# APPENDIXC
FY2005 DRAFT PRIORITY-SETTING DATA SHEETS FOR "NON-COVERED" PRODUCTS (Appendix C products were considered in FY2003 but did not become part ofthe program. Appendix C data sheets have not been updated since the FY2003 priority-setting process.)



# APPLIANCE STANDARDS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY April 2004

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page I

## Table ofContents (Non-Covered Products)

Product Rulemaking Priority Page Commercial RefrigerationStandards Ice Machines Consideration NA 4 Test Procedure Ice Machines Summary NA 6 Standards NA Supermarket Refrigeration Systems Consideration 7 Test Procedure NA Supennarket Refrigeration Systems Summary 9 Standards NA Walk-In Coolers Consideration 10 Standards NA Walk-In Freezers and Combination Cooler/Freezers Consideration 12 Test Procedure NA Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and Combination Cooler/Freezers Summary 14 Standards NA Water Coolers Consideration 15 Test Procedure NA Water Coolers Summary 17 Commercial Laundry Standards NA Commercial Clothes Dryers Consideration I8 Test Procedure NA Commercial Clothes Dryers Summary 20 Standards NA Commercial Clothes Washers Consideration 21 Test Procedure NA Cmmnercial Clothes Washers Summary 23 Commercial Heating and Air Conditioning Equipment Standards NA Oil Unit Heaters Consideration 24 Test Procedure NA Oil Unit Heaters Smmnary 26 Miscellaneous Residential Equipment Standards NA Compact Audio Consideration 27 Standards NA Component Stereo and Rack Audio Consideration 28 Test Procedure NA Compact Audio, Component Stereo, and Rack Audio Summary 29 Standards NA Dehumidifiers Consideration 30 Test Procedure NA Dehumidifiers Summary 31 Standards NA Set-Top Boxes Consideration 32 Test Procedure NA Set-Top Boxes Summary 34 Standards NA Televisions Consideration 35 Test Procedure NA Televisions Summary 37 Standards NA Video Cassette Recorders Consideration 38 Test Procedure NA Video Cassette Recorders Summary 39



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 2

## Table ofContents (Non-Covered Products)

Product Rulemaking Priority Page Office Equipment Standards NA Copy Machines Consideration 40 Test Procedure NA Copy Machines Summary 42 Standards NA Desktop Computers Consideration 44 Test Procedure NA Desktop Computers Summary 46 Standards NA Fax Machines Consideration 47 Test Procedure NA Fax Machines Summary 49 Standards NA Laser Printers Consideration 50 Test Procedure NA Laser Printers Swnmary 52 Standards NA Low-End Servers, Commercial Consideration 53 Test Procedure NA Low-End Servers, Commercial Summary 55 Standards NA Monitors Consideration 56 Test Procedure NA Monitors Summary 58 Pumps Standards NA Pool Pumps Consideration 59 Test Procedure NA Pool Pumps Summary 60 Standards NA Well Pumps Consideration 61 Test Procedure NA Well Pumps Summary 62 Commercial Cooking Standards NA Broilers Consideration 63 Standards NA Fryers Consideration 64 Standards NA Griddles Consideration 65 Standards NA Ovens Consideration 66 Standards NA Ranges Consideration 67 Standards NA Steamers Consideration 68 Test Procedure NA All Co1mnercial Cooking Summary 69



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 3

# Standards Consideration
Product: Ice Machines 1



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Combination ofEnergy Savings Technologies 0.182 

### Canadian Standards 03 

### FEMP Recommended/ Best Available 0.16 I 0.31 4



### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**'""T~c-h~oJ~g~** 

### - - - - - - - - -P;Vb;ckP;rkid2
- - -**T~ch~ Mirt~rity-**  

### - - P;ak**L~ad I~p~ct** 

# - - - - Pr?duct I**T_echnolo~** 

### Availability (Including High-Effcy Compressor 1.8 years New High Price/Cost mformation): Reduced Evap Therm Cyc 1.2 years New High**--------------,------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Cumulative Burden $ 

### The industry dealt with the phase out ofCFC's in the mid-I 990's. 

### $ Ifthe Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

### $ Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies, which own divisions that have been subject to energy standards ofother products.



# --------------------------·--------------------------------------------------- Status ofTest Procedures 

### $ ASHRAE29 

### $ ARI 810-2000: Based on ASHRAE 29 $ 

### CSA C742-98: Based on ASHRAE 29**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Other Regulatory Actions
. Canadian Regulations and availability ofARI Data.**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary FEMP Recommendations Efficiency Improvements**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Issues Significant product variety.

1 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSD). 2 

### Based on "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-17, Row 12. Includes High-Efficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82¢/kWh). 3 

### See plot ofStandards vs. ARI data. Nearly all units comply with the current standard. 4 

### Based on ARI average consumption for air-cooled ice makers with 401to500 lb/day capacity (7.05 kWh/lOOlb) and water-cooled ice makers with 301to500lb/day capacity (5.62kWh/100lb) compared with FEMP recommended and "best available" data for these ranges.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page4

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 1995) 0.10 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 7,900 Divide energy use by installed base. Annual Shipments (millions, 1998) 0.296 Census data for 1998. Installed Base (millions, 1995) 1.2 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, l996 Product Lifetime (years) 7 to 10 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Minimum Efficiency Standard 

### NIA Stock Efficiency 7 kWh/100 lb Assumed same as typical new. Typical New Efficiency 7 kWh/I 00 lb Average ofefficiencies for 500 lb/day air-cooled units

- ARI data. Best Available Efficiency 5.8 kWh/100 lb Best available 500 lb/day air-cooled unit- ARI data. Energy Star Efficiency 

### NIA Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

### NIA

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 5

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: 

## Ice Machines

7 <**<;~** " "'Y**~ ~**  ""'**~ ~** **~y ~**  ". yp tr ,_,. (" y """ "' "' w ' 1 Factors !Assessment
c , """**~** JL Test Procedure Overview ASHRAE Standard 29 has been adopted for performance and energy evaluation for Ice Machines. Both ARI and Canadian test procedures are based on the ASHRAE standard. Although the ASHRAE standard does not specify temperatures, the ARI test is based on the following: $ 90°F Ambient Temperature $ 70°F Supply Water Temperature and/or Cooling Water Temperature for water-cooled Ice Machines $ Ice machine runs at full capacity during test.

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) It is unlikely any new test procedure will be developed. However, a test procedure with more typical ambient and supply water temperatures would be more representative ofactual energy use. How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology $The ambient and water temperatures are higher than typical temperatures for ice machines in most applications. The test procedure uses higher temperatures because it was initially developed to test primarily ice machine capacity. $ In addition, the testing ofice machines at full capacity overestimates duty cycle ofmachines used in many applications.

The current test procedure involving high ambient and water temperatures and 100% duty cycle is an ideal indicator ofpeak load and peak load impact.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 6

# Standards Consideration
Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems

"' ; "' °" =/; "';;"'fr"'!C**~** ' "' "' 

### "'?**,,;:±'~** «;

EactorsforConsideration '
y Assessmentrn••, 9'Y**~,c:;,:'** •,**',~,;00,,:~x,,'"'*'****"~** Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motors 0.44 Other Options with less than 5-year payback 0.395**-------------------~------** 

# --------------------------------------------------- Product I Technology Availability (Including Most ofthe technologies and design options noted in the data sheet are cmTently available. Price/Cost information):

Cumulative Burden Technology Brushless DC Fan Motors Hot Gas Defrost Antisweat Heater Control Defrost Control Liq-Suet. Heat Exchangers Evaporative Condensers Floating Head Pressure Heat Reclaim Mechanical Subcooling Payback Pe1iod5 Tech. MaturityPeak Load Impact 1.6 years New High 1.4 years Cun-ent High 1.6 years Cun-ent High 3 to 7 years Advanced High 4 to 14 years Cun-ent High <I year CUtTent High 2.5 years Cun-ent Low 2.5 years Cun-ent Low 4.9 years CmTent High 

## f Th;**htdu;t;:;,-d~ait ~ith** the-**ph~;o~t-of**CFC7s**;;the-~d-I990';:** 

## HFC ;ndHFC bi;nd

- - - - - - replacements for traditional refrigerants R-502 and R- 12 have been developed and are now generally established. $There is continued concern regarding the level ofpotential**emi~sions** associated with leakage and service in supennarket refrigeration systems. Since most systems are now using non-ozonedepleting refrigerants, the environmental concern focuses on global warming. Ifthe Kyoto protocol were ratified, this would be a significant issue for the supermarket refrigeration industry. $ Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards ofother products.

Status ofTest Procedures $ Separate Test Procedures for display cases and compressors and/or condensing units. $ Display Cases: CRS-S 1-96 (ARI CRMD), ASHRAE 72, CSA C657-95 $ Compressors and Condensing Units: Many different test standards depending on compressor and heat rejection type.

Other Regulatory Actions None known.

5 

### "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", AOL for DOE, June 1996. Includes Hot Gas Defrost, Antisweat Heater Control, Defrost Control, Liquid-Suction Heat Exchangers for Low Temperature applications, Evaporative Condenser, Floating Head Pressure, Heat Reclaim, and Mechanical Subcooling. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations ($0.0782/kWh).

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 7

### Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Market penetration ofenergy-saving technologies (AOL/DOE Study) $ Floating Head Pressure 62% $ Mechanical Subcooling 65% $ Liquid-Suction Heat Exchanger 25% (MT), 50% (LT) $ Antisweat Heater controls 69%



### Issues**fM~y~~;;tY;e;----------------------------------------** $ Systems are engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed) $ Interaction between air-conditioning and refrigeration systems



## Background Material Description Value Comments/Source " / Total Energy Use (quad, I995) 0.329



# --------------------------------- Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 1,000,000**An-;;~1-sJ.iij,;;.~ts (~itti~n~,-1995)**  - - - - - - - - -o:Os5-

- -



# ---------------------------------**l~s~a~e_? ~~s_:** **~~l~<:_n~,**

# 2**':9~l-** 

# ____________**0.:.0~** __ _ Product Lifetime (years) JO 5.to 15



# --------------------------------- Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA**&~CEffici~cy--------------------NiA**

# ___



# --------------------------------- Typical New Efficiency NI A

# E£e~**~ ~ail~b~** **:E!r~i~i0~**= =



# =

=

=

=



# =

=

=

=



# =



# =

=

=

=

# ~**~**= 

# =

=**E_n:_i·~y_S~a_: ~f!_i~e;i~_Y_-**  _______________**~~** __ _ Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NIA ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996**J?i~i~:_ e,:i~s_y** **~~e _b~** **~~~l~d_b~s~--** ________________________ _**~oE1P1:~~ _::~p_m~i_:t~_f~r_S~~e~_:ii:..k~t~** **~!?~!?':?~ ~e_fri_g~r~t~i_:** **~t':dX,_129_6**___ _ ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996, CBECS 1995



# --------------------------------------------

No suitable efficiency definitions have been established for Supermarket Refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems composed ofmany components.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 8

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems**·~** 

### Eactors • , :Assessment" c ,**~** , ,**~"** ,**~d, ~~~"'**  

### Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)

How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology $ No applicable test procedures for complete supermarket refrigeration systems. $Testprocedures for separate components ofsupermarket refrigeration systems (i.e. display cases, condensing units, condensers, compressors) generally focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use, although energy input may be measured during the test. $ An example ofa test standard for a refrigeration system component is ARI Standard 460- 2000, "Remote Mechanical-Draft Air-Cooled Refrigerant Condensers". Reporting for this standard includes reporting ofcondenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of capacity and power input during 100% run ofan air-cooled condenser. The standard rating condition for this test procedure involves 95°F entering air temperature.
$ Application ofenergy standards to supermarket refrigeration systems is extremely complicated due to the wide range ofsystem architecture utilized. $ Energy test procedures might focus on individual components, such as display cases.
$ Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions that are more energy intensive than average typical conditions. For example, the 95°F entering air temperature for ARI Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceeds a typical average condition. $ Furthermore, the standard does not take into consideration that the system does not operate at 100% capacity at all times. A condenser fan would cycle to maintain a head pressure, thus resulting in less fan power. Or, the condenser fan would run continuously, thus allowing very low condensing conditions at low ambient temperatures. This latter scenario would result in significant reduction in compressor power.

