (Quads) fan motor, & two Previous & Gas 2000-2030 

### Gas stage oper. condensing absorption Furnaces (81.8% AFUE) (92% AFUE) heat pump IID & pulse Gas Gas IID condensing absorption Boilers (81.8% AFUE) (90.4% AFUE) heat pump

0.6 3.7 10.2 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

### emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are more significant than other products. Status of Required Changes Final rule issued 5/12/97 to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation. DOE regulation of central air conditioning products. Consumer Product Safety Commission - possible 

### regulation. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market

-Driven Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensing fumace/boiler program. or Voluntary Efficiency ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. Improvements Issues 

### FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate work in support of rulemaking. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are significant. Higher standards levels requiring technologies such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

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



## 45 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Residential Furnaces & 

### Boilers Priority: Medium Factors for Priority**Settill~** 

### Assessment Potential Energy Savings Total range considered: [0.6

- 10.2]17 Specific examples below: from Regulatory Action; 

### Insul., lID, imprv. Cumulative (Quads) 

### fun 

### motor, & 

### two Previous & Gas 2000-2030 

### Gas 

### stage oper. condensing absorption Furnaces (81.8% AFUE) (92%AFUE) 

### heat pump lID & 

### pulse Gas Gas 

### lID condensing absorption Boilers (81.8% AFUE) (90.4% AFUE) 

### heat pump 0.6 

## 3.7 10.2 Potential Economic Not available. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are more silmificant than other products. Status ofRequired Changes Final rule issued 5112/97 

### to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Possible State and regional environmental regulation. DOE regulation ofcentral air conditioning products. Consumer Product Safety Commission

- possible regulation. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven Energy Star program. Wisconsin state condensing furnacefboiler program. orVoluntary Efficiency ACEEE indicated thattrend for higher efficiency products stopped in 1994. Improvements Issues FY 2000 Priority Low PedS h dIdRat'

ro os ceuean lona e Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate work in support ofrulemaking. Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are significant. Higher standards levels requiring technologies such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

17 Based on DOErough estimate for gas only, May 1996.



## 45 Draft - 

## July 

## 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low factors for Priority Sett Relationship to Changes in Standard Priori of Standard 

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

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

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

Final rule issued 5/12/97



## 46 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Residential Furnaces & 

### Boilers Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

# Test Procedure

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



# 46 Draft

- 

## July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric 

### Priority: High

- drops to Low priority upon completion Potential Energy Savings from I Total ranges considered: Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2003-2030 

### Heat raps Heat Traps, & Insul. 2.5" Insul. & Ht. Traps, 3" Tank Insul. Tank Insul. & Electric Bottom Bottom Plastic Tank 

### 3 " Insu ., 2" Insul., 2.5" Insul., Sidearm w/ Heat Traps, Heat Traps, 80% Flue Gas Flue Baffle Flue Baffle Baffle & IID 

### Quads at source 3.4 4.8 13.1 NPV, 1998$ 2.3 3.3 -17.4 

### S02 kt 4 -6 54 NOx kt 141 229 599 

### C02 Mt 48 83 219



### Potential Environmental or Energy See table, above Security Benefits Emission reductions in (Kt) for SO2 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2 . Based on 1999 analysis, 

### and includes oil, gas and electric. Status of Required Changes to Changes not required for standards. Final rule for test procedure was published in 1998. Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of HCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Commission 

### initiative for prevention of ignition of flammable vapors by gas water heaters. Evidence of Market-Driven or Demand-side management programs for high efficiency water heaters. Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### Electronic ignition has impact on customer utility. Fuel switching. Replacement blowing agent for insulation
. Installation in small spaces.

Proposed Schedule NOPR - 4/00 Final Rule - 12/00 Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are large.

18 Based on DOE analysis May 1999. Energy savings reduced due to phase out of HCFC- 141b insulation blowing agent in 2003. 