Correlation ofpeak load impact with typical test procedures would be desirable, since test procedures generally do not address part load operation.



### Department of

### Energy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 9

# Standards Consideration
Product: Walk-In Coolers**~ ~** **~""** ""' r "" "'**~** """ z**~** " ""

- '\S' "' "' 0 "' ,-, 0 !/"<**Y~** \1



### Factors for Consideration A'ssessment , "

### ~**~ ~**  ,,:,

### ':~~~:,,,;:;; Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information):

Cumulative Burden

Status ofTest Procedures
Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Combination ofEnergy Saving Options= 0.3?6**Te~~;;i;;gy**- - - - - - - - -**P~yb~~k-P~rlod 6**  - -**T;ch~ M;-~rity-**  - - P;ak**L~ad I~p~ct** 

# -- - - Floating Head Pressure 0.3 year New Low Ambient Subcooling 1.7 years New Medium Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium Brushless DC Fan Motors**~I** year New High External Heat Rejection 7 years New High Hot Gas Defrost 1.8 years Current High



# --------------------------------------------------- $The industry dealt with the phaseout ofCFC's in the mid- I990's. $ Ifthe Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. • Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards ofother products. Various Test Procedures for Compressors and Condensing Units, depending on compressor and heat rejection type. Not known. Not known.
$ Significant product variety. $ Systems are often engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed). • Standards for compressors and/or condensing units?

6 

### "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment'', ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-23, row 13. Includes Floating Head Pressure, Ambient Subcooling, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82¢/kWh).

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 10

## Background Material

"**~** / y>\'. ""'**,,,.~** )!} 

### Description 'V?alue

### 6~mments/Source**~** , " , ,' "!"' 

## 'i x"' "<"'**'"y~** s "') " "' "x = '"',,, "'""" :::"'"**'"~** <'t:"",r "'*""="'**E:~"'«'=~,&"s;;Eii"'~"'** 

### Total Energy Use (quad, 1995) 0.096 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 16,200 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base



## -- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30,ooo**w~1"k~;;-** 

### sale;**[ADiiooE-Refri-g;r~tio~** 

### shiay:

# t 996fOistrib;tio7iAnnua1 Shipments (millions, 1995) 0.02 ofsales by type proportional to installed base distributions. A larger number ofWalk-In refrigeration systems are sold for replacement.**l~stal1;d-aa;e-c;;ii1io~~** 

# I995)-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# o:S4-
- - - A.0L:100E:**R.~frige~ati;n- st~dy,-1996-**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Product Lifetime (years) 12 to 25 Insulated Box: ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996**Mi~i~~~ "Erfi""c~~;** **sti;;-d~~**

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# "NIi - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- Sto-ck**Effi~i;n""cy** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# NfA
- - - -



# ------------------------------------- Typical New Efficiency NI 

### A

- - - - -. - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appropriate Efficiency Definitions have not been defined for Walk-In Best Available Efficiency NI 

### A C 1**E;~rgy&~Efflc~~y**

### ______________ ,_ ___

# NJA
____**M~hn~~-Effi~ie~cy-(Futu-r; Te~h-n;l;gy)-**  

### - - '""-

- - 

# NJA-- - -**Othe~ N~t;ble-** **Efficie;;;y-L~~el** 

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

# NJ 

# A

- - - -

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets oo ers.

Page 11

# Standards Consideration
Product: Walk-In Freezers and Combination Cooler/Freezers

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Product I Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information):

Cumulative Burden

Status ofTest Procedures
Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Combination ofEnergy Saving Options= 0.35 7

### T~ch;;ology- - - - - - - -

### P;yb~k P;ri7idr

-

### T~h. Matiirit\r-

- P-e;k-

### Lo;dl~p;ctFloating Head Pressure 0.3 year New Low Ambient Subcooling 1.7 years New Medium Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium Brushless DC Fan Motors -1 year New High External Heat Rejection 7 years New High Hot Gas Defrost 1.8 years Current High



# ----------------------------------------------- $The industry dealt with the phaseout ofCFC's in the mid-J 990's. $Ifthe Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. • Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards ofother products. Various Test Procedures for Compressors and Condensing Units, depending on compressor and heat rejection type. Not known. Not known.
$ Significant product variety. $ Systems are often engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed). • Standards for compressors and/or condensing units?

7 

### "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", AOL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-24, row 13. Includes External Heat Rejection, Hot Gas Defrost, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Brushless DCEvaporator and Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82¢/kWh).

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 12

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 1995) 0.086 AOL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 21,400 Freezers Divide energy use by installed base. 30,200 Combo Annual Shipments (millions, 1995)
Installed Base (millions, 1995)
Product Lifetime (years) 0.02 0.275 Freezers 0.065 Combo 12 to 25 8 to 12 Minimum Efficiency Standard NI A Stock Efficiency NIA Typical New Efficiency NIA Best Available Efficiency NIA Energy Star Efficiency NI A Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NI A Other Notable Efficiency Level N/ A



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 30,000 Walk-In Sales [ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996] Distribution ofsales by type proportional to installed base distributions. AOL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Insulated Box: AOL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Refrigeration Systems: AOL/DOE Ref. Study, 1996

Appropriate Efficiency Definitions have not been defined for Walk-In Freezers and Combination Freezer/Coolers.



### Page 13

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and Combination Cooler/Freezers

/ <**~** « Factors Assessment , y , • Test Procedure Overview $No applicable test procedures for complete walk-in refrigeration systems $Testprocedures for condensing units, which would serve walk-in refrigeration, generally focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use. $ An example ofa test standard for a refrigeration system component is ARI Standard 460- 2000, "Remote Mechanical-Draft Air-Cooled Refrigerant Condensers". Reporting for this standard includes reporting ofcondenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of capacity and power input during 100% run ofan air-cooled condenser. The standard rating condition for this test procedure involves 95°F entering air temperature.

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) $Application ofenergy standards to walk-in refrigeration is complicated by (I) the range of

How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology combinations ofinsulated box and condensing unit actually used in the field, and (2) the importance offield installation to overall energy use. $Energy test procedures should focus on individual components, such as the condensing units and/or the insulated boxes.
$ Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions more energy intensive than average typical conditions. For example, the 95°F entering air temperature for ARI Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceeds a typical average. $ Furthermore, the standard does not take into consideration the fact that the system is not operating at 100% capacity at all times. A condenser fan would cycle to maintain a head pressure, thus resulting in less fan power. Or, the condenser fan would run continuously, thus allowing very low condensing conditions during low ambient temperatures. This latter scenario would result in significant reduction in compressor power.

Correlation ofpeak load impact with typical test procedures would be good, since test procedures generally do not address part load operation.



### Department of

### Energy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 14

# Standards Consideration Product: Water Coolers8

(**~** "' %"',,, JS" y X( 'e s:; Factors for eonsideration Assessment**',,~** /:**/~** u, "' ,\(,,' ' M0 ,; ' ' <ec',,%5**~~**

## J Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Combination ofEnergy Saving Options = 0.269 Energy Star= 0.24 Product I Technology Availability (Including Payback Period Ranges for High Insulation Value, Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Price/Costinformation): Thermal Bond between coil and evaporator, and Storage Coil Redesign range from 2 to I0 years. 9 Cumulative Burden 

# --------------------------------------------------- $The industry dealt with the phaseout ofCFC's in the mid-1990's. $Ifthe Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential.

Status ofTest Procedures $ ASHRAE 18-1987 (RI997) $Canadian Standards Association C8 l5-99, based on ASHRAE 18, includes both pulldown and standby impacts.

Other Regulatory Actions Not known. Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Energy Star Program, Penetration for first yearofprogram will be reported to EPA shortly.

Issues

8 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSO). 9 

### "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances", AOL, June 1993, Table 5-28 Includes High Insulation Value, Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Thermal Bond between coil and evaporator, Improved motor efficiencies, and Storage Coil Redesign. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82¢/kWh).



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 15

## Background Material

/ ' 

## . Description Value Gomments/Source · x· '
H "**~** )W % "-" /: ,; i/**~** CN;; μ$ 0/k**'f""'~'''"** ;;( 

### Total Energy Use (quad, 1992) 0.043 ADL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Annual Shipments (millions, 1998) 1.0 Census Data ( 1998)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Installed Base (millions, 1992) 6.03 ADL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993**P~;d~ct Lifeti~~** **{y;a~0**

# ---- --- ---- - -'""

---_ l_O_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Minimum Efficiency Standard NI 

### A Stock Efficiency 2.19 kWh/day Assume same as typical new.**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Best Available Efficiency NI

### A · E-n;rgySt;r**Eff;c~;;-cy**

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ._

# -1.2 kWh/day

- -**H;t/C~l-bottl; ~cit~.-(-;,~~** **~E~~rgy-Sta;c~~)** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NIA 

### Othe;**N~t;ble-Efflcie~;y _L_e~el**  

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

## NJ 

# A- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 16

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Water Coolers**~"'** " i" "'"" " /**~;:;** 7 "' s**;P"-'?"~t ~ijj**  

### Factors :A:ssessment "" vx " 0 " )f ' x, "

### ,,~ m

### ~ :

### ~;;::~**;;;~,~** Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)
How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology $ ASHRAE Standard 18-1987 (Rl997) is the basis ofwater cooler test standards. However, this standard does not provide much detail regarding test conditions (ambient and water inlet and outlet temperatures are not specified), and is focused on capacity testing rather than energy testing. $The EPA Energy Star test is based on ASHRAE 18 with the following clarifications. $ Only energy use to maintain water temperatures is measured. No draw ofwater during the test. $ Test period 24 hours $ Ambient temperature 75 +/- 2°F $ Cold Water Temperature not more than 50°F, Hot water not less than 165°F $ The proposed Canadian test standard, also based on ASHRAE 18, includes both energy associated with water cooling/heating and standby loss. This standard also uses different temperatures and specifies water inlet temperatures for water coolers connected to city water lines.

It is not very likely that alternative test procedures will be developed. In any case, all future test procedures will likely be based on the ASHRAE procedure. $The EPA test procedure's emphasis onjust standby energy use probably captures most of the energy use associated with water coolers. $ The ambient temperature of75°F used in the EPA test is appropriate for most applications.
$ Peak load impact ofEnergy Efficient Compressors, BetterThermal Bond Between Coil and Evaporator, and Storage Coil Redesign are high, while peak load impact ofHigh Insulation Value is Low. $ The EPA Energy Star test procedure is not a good indicator ofpeak load, because it includes only standby energy use. The test's ambient temperature of75°F is only slightly lower than expected typical temperatures for water coolers for peak load conditions. $The ARI test procedure correlates better with peak power demand, as the 90°F ambient air temperature and the 90°F inlet water temperature both correspond to a hot, summer day.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 17

# Standards Consideration
Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas**~ ~** **~""** x " ' 

### Factors for Consideration Assessment , ''" Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits
Status ofTest Procedures

Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues $ Humidity Sensor= 0.40 $ Modulating= 0.81

Not available. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Energy Factor (EF) measure according to CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B App D

Not known.**$ii;~~~;E~;gyS~;~~Wa~-fu;c~fu~;d-;.ye~~----------------------** 

### $ Due to lack ofstandards, market-driven efficiency gains occur when coincident with convenience and quality improvements (e.g., shorter cycle time resulting from modulation).



# --------------------------------------------------- $ CFR EF test does not accurately account for sensor systems (e.g. humidity) 

### $ Humidity sensors are rare in laundromats because coin-operated dryer operating times depend upon the amount ofoperating time purchased rather than dryness (humidity) ofthe clothing.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 18

## Background Material

0 ( r X K">' 2 i ,,;, v \{ 

### Description Value €omments/Source
0 " "

### ~ , "/' 01 ; , "' i/ 4 ""'""

- "**~""** ;ij,/=U =**~** A.c '""'%G4/**9A/0+~¥J?o""'°"'r"""'*"'jf="** ""'"" ""0C;o;Z}d} 

### Total Energy Use (quad, 1990) 0.122 AOL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 72 AOL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Annual Shipments (millions) 0.113 AOL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Installed Base (millions) I.7 

### AOL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993**P~;d~ct Lifeti~~** **(y~a~0-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - _1_s
___ - - 

## Aoi:100E:**c~~~;rci;i "Aj;P"1~~c;s~cty~i993-**  

### - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA 

### No federal minimum. Sto"°ck**Effl~i;n~y** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# >-- -**u~~;w~-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# -------------------------->---------------------------------------------------- Typical New Efficiency 1.0 Normalized to typical new, per BTS (2000) s""e;t**A.~~ihib"1; Erfici;n~;-**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - ... -**-un"k~o-w~**

### - - -**s~;i1-erft-c~i7c"Y <lifr~r~;c;s-e~pe~t~d-f~r-c~~~~rZi;i**  

### -g;s**-;;17ith~s<l;:y~;;.-** 

### -**-------------------~------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Energy Star Efficiency N/A No Energy Star program

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >-- - - - - - -- - -**M7idulatl~n-b~~;r(ADL,200-1) ;ith-p~;f;~~~e-n~;;;aii;ed** **to-:'tYpi~al** 

### Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 1.43 new" per BTS (2000)**Othe~N;t;ble-Efflcie~;y-L~~el-** 

### -- 

# ------>-- --NfA-- -· -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 19

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas**~** 

### Factors Assessment , ' , ,

### ~ ¥ "" «**~** "' '\ 7 "" <7**~** 

### Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)

How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Clothes dtyer efficiency is measured as Energy Consumed I load as follows: Energy Consumed (kWh)= [ 66 I moisture removed (lbs.)] x FU x [Electric Energy Supplied (kW-hr)+ Gas Energy Consumed I 3412 +Total Annual Pilot Energy Consumed I (416 x 3412) J Where: • 66 is an experimentally established value for the percent reduction in the moisture content; FU is the Field Use factor, equaling 1.18 for Time Termination and 1.04 for Automatic Termination; 416 is the number ofcycles per year; 3412 converts from Btu to kWh. • A standard load consists of7 lbs. oftest cloth; a compact size dtyer uses 3 lbs. oftest cloth. • Test cloth is moistened with I00°F water containing 0-17 ppm hardness water is extracted until the moisture content is between 66.5 and 73.5 % ofthe bone-dty weight. • Bone dty is defined as the weight ofthe cloth after it has not changed weight more then 1% following a ten-minute dty cycle. •_ !:h_:**11P~i~n~ !_e~** **E~n~i.!!t?.°2 !!1.!!~** **£e_7J~F_** aE<!**~OJ'!..r~l~t~v~ ~l!_mJ<!i12':...**  ____________ • A test procedure to compare automatic termination control is needed since most new products include such devices. $Pilot light energy consumption may not be accounted for correctly in current standard (for older machines; current machines cannot have a pilot). $ The accuracy ofthe annual energy consumption is dependent on the accuracy ofthe estimate of419 dtyer loads per year and the assumptions made in the derivation ofthe constant 66 in the formula. $Test procedure requires the use ofTime Termination ifit is available. Clothes are dried until the moisture content is between 2.5-5% ofthe bone dty weight. It is unrealistic to measure actual energy consumption by dtying clothes to a precise condition. $The Field Use factor is general and does not indicate variations in automatic cycle termination controls, i.e. not all moisture sensors work the same yet they all qualify for an FU of 1.04. $ Test procedure does not identify design impact on peak demand $Automatic cycle termination does not impact peak load ofthe device, but does reduce the amount oftime spent at peak load by reducing over-dtying. $Modulation increases the peak load; however it reduces the duration ofthe peak load as well as the overall dtying time.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 20

# Standards Consideration Product: Commercial Clothes Washers

'V x x y "' " w ':::? ""**~"'** Factors for Assessment**~ ~**  , Consideration ·

,, -/ '""' /CC**~** "'**"~** "' Family Sized Industrial Sized Potential Energy Savings from 

### $ Energy Star (MEF= 1.26) = 0.27' 0 

### $ Soil Sensor= Insufficient Data 11 $ Ozone= 0.26 Regulatory Action; 

### $ Horz. Axis, MEF=2.0 = 0.4610 Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

### $ Soil Sensor= Insufficient DataIO, 11

### Pr~du~t-/**T~;h-;.~"t~g),**- - - - - - '""$-

### Hori;o~ta~;xisfrunlly--;i;;d

### -w~;h~r;**ha~; ;o7n~**  to-'""

### Ma~y**l~;g;_;ap;city Zo~~~r~i~l-clofu~;** **;a~he;s**-;;e- Availability (Including market. horizontal axis machines, as the high utilization Price/Cost information): Five (5) family-sized commercial washer models makes the first-cost premium affordable. have an MEF >=2.0; more than 25 have an MEF>l.80. 

### $ Many commercial clothes washer manufacturers make other "white" goods that have minimum energy efficiency standard: Residential refrigeration standards were set in 1990,1993, and in 2001.**-----------------~------------------------------------------------------------** Status ofTest Procedures 

### $ Energy Factor (EF) test changed to the Modified Energy Factor (MEF) test to account for remaining moisture content at end ofcycle. 

### $ EF and MEF measured according to CFR 

### Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App 

### J & 

### J 1**-----------------~------------------------------~-----------------------------** Other Regulatory Actions California standard.



### $ Accounting for remaining moisture content (RMC) has been resolved. 

### $ CFR Test does not account for energy savings resulting from soil sensors because CFR test uses clean

10 

### Data is based on commercial family sized units only. Savings based on baseline MEF 

### = 1.0. 11 Soil sensor effectiveness under all conditions is unclear (Meier, 1998).


### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 21

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 1990) 0.35 0.019 ADL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 2451 Unknown ADL/DOE 1993 Annual Shipments (millions) 0.265 Unknown CEE (1998) Installed Base (millions) 1.3 Unknown ADL/DOE 1993 Product Lifetime (years) 10 8 CEE (1998) ADL/DOE 1993 Minimum Efficiency Standard 

### NIA NIA No federal minimum. Stock Efficiency Unknown Assumed same as typical new. Horizontal Axis (performance Typical New Efficiency MEF=l.04 Vertical Axis; FEMP (2000) normalized to "typical new"); BTS (2000) Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) MEF=2.0 Unknown Horizontal Axis; FEMP (2000) MEF=l.26 

### NIA www.EnergyStar.gov
MEF=2.0 3.2 Horizontal Axis; FEMP (2000)

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Little room for improvement over horz. axis machine expected
Ozone washers (performance normalized to "typical new"); AOL/DOE (1993)

Page 22

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Commercial Clothes Washers



# . ' "' <**;~ ~"'** **~** ;£ 1"0 

### Eactors**~** 

### /**~ssessment** s**~** """ j/ "' x;:**~** w"'**~** ff> s "&ff**";54,2'ff?t'0"'~** 

### Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)

How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology Modified Energy Factor MEF = Capacity 

### [j't3] I (Machine Electrical Energy Consumption (weightedpercycle) [kW-hr] 

### + Water Energy Consumption (weightedpercycle) [kW-hr] 

### + Energy Consumptionfor removal of Remaining Moisture Content RMC (per cycle) [kW-hr] $A test load is detennined based on the capacity ofthe test unit $ Modified Energy Factor accounts for remaining moisture content (RMC) $ Energy test cloth is used for no more than 25 cycles. • Measurements are made over full arrange ofoperation temperatures (extra hot, hot, wann, and cold) and fill levels (maximum, average, and minimum fill). $Temperature Use Factors (TUF) and Load Use Factors account for various water temperatures and fill levels as well as manual and adaptive fill control systems.
$ CFR 10 Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. J1 will be used for detennining compliance with standards set beginning 1/1/2004.

$ App. 

### JI is more realistic since it incorporates test procedures to include different water temperatures. $ There are many factors in the calculations and derived results from test measurements that are estimated for means ofproduct comparison. Estimates may effect annual usage figures. $ For Family-Sized washers only, DOE accepts waivers for systems. that cannot be tested appropriately under the Jl guidelines. The manufacturer must supply an acceptable test procedure for that clothes washer.
$Testprocedure does not identify design impact on peak demand, only total energy consumption; furthennore, water heating energy consumption often occurs off-peak and/or via non-electric water heating means (oil, gas) which do not impact peak electric demand. $The MEF metric ofthe test procedure takes into account additional moisture extracted by the washers that reduces the energy consumed by the dryer, also reducing the peak demand impact ofelectric dryers.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 23

# Standards Consideration Product: Oil Unit Heaters

;;**~ ~**  "**~** x:" "'; "' ,/' x: K""' ¥" :!w Factors for Consideration JS:ssessmcnt , ' , ' ' ' ' .·

### ~',':,**,,~** ·; Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 $Power Vent (Et= 84%) = 0.006 12• 13 $Pulse Combustion (Et= 90%) = 0.008 12• 13 $Condensing (Et= 93%) = 0.015 12• 13



# -------------------------- 

# --------------------------------------------------- Product I Technology Availability (Including $Oil unit heaters cost between 8-10$US/MBtu depending on capacity (GRI, 1997) Price/Cost information):

Cumulative Burden

Status ofTest Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues $Currently, only standard gravity vented ("low-tech") models are available for oil-fired unit heaters. No manufacturer was found that markets a "higher-efficiency" model.
Oil unit heater manufacturers often make other products (gas duct furnace, gas unit heaters), that fall under many building codes (e.g., via ASHRAE 90. I); some manufacturers also make commercial roof-top air-conditioning products, which have minimum energy efficiency levels. Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see UL Standard 731 ). Any references to seasonal efficiencies use AFUE (see ANSI/ASHRAE Standard I03). Not known. Market share ofpower vented, pulse combustion, and condensing units approaches 0%.
Oil Unit heaters currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1-1999.

12 Et is steady-state thermal efficiency. Savings based on baseline typical efficiency (Et) of82%. 13 

### Without existing oil-fired unit heaters in these categories, the thermal efficiency values for potential improvements are estimated to be 

### the same as for gas-fired unit heaters.
Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 24

## Background Material**~** -"' ' "'" " » 

### Description Value Comments/Source
. . "" '" i' / "''"'**~ ~**  fP '" '"""" "' "'" /! 

### Total Energy Use (quad, 1998) 0.006 GRI-97/0100 and AOL (2001)



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 215 Divided total energy use by installed base.



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) 0.001 GRI-97/0100



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Installed Base (millions, 1995) 0.03 GRI-97/0IOO**P~;d~ct Lifeti~~** **(y;a~)-** 

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

## -13.7-

- - -**C;R.l-97/oroo;;sti~at;d ~;e~ag;** **;c~o~;thig fo~~ap;clty** **;ari;tki;s~-** 

### - --

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**St~ady-;t;t; th;~;!** **~ffi~i~;cy ;t-Mi;_/rvla~.-c;p-aZitY** 

### CASH_RA_E-90.l--

- - Minimum Efficiency Standard 81 % I 

### 81 % 

## * 1999)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Stock Efficiency 82% Steady-state thermal efficiency; Same as typical new efficiency.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ""'

- - - - - - - - - -**St~ady-;t;t; th;~;!** **~ffi~i~;cy;-Av~r;g""e ~f**  

### si; a-v;ihtbl;**~;de~ (M;din~**  

### - Typical New Efficiency 82% and Reznor) Be;t

# A**~;ihibI; Effl;i;n~y**  

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

# 84%

- - - -**St~ady-;t;t; th;~;!** **~ffl~i~;cy;- M~din""e** **~-odel**

# POR-l00

- - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Energy Star Efficiency NIA**M;x~~~ -Efflcle~cy** **(Futu~; Te~h-n~l;gy}**  

### - - - ""'

- - - 

## NJ A- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Other Notable Efficiency Level N/ A *As of29 October, 2001, ASHRAE 90.1-1999 indicates a minimum combustion efficiency (i.e., 100%minus flue losses) of80%.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 25

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Oil Unit Heaters

"'**~ ~**  0 0**~** ""**~"** "**~** )T 

### Factors ,,,

### ~**~ssessment** "

### ~"' ;/, , "" "'"

### ~**~"** ,

### ~";H1" :"" ¥\;:; i

### **s?+~**:*'*'*~** Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology All measurements are taken during standardized, full-load, steady-state operation ofthe heater. $ Measure inlet and outlet air temperatures. 

### $ Measure flue gas temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, and condensate rate. 

### $ Based on the above measurements and the measured heating value in the fuel, calculate percent ofenergy lost (in the form ofwater vapor, unburned fuel, and warm air) through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). 

### $ Calculate the thermal efficiency ofthe duct furnace, equal to I00%

- %flue loss. 

### $ For unit heaters installed indoors,jacket losses are not considered since the energy "lost" by thejacket goes into the space being heated.