## 47 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



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

- drops to Low priority upon completion**r'II':lor~** for Priorilj Selling**:\s~cssm<!ll!** Potential Energy Savings from Total ranges considered: Regulatory Action; 3.4- 13.1 18 Cumulative (Quads) Heat Traps Heat Traps, 2003-2030 & Insul. 2.5" Insul. & Ht. Traps, 3" Tank Insul. Tank Insul. & Electric Bottom Bottom Plastic Tank 3" Insul., 2" Insul., 2.5" Insul., Sidearm wI HeatTraps, Heat Traps, 80% Flue Gas Flue Baffle Flue Baffle Baffle & lID Quads at source 3.4 4.8 13.1 NPV, 1998$ 2.3 3.3 -17.4 S02(kt) 4 -6 54 NOx_(kt) 141 229 599 C02 (Mt) 48 83 219 Specific examples below: Potential Economic See NPV in table, above. BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental orEnergy See table, above Security Benefits Emission reductions in (Kt) for S02 and NOx, and (Mt) for CO2 , Based on 1999 analysis, and includes oil. gas and electric. Status ofRequired Changes to Changes not required for standards. Final rule for testprocedure was published in 1998. Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPAphase out ofHCFCs for insulation (2003). ConsumerProduct Safety Commission initiative for prevention ofignition offlammable vapors by gas water heaters. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Demand-side managementprograms for high efficiency water heaters. Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Electronic ignition has impact on customerutility. Fuel switching. Replacement blowing agent for insulation. Installation 

### in small spaces. FY 1999 Priority High Proposed Scbedule and Rationale Proposed Scbedule NOPR-4/00 Final Rule

- 12100 Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are large.

18 Based on DOE analysis May 1999. Energy savings reduced due to phase out ofHCFC-14Ib insulation blowing agent in 2003. 

## 47 

## Draft

- July 

## 17.2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Residential Water Heaters - Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in I No change needed Standard Priori ofStandard 

### International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level High



### Test procedure published in May 1998.



## 48 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Residential Water Heaters
- Gas, Oil & 

### Electric Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Test procedure published in May 

### 1998.



## 48 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Standards Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low 

# 111 111 MEW I Man Potential Energy Savings 

# RMM I The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy from Regulatory Action; savings for this product. Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2000-2030 Potential Economic Not available 

### Benefits/ Burdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes Not required for standards. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven DSM programs. Labeling program very effective. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Final Rule Issued - September 24, 1997 

### FY 2000 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule Issued

- September 24, 1997



## 49 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low Factors for Priority Setting Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2000-2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Ener2Y Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures OtherReeulatorv Actions Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues FY 2000 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# Standards

'" " ,**~ ~** **Asse~~**

### mel!t**~** c**'c~** ='=="' _;':""'= Wi" 

# _-x >/Wffi,,/§ 

### The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regarding potential energy savings for this product.
Not available Not available Not required for standards. EPA phase out ofHCFC-22 refrigerant.
DSM programs. Labeling program vel)' effective.
Final Rule Issued

- September 24, 1997 Low

Final Rule Issued

- September 24, 1997



## 49 Draft

- July 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low

^)rs for Priority Settin 

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



## 50 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Room Air 

### Conditioners Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

# TestProcedure

50 Draft

- July 

## 17,2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: High 

# Standards Determination

Potential Energy Savings [0.8-4.5]19 from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030 Potential Economic Not available. Benefits/Burdens 

### Potential Environmental or Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative 

### emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. Status of Required Changes IEEE 114 test procedure for single-phase induction motors is under review. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Small motors used in NAECA "covered roducts" (e.g. white oods are exempt. Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market
-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues None. FY 2000 Priority Medium Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### DOE plans to initiate determination in FY2001. Proposed Schedule Potential energy savings are significant
. Determination required by EPCA.

19 Based on draft DOE report May 1996.



## 51 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: High
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 1998- 

### 2030
Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits

Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Issues 

### FY2000 Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule Rationale for PriorityLevel 

# Standards Determination

Not available
.

. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are to be oil are minimal. IEEE 114

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

None known.
None. Medium

DOE plans to initiate determination in 

### FY2001. Potential energy savings are significant. Determination required by EPCA.

19 Based 

### on draft

### DOE report, May 1996.



## 51 Draft

- July 17, 2000

### YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01



# Test Procedure Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low actor ter Priuratt ttana; Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Prior

### ity Level Low

Dependent on Determination. ISSCssmep 

# UNIUM W



## 52 Draft - July 17, 2000 YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 01

Product: Small Electric Motors Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

## Test Procedure

Dependent on Detennination.



## 52 

## Draft

- July 17,2000