There are no known new test procedures being developed for oil unit heaters. The test procedure accurately measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters operating under full-load and steady-state conditions. However, thermal efficiency measured under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption ofunit heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type ofair-mover) built in to the unit that consume electricity but are not covered under the current testing procedure. Secondly, the test procedure only measures a unit heater's full-load steady-state efficiency and does not indicate how well the heater performs during "warm-up" and "cool-down" operation nor during part-load operation (when the dampers are partially closed or ifthe fan operates at partial speeds). Lastly, unit heaters are primarily used to heat air in an occupied space to temperatures that are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively the heater distributes its warm air to keep the space comfortable. Negligible (oil energy dominates gas unit heater annual energy consumption, and the heaters almost never operate during periods ofpeak electricity demand).



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 26

# Standards Consideration Product: Compact Audio 14

""' v**~** x <**~** "' "'"""' '**~**



### . Factors for eonsideration YS.ssessment ' : ,' ' , , .•" 

# ";,,;:t Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; eumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Current Energy Star (2 Watt standby)= 0.49 15 15 

### Energy Star Year 2003 ( l Watt standby)= 0.55 Best Available (0.25 Watt standby)= 0.60 15 

### Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Presently, about 50 compact audio models draw 1 W or less in standby mode. Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation. Status ofTest Procedures "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Consumer Audio and DVD Products" Other Regulatory Actions Not known.



# --------------------------------------------------- Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements
Issues 

## Background Material $ 

### 54% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000) $ -50 Different Models Consume IW or Less Standby

Description Value eomments/Source Total Energy Use (quad, 1998) 0.057 Average based on UEC and installed base.



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) II0 Rosen and Meier, 1999**An-;H~al Shlp~~~t;** **(~llli~~,-2000)** 

### - - - - - - - - - - 

# -11.8

- ---**Appli;n~; M;g~i;;e~** 

### M;y-2-001-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Installed Base (millions, 1998) 47 Rosen and Meier, 1999**P~;d~ct Llfeti~;** **{y;a~aj-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 

# -7-

-- --**Appli;n~; M;ga;i;;e~Sept~;;;be;** 

# lOOO

- -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA**Sto-ckEffi~i;n~y-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--9~8-WSt;~by- R~s;n-a;d** **M;i~r~** 

### }999-

-- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# -- - 

# --- - -

# -- - 

# --

# -- 

# - 

# - -

# -- - 

# --- -**-~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Typical New Efficiency 9.8 W Standby Rosen and Meier, 1999**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Best Available Efficiency 0.25 W Standby www.EnergyStar.gov**E~;rgy**

### St;r**-Effic~;;-cy**

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**~** 

### - 

## 2 W-Sta;dby

- - Pha;e-1 (2-002): ;;;**E~e~gySt;r~g~~** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NI

### A**Othe~N~t;ble-EfficTe~;y-L~~el-** 

### -- --- - __ ,__ lW-Sta;dby--**Pha;eII(2oo3)--w~~~En;rgySta;.go_v**

### _ -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

14 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSD). 15 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption ofJO-Watt standby. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 27

# Standards Consideration Product: Component Stereo and RACK Audio 16



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

### Current Energy Star (2 Watt standby)= 0.10 17 17 

### Energy Star Year 2003 (I Watt standby)= 0.20 Best Available (0.26 Watt standby)= 0.27 17• 18 

### Product/Technology Availability (Including Presently, more than 25 RACK/Component audio models draw !W or less in standby mode. Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation. "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Consumer Audio and DVD 

### Products"
Not known.



# --------------------------------------------------- $ 

### 54% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000) • Numerous (>25) Receiver Models Meet or Falls Below 1 

### W standby

DescriP,tion Value Comments/Source Total Energy Use (quad, 1998) 0.105 Average based on UEC and installed base.**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Average based on installed base and lifetime. Annual Shipments (millions) 10.6 (Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) estimate shipments of**~5** 

### million in 1998.)



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Installed Base (millions, 1998) 74 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)**P~;d~ct LWeti~~** **(y~a~0-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# -7-

- - - -**Appli;n~; M;ia;i;e~Sept~~be;** 

### 2000

- -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Mi-;;i~;;;;**

### Erti""ck:;c;

# sti;d:i;:ct

- - -- - - -- - - - - - - 

# "NI.A- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - Sto-;;k**Effl~i;n~y** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

## 3 W-Sta-;;dby

- -**R;s~n-a;d M~i~r-(LBNC,**  

### 1999)-

-- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Typi~al**

# N;;**Effl;i~;y-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# --3W-Sta;dby-

-**R;s~n-a;d M~i~r-(LBNC,**  

### 1999)-

-- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Be;tA.~;il-;bl; Effici;n~;-**  

### - - - - - - - - - - -**-O.Z6-W-Sta~dby- ;;,,;,E~e-;.gyStu~g~~-**  

### - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# -- - - 

# -- - 

# -- - 

# -

# -- - 

# -- 

# --

# -- 

# ---- - - 

# -- --

# -- --- - 

# --- - 

# - -- 

# -

# -- - 

# -

# -- -

# -- - 

# -

# -- - - -- -

# -- - - 

# -- -

# -- - 

# - -- - 

# -- Energy Star Efficiency 2 W Standby Phase f 

### (2002)

- www.EnergyStar.gov**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

### NIA**Othe~ N~t;ble-Efflcie~;;-y-L~~el**  

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

# I W-Sta;dby

- -**Pha~e 'iU2oo3)--w-;.,-;.,~En~rgySta;.go~** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSD). 17 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption of6-Watt standby. 18 

### Only for receiver; 1.1Wwas the lowest standby Rack system power draw measured by Rosen and Meier (LBNL, I999). Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 28

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Compact Audio, Component Stereo, and RACK Audio

' ' A 

### Factors A:ssessment ,**~** 

### ,**~** 

### ,' Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)
How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product PeakLoad Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology $In accordance with Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% THD, Ambient Temperature of22°C, and within Market-Specific Ranges for Voltage and Frequency. $Test equipment is set up and the test unit connected properly. The unit is brought to standby mode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately 90 minutes). $Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements ofthe product (in Watts), are recorded within a time measurement that is long enough to measure the correct average value within a+l0%

- 0% errorrange.

The testing procedure does not change with the implementation ofEnergy Star Phase II requirements on January I, 2003. The test procedure correlates mildly with the energy consumption ofcompact audio devices, as standby energy consumption currently accounts for about 50% ofcompact audio energy consumption. On the other hand, standby power is a poor proxy for RACK/Component audio energy consumption; only about I0% ofRACK/Component audio energy consumption occurs in the standby mode. The current test procedure likely fails to evaluate peak load conditions, as the test procedure only considers standby powerdraw but many units operate during peak load times.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 29

# Standards Consideration Product: Dehumidifiers ' ' 

### .

Factors for eonsideration , J\'ssessmenL " '!t <**~** ""**;~ ~""** **.~",** ;' ::" :::***"""'G~** 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 EnergyStar Level (1.5 L/kWh) = 

### 0.19 19 

### Best Available (1.85 L/kWh) = 

### 0.53 19


### Product/Technology Availability (Including As ofAugust 30, 2001, 2 high-capacity dehumidifiers (36<L/day<57) and JO 

### standard Price/Cost information): capacity dehumidifiers (up to 35 L/day) meet Energy Star requirements. Cumulative Burden

Status ofTest Procedures

Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material The major manufacturers ofdehumidifiers also make other household appliances which have been regulated for energy efficiency, such as room AC units (Fedders, Frigidaire, Whirlpool) and other major white goods (Frigidaire, Whirlpool make dryers, washers, dishwashers, etc., all ofwhich have been regulated in the past). Insufficient data for other regulation.



# --------------------------------------------------- $"ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers" $ ANSU 

### AHAM DH-, for Test Methodology
.. • CAN/CSA-C749-94 (Section 4.2), for Energy Factor Calculation Not known. 12 Models Meet or Exceed Energy Star Performance Levels
Different sized dehumidifiers

Description 

### :Value Comments/Source Total Energy Use (quad, 1997) 0.118 Average based on UEC and installed base.**UnltE~e~gy-Co;s~~ptlo~** 

### (kWh)-

- - - - - - - .- - - 

# -970--

- -**Z~gg ~;d-Alberl;;-o~**  

### J99S

-- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**A~~al Shlp~~~t;** **(~i1ii;n;,-2000)-** 

### - - - - - - -- - - 

## -1- - - - -**Appli;~; M;g~i;;-e~M;y-2-001-**  

### -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**I~stal1;;d-ia;e-(~iiiio~;,)-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -JI-

-- - -**A~e~ag;ba;ed-o~ ;hlp~~;;-t;**  

### ;nd**ii:feti~e~-** 

### - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**p~;d-;;ct Lifeti~~**  

### (y;a";-aj-

- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 

# -11-

- - - - Appli;n-;;;**M;g~i;;-e~Sept;~be;2ooo** 

### - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Mi;i~-;;~**

### "Erfi'"ck:;;-cy**s~;;-d;;a**

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# "NI,.\-

- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stock Efficiency N/A**Typi~al N~;** **Effl~i~~;-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# -1.35L/kWh
- - F;r**~id-=~z~d~nit; (lS-35-Llday)-~;;.E~e~gySt-;r~g~~**  

### - -- - - -- - --**Be;tA~;ii;bi; Efflcl;n~y**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# --1.ssL/kWh
- -**F;r~id-=siz~cti7nit;(2S-35-L/day)-~;;.E~e~gySt;r~g~~** 

### - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Star Efficiency 1.50 L/kWh For mid-sized units (25-35 L/day) www.EnergyStar.gov**M~~~~ -Efficie~cy** **-(Futu~; Te~h~;1;g-y5**  

### - - - - - - - 

## Nf A- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - -**Othe~N~t;ble-Efflcie;;y-Le;el-** 

### - - -- --- - -- 

## --NfA--
-- -- - - -- --- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - --- - -- - -- - - -- - --

19 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption of 1.35 L/kWh. Energy Star level and best available efficiencies vary

with size. Values given are for mid-sized units, 25

- 35 L/day. Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 30

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Dehumidifiers

***~ ~** **~** = ;;- 7"" ""

- "**~ ""'~%"'** **"~** = 

### Factors Assessment ' " Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology $Tests are conducted in accordance with ANSI/AHAM Standard DH- I and Canadian standard CSA-C749-94. $Air entering the dehumidifier must be at 80°F dry bulb/70°F wet bulb (standard conditions). $Energy Factor is calculated according to section 4.2 ofCAN/CSA-C749-94, by dividing the mass ofthe condensate collected by the energy consumption. That result is divided by the density ofwater at the test temperature (l kg/litre at standard conditions) and expressed in terms ofL/kWh.

There are no indications ofimminent changes in the test procedure. The testing procedure closely models the UEC, as dehumidifiers typically operate at steadystate conditions approaching similar dry-to-wet bulb temperature ratios.
The test procedure correlates well with performance during peak demand periods, as a dehumidifier typically run around the clock and under similar dry-to-wet bulb conditions.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 31 ',

# Standards Consideration
Product: Set-Top Boxes20

'0 ; "**""~** ("" "'**;~~** <? 0"' "'i'."' " Factors for Consideration Assessment**~ c~** 
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030

Product I Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information):

Cumulative Burden Analog/Digital $Current Energy Star (15W standby)= 0.45 21 21 $Energy Star 2004 (7 Watt standby)= 0.95 $Best Available (1 Watt standby)= 

## u 21 Wireless $Current Energy Star (15 Watt standby)= 0.02a 22 $Energy Star 2004 (7 Watt standby)= 0.15 $Best Available (1 Watt standby)= 0.2522

As ofFebruary, 2002, only two set-top box models meet Energy Star requirements, both digital boxes made by Pace Micro Technology. These two units became available in June, 200 I. Once Tier 2 limits take effect on January 1, 2004, analog boxes will have an easier time fulfilling Energy Star requirements, as allowable power draw levels will rise from 3 W to 7W for all categories. This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation.



## - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 7'ENERGY**STAftP~ow.i~-R-;;qulr~;e;ts** fo-;.**Sct-T;pB;x~s~** -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- Status ofTest Procedures $ "Testing Guidelines for ENERGY STAR Qualified Set-Top Boxes"

Other Regulatory Actions Not known. ;

### ~d- - - -;

### ~ -

### ~- -;

### ~ - - - - - - - -

### -"N~**j;~<lu~t;~-;;ct E~e~g)rst"a;,~;els** **"fo-;.A.;;i~g-loitlyt~~ "Pr~<lu~t~.-b~t"h** **ro~** oigititl

### c~ble-iv~ - - V

### v~ ence 0

### Efft~ et- /1ven or Cable TV satisfy Energy Star Criterion (Category 2); they

o untary 1c1ency mprovements came to market in June, 2001.**I;s~;s**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

## -$**-Wide-r;ng~** ;f**p;od~cts ~;v-;;r-;;d** **~nd;r-ENERGY** 

# STAR**Pr;g-;.;~ i-;;cl~dlng:-Cabl~** 

# TV**(a-;;;1;g-a~d** digital), digital TV, satellite TV, wireless TV, personal VCF, video game console, internet access devices, videophone, multifunction devices. $ 1 W Standby feasibility unclear. $Market moving away from Analog towards Digital cable boxes (no analog boxes expected by

2008).

20 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSO). 21 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 197 kWh/yr, i.e. all analog units become digital by 2008. 22 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 16.2-Watt standby. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 32

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 1999) 0.08 .047 0.02 Average based on UEC and installed base Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 197 143 Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Annual Shipments (millions) 0.4 4.5 1.3 Average based on installed base and lifetime. Installed Base (millions, 1999) 3.8 45 13 Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Product Lifetime (years) IO 10 10 Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Minimum Efficiency Standard 

### NIA NIA NIA Stock UEC (kWh/yr) 197 140 Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Typical New UEC (kWh) or Efficiency 197 140 Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Best Available UEC (kWh) or Efficiency 140 78 www.EnergyStar.gov and Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Energy Star Efficiency 15 W standby Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

### NIA OtherNotable Efficiency Level 7 W standby



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 15 W standby www.EnergyStar.gov 

### NIA Proposed for 2003 EnergyStar 7 W standby (www.EnergyStar.gov)



### Page 33

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Set-Top Boxes

"' / 0 v;<'-" 01;, 

### Factors Assessment :' Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology Refer to "Testing Guidelines for Energy Star Qualified Set-top Boxes" 

### $ In accordance with Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% THO, Ambient Temperature of22°C, and within Market-Specific Ranges for Voltage and Frequency. $Test equipment is set up and the test unit connected properly. The unit is brought to standby mode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately 90 minutes). $Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements ofthe product (in Watts), are recorded within a time measurement that is long enough to measure the correct average value within a+10%

- 0% error range.

There are currently no indications ofan imminent change in the testing procedure. The lack ofactive mode testing does not make a significant difference in evaluating set-top box energy consumption, as analog and digital boxes consume more than three times more energy annually in standby mode than in active mode. In addition, the boxes consume little additional energy in active mode (relative to standby): analog boxes require an average of l.4W (13%) more to operate in the active mode, digital boxes 0.7W (3%). Ifthe difference between active and standby mode power draw increased in the future, then the test procedure would not correlate as strongly with device annual energy consumption. The test procedure closely models the impact on peak load, since the standby power draw measured during testing is does not vary significantly from the active power draw. The correlation between peakpower draw and the test method will decrease ifstandby power draw decreases, as many set-top boxes operate in the active mode during the peak demand periods.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 34

# Standards Consideration Product: Televisions23

" v / "'**""~ ~**  "'**~** J 7 "'°" " J*' /c !**~** w



### Factors for Consideration Assessment "" ·x 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030

Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Cumulative Burden Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits
Status ofTest Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues $Current Energy Star (3 Watt standby)= 0.8024 24 $ Future Energy Star (I Watt standby) = 1.4 $ Best Available (0.1 Watt standby)= 

### 1.724 $LCD= 1.1 24

Not available. This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation. Specific estimates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TV/VCRs, TV/DVDs, and TV/VCR/DVDs"; currently under revision (www.EnergyStar.gov) Not known.



# --------------------------------------------------- $ 40% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000; Webber et al., 2000) $Numerous (>50) Models Consume IW or Less Standby (www.energystar.gov) $LCDTelevisions Commercialized; 2.7% market share in Y2000 based on distributor unit sales. (Appliance Magazine, May 2001) $ Impact ofElectronic Programming Guides and HDTV can significantly change standby and active power consumption

23 See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSD). 24 Savings based on a baseline consumption of5-Watt standby. Used 25-inch and 27-inch TVs for savings estimates.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 35

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 1998) 0.35 Average based on UEC and installed base. Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 150 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 31.4 Appliance Magazine, May, 2001 Installed Base (millions, 1998) 212 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Product Lifetime (years) 9 Appliance Magazine, September2000 Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA Stock Efficiency 4.9 W Standby Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)

- 27" screens Typical New Efficiency 5.7 W Standby Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Best Available Efficiency 0.1 W Standby www.EnergyStar.gov Energy Star Efficiency I W Standby Future Energy Star level. (www.EnergyStar.gov)
Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Same minimum standby, with Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999); AOL 2001 significantly lower LCD technology active draw.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 36

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Televisions

/ / 

### Factors Assessment " , , "**~ ~**  " " / ;;;:; 

### Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology DOE Test Procedure: It calls for the measurement ofstandby and active power draw levels; see Technical Support Document for additional details (Appendix B). Energy Star Test Procedure (for MOU Version 1.0, current through April, 2001 ): $ Details: Standby mode is when the TV is connected to a power source but is not communicating sound nor picture. In this mode the device can be switched to active with a remote control (some power is being drawn). Offmode is when the device is plugged in but drawing no power. Typically the TV is unable to tum on with the use of a remote control. Current draw is blocked with a hard on/offswitch. $ Plug the unit in and allow it to come to temperature and stabilize**(~90** minutes). 

### $ Using a calibrated (performed yearly) power meter, measure the power draw ofthe TV in the standby mode

- turned offwith remote. Measurement should account for inconstancy in current draw, i.e
.. perform a time averaged measurement. 

### $ Test must be performed under the following conditions: I) <3% total harmonic distortion (voltage) 2) Ambient Temperature= 22 deg C +/- 4 deg C 3) 115 V RMS(+/- 3 V), 60 Hz.(+/- 3 Hz.)

Version 2.0 ofthe Energy Star MOU for Televisions and VCRs The DOE test procedure measures active and standby power draw, giving it the potential for high correlation with actual energy consumption and savings; however, the specification for making the measurements appears to be out ofdate and in need ofrevision.
Neither the original nor the revised Energy Star test procedures effectively model the majority ofTV energy consumption orpotential energy savings. The Energy Star test procedure measures only standby power, while active powerdominates (89%) TV energy consumption. Consequently, the test procedures will not account for potential energy savings from approaches that decrease the active power draw ofTVs (such as LCD). 1) Ifupdated, the DOE test procedure would correlate well with TV peak demand impact (assuming a representative model for TV usage patterns). 2) The Energy Star test procedure correlates minimally with the peak load impact ofTVs because the procedure measures standby power draw but many TVs are active during peak demand periods. 3) LCD technology would realize significant peak load reductions because LCD TVs operate at substantially lower active power levels than conventional CRT devices.


### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 37

# Standards Consideration
Product: Video Cassette Recorders

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; New Energy Star Compliant Level (2 Watt standby)= 0.2525 

### Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 I Watt standby= 0.3825 

### Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Many VCRs in the market meet Energy Star standards, I.e., the Energy Star website lists 45 Price/Cost information): models by 8 different manufacturers, available as ofSeptember, 200I, that satisfy the Phase I 

### requirements. Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements
Issues 

## Background Material This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation. "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TV/VCRs, TV/DVDs, and TV/VCR/DVDs"; currently under revision (www.EnergyStar.gov) Not known. $ 55% 

### Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000; Webber et al., 2000) $ -5 Different Models Consume I W or Less Standby (www.energystar.gov)
I-Watt Standby power proposed for Y2003 Energy Star criterion (www.energystar.gov)

Description Value eomments/Source Total Energy Use (quad, 1998) 0.1 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) /**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 71 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)**A~;al Ship~"°e~t;** **(~llU;n;,-2000)-** 

### - - - - - - ,..._ - - -24
___ --**Appli;n~~ M;g~i;e~M;y:2oo1--**  

### - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Installed Base (millions, 1998) 129 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)**P~;d~ct Llfeti~;** **(y;;~** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - '""

- - - - 

# 7

-- - -- R;s;n-a;d :M;ier-(LBNL, 1999)-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Minimum Efficiency Standard NI

### A Sto-ck**Effi~i;n~y** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**.--5~9-W** 

### St;ndby- R;s;n-a;d M;i;r-(LBNL, 1999)-

-- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Typical New Efficiency 4 W Standby Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)**Be;tA~;ihibl; Effl;i;n~y-**  

### - - - - - - - - - - -**-O.S5-W-Sta~dby- ~~~.E~;g;,-s~;g~;-**  

### - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# -- - - 

# -

# ---- - 

# -

# -- 

# -

# -

# -- 

# -

# -- 

# - - 

# -- 

# - - 

# -- - - 

# -- - 

# -

# -- 

# - -- - - 

# -- - 

# -- - 

# -

# -- - 

# -- - 

# - -- - - 

# -- - -- - 

## - 

# -- - -- - - -- - 

## -- Energy Star Efficiency 2 W Standby www.EnergyStar.gov**M;xl;u~-Efficie;cy-(Futu~; Te~h""u;1;g;,5-**  

### - - -- - 

## -NJA-- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Othe~N~t;ble-Efflcie~;y-L"°e;e)-** 

### - - - - - - - - -- IW-Sta;dby-

-**Pr~po;edf;r2oo3 E~;gy-Sta~(;;w~En;rgySt;.go-v)-**  

### - -- - - -- - --

25 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption (typical new) of4-Watt standby. Baseline consumption extrapolated for year 2000 from Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999).



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 38

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Video Cassette Recorders

' -**"~ ~**  '0 """kif' "' 7 "**~** ffi 

### Factors Assessment Test Procedure Overview
Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)

How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology No testing procedures exist for VCRs as ofJune 19, 2001; the Energy Starprogram expects to develop a test procedure in the near future. Future revisions of"Energy Star Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TV/VCRs, TV/DVDs, and TV/VCR/DVDs" will include test procedures. While the details ofthe test procedure are not known, it will call for using a power meter to measure VCR power draw while the VCR is in standby mode. Assuming that the future test procedure is similar to that used to evaluate RACK and Compact Audio equipment, i.e., to measure standby power draw, the Energy Starprogram would have a low correlation with VCR energy consumption; standby mode accounts**for~35%** ofVCR energy consumption.

The degree ofcorrelation between stand-by power and VCR peak power impact depends upon the (unknown) distribution ofVCR operational mode during peak power demand periods and cannot be readily determined.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 39

# Standards Consideration Product: Copy Machines

%**~** "' "'**~y** "' '"**~** " ;<**~** Factors for Consideration Assessment ' '

### ~ ,,'•

### :;"'~ Commercial Residential Potential Energy Savings from 

### $ Copier ofthe future, 100% Power management= Regulatory Action; O.J26 

### $ Copier ofthe future= 

### 0.0821 

### $ Conversion to Inkjet Technology= 0.11 27 Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 • Conversion to Inkjet Technology=

# o.i6

### Pr~du~t-/**T~c-h;.;i;g),-** - - - - 

# --fCopf;:;of

### th~**F;i°t;i°r~** 

## (c-;t"F):**T~~ ~o~p~nie-;,-c-a~o°7J;i";"d-Rl;oh,-off~r-rcid-;p~ed-;.;ng;** **~~hl~e~** th;fr;i°1fiti Availability (Including the CotF criteria. The CotF cost premium is most likely minimal because the CotF devices have replaced Price/Cost information): previously existing product models (based on speed performance). A cost premium is unlikely due to effort ofkeeping products competitive. • Inkjet printer substitution: Inkjet copiers are not available commercially.**-----------------~------------------------------------------------------------·** Cumulative Burden This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation.



## -- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -f90%**~f**C;;py**;.;~;hTn~ ;t~ck** 

# v2ooo**is-E~~rgy**St;r

# -1-52o/: &i;rgy

# &;**Ma;k~t-P~~tn;ti7i;**tn:g;tf;r

- - - Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Compliant Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### $ 34% ofCopiers in stock are Power management enabled 

### $ 52.3% ofthe Copy machine Stock is Energy Star Compliant. (Webber et al., 1999) 

### $ Federal government must purchase E*-compliant Copy Machines 

### $ Best in class Copiers with low power capability, Panasonic 60 cpm (FP-D605), 15 Watts in sleep, Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) - less than IO Win sleep (CotF award) 

### $ 34% ofCopiers in stock are Power management enabled 

### $ Best in class Copiers with low power capability, Panasonic 60 cpm (FP-D605), 15 Watts in sleep, Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm)

- Jess than 10 Win sleep (Copier ofthe Future award)**l;s~;s**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# _,_"f**En~rgy ;a~i~gs** **d~p~;d-o; th~** **te~hnic;l-abiUtle;**

# to**lo-w~; sle~p** **po~~r-** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

### $ Power Management enablement is the key to limiting electricity use. 

### $ Power management, although prevalent in new copier sales, is not at enabled in the majority ofmachines. 

### $ Longer-term feasibility of I Watt sleep unclear; however lower requirement than that defined by CotF may be possible.

26 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology. 27 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, I00% power management-enabled. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 40

## Background Material

Comm Resid Commercial Residential Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) 0.10 0.01 ADL, 2002 Kawamoto et al., 2001



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 2.0 ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002 Stock (millions, 2000) 9



# -------------------------- Product Lifetime (years) 6



# -------------------------- Current UEC (kWh/year) 1000



# -------------------------- Typical New UEC (kWh/year) 602



# -------------------------- Best Available UEC (kWh/year) 546



# -------------------------- Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) 602**Mi~~~;;;**

# UEC**(kWWye~r)** 

# - -- - -- - -- - - 216 Future Technology 3.8 ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002 6 ADL, 2002 Kawamoto et al., 2001 315
165
190
165 

### 27 34% Power management enabled (ADL, Current low level machine (ADL, 2002; 2002) Kawamoto et al., 2001) I00% Power management enabled (ADL, 2002) Copier ofthe future, 100% power management enabled (ADL, 2002) 100% Power management enabled , (ADL, 2002) Conversion to Inkjet processes (ADL, 2002) 100% Power management enabled , (ADL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) Copier ofthe future requirements , (ADL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001; Nordman et al., 1998) I00% Power management enabled (ADL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) Conversion to Inkjet processes (ADL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001)



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 41

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Copy Machines

Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? From the Energy Star Copier MOU

- Version 2.0 1) The test conditions for all copiers are: $ Line Impedance <0.25 ohm 

### $ Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% 

### $ Ambient Temperature= 21 deg C +!- 3 C 

### $ Relative Humidity= 40-60% $ Minimum distance of2 feet from a wall 

### $ Voltage/Frequency= 115 VRMS +/- 5V, 60 Hz. +/-3Hz. 2) Prior to Off-mode and Low-power testing the devices must be plugged in, then turned off, and allowed to stabilize for at least 12 hours. 3) All copier speed bands are subjected to Off-mode testing 

### $ Tum on copier and let it warm up. 

### $ wait exactly the amount oftime specified (based on copier speed) for the copier to switch into Offmode. Begin recording energy consumption. 

### $ Continue for one hour and compute the time average power draw. 4) For the mid and high copier speed range, the copier is subjected to sleep-mode testing 

### $ Tum on the copier and make on copy. 

### $ Let the machine sit for exactly 15 minutes. 

### $ Record energy consumption for one hour. 

### $ Compute the time-average power draw. 5) Testing details: All watt meters must be calibrated,at least every year and have a resolution of0.1 W. The measurements recorded must be accurate within +/-0.5 W. No future/potential test procedures identified. CotF procedure is more strict.
The testing metrics do not correlate closely with the UEC and potential energy savings because the "standby" mode, not the "sleep" mode measured by the test procedure, accounts for the majority of device UEC. Improvements in the Power management enabled rate will increase the amount of time in and percentage ofdevice UEC accounted for by the "sleep" and "off' modes, increasing the relevance oftest procedure to copier energy consumption. The test procedure does not capture a significant portion ofthe possible energy savings. A 100% Power management enabled rate would realize about a 60% reduction in energy consumption. The current Power management enabled rate (68%) limits the magnitude ofthe potential gains.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 42

# - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - ---f**C;pTe;s-c;n_h_a~e-a-s~b~t;;;tGl-p-;;;kl;ad i~p-;;ct,-** **-~.- Pr;s~;;;;bly:**  

### ;;;;;st**~~de~tiat ;opi~r;~e;idei~**  

### - -- Product Peak Load Impact 

### as higher-end devices can draw up to a few home offices. The "standby" mode power draw and Correlation with Test 

### kilowatts while copying. In addition, most has the greatest impact upon peak period power Procedure and Metric, 

### by commercial copiers spend most ofthe peak draw; thus a weak correlation exists between Technology 

### demand period in "standby" mode. As a result, actual operating patterns and the "sleep" mode copiers infrequently enter the "sleep" mode considered in the current test procedure. power draw measured by the test procedure, resulting in a low correlation between the test method and copier peak load impact. 

### $ The Copier ofthe Future criteria would decrease peak loads somewhat by decreasing the "standby" power draw and the amount oftime spent in "standby" mode during peak demand periods. 

### $ Conversion to inkjet copiers would certainly reduce the peak loads in both the sleep (regulated by test procedure) and active modes.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets $ The CotF criteria would reduce the "standby" energy consumption duration and limit any peak load impact. 

### $ Conversion to inkjet technology will reduce the peak loads in both the Off(covered by test procedure) and active modes.



### Page 43

# Standards Consideration Product: Desktop Computers28

:G ""**~** '"



### , Factors for Consideration Assessment 0 • ' 0 • 0 ' 

### Commercial Residential Potential Energy Savings from $ 50% Power Management Enabled = 

### .8929 

### $ I00% Power management enabled, Pentium III = 

### 0.0829 Regulatory Action; $ 100% Power management enabled, Pentium Ill= $ 1Watt Sleep (Current Power management enabled rate) with a Pentium III= 

### 0.11 29 Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

### 1.929 $ 1

### Watt Sleep (Current Power management enabled rate) with a Pentium III= 0.1629 $ Laptop Computer= 3.829

• Low-Power Design = 

### 3.629 

### $ Laptop Computer= 0.3529 $ Low-Power Design = 0.4829**ir~clu~t-17r~c-h;;,;g),**

### - - - - - 

# -yo;skt;p-P"cs**~ith";** 

# 1**;;tt-si"e~p-1~v~~ ;r~** **-;;~**

# yct**~v~iia"bk;-the-1;;e-;;t-p;~;** 

### <l;skt;p-Pc-1i;;!e<l ;n-the-

- - Availability (Including Energy Star website draws -I.SW. Price/Cost information): • Many ofthe low-power strategies used in commercially-available laptop computers technology (lowpower microprocessors, spinning the hard drive down, sleep modes, etc.) often command a price premium.**------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------** 

### Cumulative Burden This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation.**------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------** 

### Status ofTest Procedures Energy Star test procedure document.

-**~** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - :- - - -$-90%-oro;skt;p**co~p~t~r;** 

### ;oTd-i;; Y-2000 ;;r;- - 

# r15%**~[**

### 6e-;;ft;p-co7nj;irt;r;i7i**;t;Zk~;e-P;;;-** 

### - - Evidence ofMarket-Dnven or Energy·Star Compliant (Webber et al., 2000) management enabled (Nordman et al., 2000) Voluntary Efficiency Improvements $ 25% ofDesktops in stock are Power management enabled (Nordman et al., 2000) $ 85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) $ 17% ofthe Personal Computer (i.e., desktop + laptop) stock are computers oflaptop design $ Federal government must purchase E*-compliant computers • Executive order mandates that the Federal

Government purchase ofdevices with <l W/sleep power draw where available and cost-effective (7/31/01) $ 85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) $ -17% ofthe personal computer stock (i.e., desktop +laptop) in Y2000 is ofLaptop design $ Current best market performer: SCENIC L.i8 l5, draws 2.3W in sleep

### l;s~;s- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

### _,_$-En~rgy**;a~i7igs d;p~;d-;;;** **i;i;g~part ~po-n** i;c;e;slng

### P;;e~**~;n7ige7n~trt ~;abl~dr;t~,~-;;;fhv~~** **7iptlo~** - - $ E*, although prevalent in new computer sales, is often disabled by user; increasing Power management enabled rate may require software modification, e.g., permanent enabling ofpower-down features $ I-Watt sleep may not be technically feasible. • Low-power designs may encounter resistance in non-portable machines due to the necessity of manufacturer re-design and demand for faster CPUs.

28 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSD). 29 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new Pentium III technology (25% Power management enabled).

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page44

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWh/year) Typical New UEC (kWh/year)

Best Available UEC (kWh/year) Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) Minimum UEC (kWh/year) Future Technology Other Notable UEC (kWh/year)
Additional Notable UEC (kWh/year) Comm Resid Commercial 0.19

59 3 297
325
35
178
35
56
313 

### 44 0.03 ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002 51 ADL, 2002 3 ADL, 2002 52 ADL, 2002
56 25% Power management enabled, using Pentium III (ADL, 2002; Intel, 2001)
27 Laptop Computer (ADL, 2002)
50 I00% Power management enabled, Pentium III (ADL, 2002; Intel, 2001) 27 Laptop Computer (ADL, 2002)
15 

### 47 Low-power design, Current power management enabled rate (ADL, 2002) 1 Watt Sleep Pentium III, Current power management enabled rate (ADL, 2002)

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Residential Kawamoto et al., 200I ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002 Pentium II, 25% powerenabled (Kawamoto et al., 2001; ADL, 2002) Pentium III, 25% power enabled (Kawamoto et al., 200l; ADL, 2002; Intel '2001) Laptop Technology (Kawamoto et al., 2001; ADL, 2002) I00% Power management enabled (Kawamoto et al., 2001; ADL, 2002) Laptop Computer (ADL, 2002) Low-power design, Current power management enabled rate (ADL, 2002) l Watt Sleep Pentium III, Current power management enabled rate (ADL, 2002)

Page 45

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Desktop Computers

Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology For Tier IIModels (manufactured afterJuly 1, 2000)

- only consideringguidelineA 

### $ System must adhere to energy star sleep mode levels which are measured in the following manner: 

### $ The system must go into sleep mode after a period ofinactivity, default time set to less than 30 minutes. 

### $ Any system that consumes less than 15 Win the active mode is not required to have a sleep mode. 

### $ Detailed Energy StarTest Conditions (from the Computer MOU Version 3.0, EPA

- Attachment C) $ Power source must be 115 VAC RMS(+/- 5 V RMS) 

### $ Measure the True power consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter with resolution to 0.1 Watts. 

### $ Test conditions: line impedance <0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency= 60 Hz (+/- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of25 degrees C. 

### $ Under the above conditions the power level in the sleep mode is then measured. • Product meets Energy Star criteria if95% ormore ofthe products sold are able to meet the criteria. No future/potential test procedures identified.
The Energy Star test procedure does not correlate closely with actual energy consumption and potential savings because it only measures sleep-mode power draw and, due to the low Power management enabled rate (25%) ofactual computers, the "active" mode energy consumption dominates the UEC. Ifthe Power management enabled rate increases appreciably (to 100%), the sleep mode energy consumption would account for a majority ofthe UEC and strengthen the correlation between the Energy Star test procedure and UEC. The Energy Star test procedure is not capturing the majority ofenergy savings because ofthe low Power management enabled rate and the measurement of only the sleep power draw. In the current PC model (25% Power management enabled) the active energy consumption dominates the total energy consumption. Even ifthe Power management enabled rate is raised to I00% the active mode will dominate the UEC. 

# f The

### ~~~p~te;**~ti;e ~~de-d~~fn;t~sthe-p~a-k-**  - -

### M~tlik;l;,-d;skhip**PCs-d~ ~;t** h;v;;

### ;ub;ia~tlal- - power impact ofdesktop computers, because peak power impact, as residential computer use is many computers are active during the work day. more common at night than during the day. Research The Energy Star test procedure does not address shows that the majority PCs and monitors not active power draw. However, increasing the "active" are in the "off' mode instead of"sleep". Power management enabled rate, which the test Thus during the peak-load sensitive times ofthe day, procedure directly addresses, would reduce the PC's and monitors draw minimal power, in modes aggregate peak demand ofdesktop PCs by not measured under the test procedure. increasing the number ofPCs that power down during peak demand periods $ A PC oflaptop or low-power design directly reduces peak power draw by about 80%. 

### $ Reducing the sleep mode Energy Star power level will achieve a small reduction in peak electrical power draw.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page46

# Standards Consideration Product: Fax Machines

"'**"~** /: ""'"**~** " "' "' '°' "'>": !i/ 9 6 ""**,~~** ""';;*A" '0< +q Factors for Consideration Assessment ' ' " " 0/ ,**~"** Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Commercial 

### $ Enhanced Laser Technology = 0.1230 

### $ Inkjet 1Watt Sleep (Current Power management 30 enabled rate)= 0.24 Residential $ Inkjet l Watt Sleep= 0.075u 30 

### $ Enhanced Laser Technology = 0.04**Pr~du~t-/ T~ch-;;,;g)r** - - - - - 

# -y**fukj;fr;c;i~ile- ~a~hi;e~** **;c~~7itr~r-a** -plu;alitY**(~t**;ot

## ii";;;;J;n"tY)**~f ~;** **p;,d~ts;l~s~** - - - - - - - - - Availability (Including Price/Cost information): 

### $ An existing laserjet device consumes 2 Watts in the standby mode.**--------~---------~-----------------------------------------------------------·** Status ofTest Procedures Energy Star test procedure document.



### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _._$_**9s%-En~rgy St;r-Ma~ket** **Pe;etr;tio~** T;rgetfo;

## YlOOO (Webbe;**~t ~I~**  2000)-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### $ 38% ofFaxes sold in Y2000 are ofInkjet technology (30% are laser; AOL, 2001) 

### $ Federal government must purchase E*-compliant fax machines 

### $ 2W sleep power is lowest for device currently on the market (FAX5000L, a laserjet); inkjet fax machines attain similar levels (e.g., the Savin F3615 draws 2W in sleep mode; see: www.energystar.gov ). 

### $ Executive order mandates that the Federal Government purchase ofdevices with <I W/sleep power draw where available and cost-effective (7/31/01)**I;s~;s-** - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

### _,_$_**D~~ ~h~;g~;t~** **;ch~~e-1-W~l~ep Je~cl;-**  - - 

## -$-

-**E~;g;,-s;vi;g; ;r~** **i;;g~st;ith-i~pl~~e;W.tio~-** 

### $ A significant amount offaxes are laser technology of I-Watt sleep mode with an inkjet facsimile machine; I-Watt sleep devices currently do not exist.

30 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new inkjet technology.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page47

## Background Material

Commercial Residential 

### Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) 0.03 0.01 ADL, 2002 Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001)



# -------------------- 

# ---------------------- Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 7.4 ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002



# -------------------- 

# ---------------------- Stock (millions, 2000) 23.2 11.6 ADL, 2002 ADL, 2002



# -------------------- ---------------------- Product Lifetime (years) 5 5 ADL, 2002 ADL,2002



# -------------------- Current UEC (kWh/year) 132 77.5 La-;e-;.,-100%**po~~; ~a;;g~~;nt** 

### ;n;hl;d L-;;e;**Te~hn-;;l-;;gy-(ADL,-2002;** 

### - - - - - rate (ADL, 2002) Kawamoto et al., 2001)



# -------------------- Typical New UEC (kWh/year) 57 33.6

### fuitj~t~lOO%**p~""e; ~;;ge~~nt**  - - - -

### I~kJet**T;ch~l~gy**

## (AD(2002;-

- - - - enabled rate (ADL, 2002) Kawamoto et al., 2001)



# -------------------- Best Available UEC (kWh/year) 57 33.6

### l~kj~t~100% j;a""w""e;

### ~;n;g~~~~t - - - -

### l~kJet**T;chn~logy (ADL~2002;**  - - - - - enabled rate (ADL, 2002) Kawamoto et al., 2001)



# -------------------- Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) 57 NIA

### i~itj~t~100%

### r;w~;**~;~;~~~nt** -- - - -

### Ai1-n~;**~quip;~;rt** ;ati;r;;

### i3;~~g)r

# sti;- enabled rate (ADL, 2002) criteria, (Webber et al., 2000)



# -------------------- Minimum UEC (kWh/year) Future 9 5.4 Technology Inkjet, with I Watt Sleep (ADL, 2002) Inkjet, with 1 Watt Sleep



# -------------------- Other Notable UEC (kWh/year) 33 19.4



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 48

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Fax Machines

Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology From the Printer, Fax, Printer/Fax, andmailingmachine MOU, version 3.0 

### $ Power measurement ofdevices in the sleep mode. $ Test conditions: 

### $ Power source must be 115 VAC RMS (+/- 

### 5 V RMS) $ Measure the true power consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter. 

### $ Line impedance <0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency= 60 Hz(+/- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of25 degrees C. 

### $ Testprocedure: 

### $ Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the sleep mode. 

### $ Record the energy consumed for one hour and divide by one. 

### $ This ensures that variations in current draw are accounted for. 

### $ This method is recommended in order to gain accurate results but is not essential for equipment that draws constant power.
No future/potential test procedures identified. Testing procedures and metrics accurately capture the essence ofenergy consumption and savings tactics for this device, because standby energy consumption represents the vast majority ofthe UEC.

Because facsimile machines operate in active mode infrequently, the standby power draw measured by the testprocedure correlates closely to the peak impact (and reduction potential) offacsimile machines.

Department of Energy Draft 

### FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 49

# Standards Consideration
Product: 

## Laser Printers

Ye S G 

### Factors for Consideration Assessment Commercial Residential Potential Energy Savings from 

### $ Copier ofthe Future Criteria= 0.231 •32 

### Inkjet Printer= 0.031 

### Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

### $ Conversion to Inkjet Technology = 0.531

### Pr~du~t-/**T~;h;.;-1.;-g),**

# - ----- '""$- 

### Fo-;

### C;;;;;;~rciitl**~clY,**

# c;pi;-;;fthe-

### F~hi;e**(c;rF)~rit~ria-e~i;t-a~d**c-;;:;-ld 

# b; applkd

# to**Ia~; prirrt~s~**  - - - Availability (Including Meeting power draw levels ofthe sleep-mode for higher-speed laser printers (e.g.,Large Office band) may Price/Costinformation): be difficult. However, commercially-available laser printers that fulfill the Copier ofthe Future criteria do not exist. 

### $ Laser printer manufacturers continue to investigate high-throughput inkjet technology heavily. In general, inkjet printers could more readily displace low-end laser printers, at a lower first cost (assuming print quality concerns can be overcome).**------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------·** 

### Cumulative Burden This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _,_$_**E~;:-g;; Sta;:-t~stpr;c-;;du~e-d~;u~-;;irt_--**  

### --- - --- --- - --- - -- - --- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - Status ofTest Procedures



### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --$-**99%-;fth-;;i;s~r-Prl~t~r-sto~k-i~**

## Y2ooo**;r~ E;e;gysta;:-co~pii~t(CCAP** **_-;ffi~~2-:-xls)-** 

### - - - -- - - - - Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### $ 54% ofLasers in stock are Power management enabled 

### $ 99% ofPrinter stock is energy star compliant (Webber 1999) 

### $ Federal government must purchase E*-compliant laser printers. 

### $ I watt sleep implementation is unclear. Best marketed product currently draws 3.5 Watts in low power mode. Xerox Laserjet Docucolor 2060 (60 ppm). 

### $ Executive order mandates that the Federal Government purchase ofdevices with <l W/sleep power draw where available and cost-effective (7/31/0I) I;s-;.;s-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

## -!fEn-e;:-gy**;a~higs-d-;;pe~di-;;** 

### la;g-;;p;rt-uj;;;n-

- - - -**--E~;.;y-s;ving;** 

### ;r;**l~;g;st;ith_a_tr~;slti~;**

## t;',l;kJetincreasing Power management enabled rate. printers. Because ofthe small size (slower printing Power management enabled rate is less than 99% rate) these devices, inkjet technology is a sensible for Y2000 stock. alternative. However, improvement ofinkjet 

### $ Change to inkjet technology might not be performance equality is necessary. consumer acceptable due to beliefs oflaser technology superiority.

31 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100% Power management enabled. 32 

### Copier ofthe Future technology scenario is defined as requirement ofprinters to meet the Target 1 copier requirements. It 

### specifies a maximum of 10 Watts in sleep mode. Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 50

## Background Material**T_o~a~ ~n:r~** **~~e jq_u~<!;** **~0_02)** __ _ 4.4**~n2i:_a~ ~hiP.!11~!!.t~** **(Til~<:_n~,**_220_9L



# ---------**S~o~~ (_mJl.!_i~n~,_22G_0!**  ______ _**P;<:_d!;!c~ !:-ife~iip~** **0'~a,.;sj** _____ _ Current UEC (kWh/year) Typical New UEC (kWh/year)
Best Available UEC (kWh/year) Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) Minimum UEC (kWh/year) Future Technology
Other Notable UEC (kWh/year) 6.8 

### 4 4 670 33
483 30 483 28
483 30
163 28
372

## ~!?~**~22~22** _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

## ~!?~**~22~22** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

## ~!?~**~22~22** _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

### ~!?!::**~2Q~22** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Average ofall Equipment, 54% Power management enabled Rate (AOL, 2002) I00% Power management enabled Rate (AOL, 2002) I00% Power management enabled Rate, (AOL,2002) I00% Power management enabled Rate (AOL, 2002) Conversion to Inkjet Technology (AOL, 2002) Copier ofthe Future Requirements, Current power management enabled rate, (Nordman et al., 1998; AOL, 2001)



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Residential Kawamoto et al., 200I



# ------------------------**~r:L_(3Q.03)** 

### _____ --- ___ ----- __**~l?_L_ (3~03)_**  

### ______ --- ________**~r:L_ (3~03)**  

### __________________ AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001 I00% Power management enabled (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) Conversion to inkjet printer (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 200I) I00% Power management enabled (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) Conversion to inkjet printer (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 200I)



### Page 51

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Laser Printers

Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

ProductPeakLoad Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology From the Printer, Fax, Printer/Fax, andmailing machine MOU, version 3.0 

### $ Power measurement ofdevices in the sleep mode. 

### $ Test conditions: 

### $ Power source must be 115 VAC RMS (+/- 

### 5 V RMS) 

### $ Measure the true power consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter. 

### $ Line impedance <0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency= 60 Hz(+/- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of25 degrees C. $ Test procedure: 

### $ Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the sleep mode. 

### $ Record the energy consumed for one hour and divide by one. 

### $ This ensures that variations in current draw are accounted for. • This method is recommended in order to gain accurate results but is not essential for equipment that draws constant power. No future/potential test procedures identified.

Test procedures do not correlate well with energy consumption and savings potential, because the Energy Star program only measures the low power level (it also defines the maximum time period to before entering "sleep" mode). Laser printers have a 60% Power management enabled rate, and the "active" and "standby" modes account for most (-80%) energy consumption. A higher Power management enabled rate would increase the relevance ofthe test procedure to the UEC and energy savings potential by decreasing the amount of time and energy consumed in the "standby" mode. The Energy Star test procedures correlate weakly with actual energy consumption energy savings, as it measures only the low (or sleep) power draw. The standby (ready-to-print) mode accounts for a majority ofenergy consumption.



# f The

### te-;tp~;c~d;;;do

### ;~t-c~;e-;po~d**cl;s~ly ~lth-** **P~;k-l~d ls-n~t~~** **l;p~rta;ti;s~e- f~r-the~e-d~;i~e~**  - the peak load impact oflaser printers, as laser because residential laser printers are estimated to printers operate in "active" and "standby" modes spend >95% oftheir time in the Offmode. during much ofthe peakperiod portion ofthe day. The test procedure only measures "sleep" mode power draw. 

### $ CotF criteria would reduce the peak load impact by decreasing the standby draw and increasing the amount oftime in "sleep" mode (I.e., by reducing the "warm-up" period for the printer). 

### $ Displacing laser printers with inkjet printers would dramatically reduce peak loads due to much lower "active" and "standby" power draw levels.

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 52

# Standards Consideration
Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial

)! /**"'VC'~** ZN**<'~X~Y,"''o;&>**



### Factors for Consideration , Assessment , " · ' ·., :; ": ,' Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

### $ Energy Star I 

### Power Management (PM)= 0.1933•34 

### $Low-power Server (15 

### Won, 7 

### W sleep}, No PM= 0.8833

· 35 

### $Low-power Server with 1 

### W sleep and PM scheme= 0.9233

### Pr~du~t**/-Te~h-n~l~gy-Av;ilabttity-(In~l~di~g** 

## $**i~;-p;;e;** ;nd

### -p;;e;-~;n~ge~~irt-;;;p;ble-s~;;;**~~~** 

## ki**~~;k~ti;**

# 2ooE**~;k-;:;;;n-** - - Price/Cost information): cost premium.

Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures

Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation. 

## $ 

## No**te-;t-sta~d~;d; kn~;~.** 

## - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ Gubler & 

### Peters have data upon which PM time schemes can be based 

## $**L~;-p;;e;/PM ~e-;;e;s** **-h;v~ Ju-;t-e-;:;t~r~d** 

### th;;;:;;ket**(0%-~a;k~t-sha-;:e).-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - $ Implementation ofpower management schemes is possible (Gubler & 

### Peters; RLX) $ RLX Technologies and Amphus products are examples ofenergy efficient low-end server computer design

33 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 0% Power management enabled. 34 

### Based on the low power level similarity ofDesktop computers and server usage from Gubler & 

### Peters (2000). 35 

### RLX Technologies uses a transmetta chip and a PM scheme. 

### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 53

## Background Material

Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) 0.049 AOL(2002)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 1.6 AOL (2002) Sto""ck**{;;iii"i;n~,-2000)** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '"

- - -**-4~**I- - - - - 

# AOL (2002)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Product Lifetime (years) 3 

### Same as a PC (AOL, 2002)**cu~;nt**

# uEc**(kwh/y~;;.)-** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - ,__ --1095--

- -**;:;pic~1-s~;,;r(A:nL,2oo2)-** 

### - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Typical New UEC (kWh/year) I

### 095 Typical Server (AOL, 2002)**Be;tA.~;ihibl;**

# UEC(kWhfy;a;)-

- - - - - - - - ,__ - - -107-

- - -**L:;;_;o;,~r-s~;,;r**

### (;/-p;;;**~;n~ge~~rrt~e~g~RLX (Hipp~2ooi)--**  

### - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) NIA 

### No Energy Star program**Mi-;;i~~~**

# UEC(kWWye;r)**Futu;e-Te~b;~1~g)r-** 

### ""

- - - - 

## S7
- - - - -**L:;;_po;,~r-s~;,;r,-1-W;tt-sle;p-a~d Po;,~;** **~a;;g~;;;nt (ADL~** 

### 2002)

- - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Other Notable UEC (kWh/year) 131 Low-power server without Power Management (AOL, 2002) Additi;n""alNotabk

## UEC**(kWhfy~;r)** 

### - - - - - - ""

- - - 

## 869- - - -**C~;e~t-d~sig;-wlth** 

### P;;e;**M;n7ige~~rrt** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 54

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial

¢ 2 I, "- CM 0f> "°»""' 

### Factors .Assessment ', , ' '

"' " ! b Ji j "';;; ,,v" fY;/!}"""'v**?V~'"'S** "">!"**0~Y7"** ;;'*' ,,,""'"'{"Y-+**;,,,,007~** 

### TestProcedure Overview Future/Potential TestProcedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology No test procedure exists. None are available. Not applicable.

Not applicable.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 55

# Standards Consideration Product: Monitors36

/**~** '**~** 

### Factors for Consideration 'A.ssessment · " Commercial Residential $ 

### 100% Power management enabled, 17-inch CRT= $ 

### Potential Energy Savings from 2.537 

### $ Regulatory Action; Cumulative 100% Power management enabled = 0.1 ·'" 1Watt sleep, Current Power management enabled (Quads) 2008-2030 

### $ 1Watt sleep, Current Power management enabled

. 0 37 

### rate, 17-mchCRT= .44 

### • 17-inch LCD, Current Power management enabled rate= 3.637 

### rate= 0.3238 

### $ LCD, Current Power management enabled rate= 0.8438

### Pr~du~t-/-T~;h;.~l~gy- - - - - 

# -TLCD::-

### ~~~~r~i;Ily-a~iti1;bl;:**~o-;t~** ;r;

### de~;e;sing.**I~** i;it-;;

# 2ool,-a-;;

# LCD**~~~to;**had ;

### ~o~t-p;e~Tu~- 

# oT Availability (Including 85% (relative to CRT), down from up to 300% in preceding years. The payback period for a 15-inch Price/Cost information): LCD with commercial and residential patterns is-! 1 and-33 years, respectively, as compared to a 17- inch CRT monitor (assuming $0.08/kWh; in practice, a 15-inch LCD effectively replaces a l7-inch CRT due to the LCD's more efficient use ofscreen space for viewing and higher display resolution.) 

### $ Organic LED technology is under development but not commercially available in monitors. • As of 1January, 2002, 90 17-inch or larger monitors listed on the Energy Star website consume 1 W or less

__________ --- _____.__**!!J..!~!,:lo~ES..!I?.O~~~sleE~i:!!~dE.**

### ______________ ---- ______________ ---- ___ _ Cumulative Burden This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _,_E-;;;rgy-Sta-;.**te~tp;o~ed;r;** 

### do-c;;;;nt;**~o-DOEt~;t** 

### pr;Zed'u-;.;.-

- -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - Status ofTest Procedures



# -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - '""f 95%-En-;;;gy St;r-Ma-;.ket**Pe~etr;tTo; ta;g-;;tf~r-**  

### - - 

# -fS9o/;**;r"-;;1~~ito;s**

### in-**sto~k** 

### ;;r;**Po~-;;; ;;a-;;;;g~~;nt**  

### - Evidence ofMarket-Driven or y 

### 2000 (Webber et al.) enabled (ADL, 2002) Voluntary Efficiency 

### $ 60% ofmonitors in stock are Power management 

### $ 95% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Improvements enabled (Nordman et al., 2000) Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) $ 

### 3% ofmonitors sold in Y2000 were LCD (ADL, $ 

### 3% ofresidential monitors sold in Y2000 were 2002) LCD (ADL, 2002) 

### $ Executive order mandates that the Federal Government purchase ofdevices with <l W /sleep power draw where available and cost-effective (7/31/01) • Federal government must purchase ofE*-compliant monitors I;s-;.;s-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# --f**E~e;gy ~a~lngs-d-;;pe;di-;;**  

### Ta;g-;;p;;rt-up;n-

- - - - 

## _,_$-Hlgh LCD**~o~t-p;e~Tu~-i~ped~s-LCD-~a;k-;;t--** 

### - increasing Power management enabled rate, a penetration, with higher barriers expected in the software option residential market than the commercial market. $ 

### E*, although prevalent in new monitor sales, is $ 

### Strict enforcement ofenergy star configuration will often disabled by user; increasing Power save energy management enabled rate may require software • Electronics efficiency optimization (for I-Watt modification, e.g., permanent enabling ofpower- sleep) can save much energy at little additional down features cost to consumer and no interruption of • LCD technology is expensive (ADL, 2002) performance

36 

### See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSD). 37 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new 17-inch CRT technology, 60% Power management enabled. 38 

### Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 60% Power management enabled. Energy Star category is defined as having a low power level of8 Watts.
Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 56

## Background Material

/ 

### Description Value Comments/Source ': "w"
= , "' 'I' 00**~B:' ~**  "h -m v:l'srfl#iA 

### Comm Resid Commercial Residential Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) 0.20 0.05 AOL, 2002 Kawamoto et al., 2001



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 38 AOL, 2002 AOL, 2002



# -------------------------- Product Lifetime (years) 3



# -------------------------- Current UEC (kWh/year) 333 51 AOL, 2002 AOL, 2002 3 AOL, 2002 AOL, 2002 

### 92 17-inch CRT, 60% Power management enabled Rate, (AOL, 2002) 17-inch CRT, 60% Power management enabled Rate (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001)



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Typical New UEC (kWh/year) 333 

### 92 17-inch CRT, 60% Power management enabled Rate, (AOL, 2002) 17-inch CRT, 60% Power management enabled Rate (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001)



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Best Available UEC (kWh/year) 51 17
Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) 149 84 Liquid Crystal Display, 15-inch, Current Liquid Crystal Display, 15-inch, Current power management enabled rate (AOL, powermanagement enabled rate 2002) (Kawamoto et al., 2001; AOL, 2002) 17-inch CRT, I00% power management 17-inch CRT, 100% Power management enabled (Kawamoto et al., 2001; ADL, enabled (AOL, 2002) 2002)



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Minimum UEC (kWh/year) Future Technology 4.5 2 Cholesteric LCD, 15-inch panel, Current power management enabled rate Technology (Kent State, 200; AOL, 2002) Cholesteric LCD, 15-inch panel, Current power management enabled rate, (Kent State, 200I; Kawamoto et al., 200 I)



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Other Notable UEC (kWh/year) 17 11 OLEO at I 00% Power management enabled rate (ADL, 2002) OLEO at I00% Power management enabled rate (AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001)



# -------------------------- ----- 

# ---------------------- ---------------------- Additional Notable UEC (kWh/year) 301 

### 64 17-inch CRT with 

### I Watt sleep, Current 17-inch CRT with 

### 1 Watt sleep and Powermanagement enabled rate (AOL, Current power management enabled rate 2002) (Kawamoto et al., 2001; AOL, 2002)



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 57

## Product: Monitors

Test Procedure Overview

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annnal energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology 

# Test Procedure Summary

For Tier IImodels

- (test standard for equipment shipped afterJuly I, 2000) 

### $ Monitor into 1st sleep mode within 30 min ofinactivity, deep sleep after 60 min

- controlled by computer 

### $ Testing procedure is the same for that ofthe computer except power is measured at the two mentioned stages instead ofonly one sleep level. System must adhere to Energy Star sleep mode levels which are measured in the following manner: 

### $ The system must go into sleep mode after a period ofinactivity. 

### $ Detailed Energy StarTest Conditions (from the Computer MOU Version 3.0, EPA

- Attachment C) 

### $ Power source must be 115 VAC RMS (+/- 5 V RMS) 

### $ Measure the True powerconsumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter with resolution to 0.1 Watts. 

### $ Test conditions: line impedance <0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency = 60 Hz (+/- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of25 degrees C. 

### $ Under the above conditions the power level in the sleep mode is then measured. 

### $ Product meets Energy Star criteria if95% or more ofthe products sold are able to meet the criteria.
No future/potential test procedures identified. 

# f The"E-;;rgy-Sta-; te;t

### p;o~ed;;-r~ do-e;;ot

### ;aphtr~**~7i;h-of**

# th;**;n~rgy ~~i;gs** **b;c;~;;-** ;f

### th~**""a;~al Cfl~ld--**  - measured) Power management enabled rate. 

### $ Depending on the Power management enabled rate, the influence ofthe active and standby energy consumption, relative to total UEC, changes. Currently, CRT monitors realize a 60% Power management enabled rate and active energy consumption dominates energy consumption. This suggests that effort into active power draw reduction (which is not measured by the test procedure) would realize higher energy savings than decreasing the sleep power draw. As the Power management enabled rate approaches l00%, the sleep mode energy consumption becomes more significant but the active energy use still accounts for a majority ofenergy consumption.
The "active" power draw and Power management enabled rate dominate the peak load impact of commercial monitors. The test procedure effectively captures the ability ofmonitors to powerdown during peakperiods, but does not capture the peak power draw of"active" monitors during peak periods. Residential monitors probably do no impact peak loads because residential computers and monitors operate more frequently at night than during the day. In addition, the majority PCs and monitors not "active" are in the "off' mode rather than "standby" mode. Thus, during the peak-load sensitive times of the day, PC's and monitors likely draw power in modes that do not fall under the test procedure.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 58

## Product: Pool Pumps

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

# Standards Consideration

$Best available (best pump and best motor)= 0.09 $Optimum technology (best pump and best motor technology)= 0.21



# -------------------------- 

# --------------------------------------------------- Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including $ Brushless DC motors available. Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures

Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues 

## Background Material Manufacturers ofmotors of>1 

### HP have been regulated for energy efficiency (EPACT). The same manufacturers make lower horsepower motors for use in pool pumps. 

## $**No-p~~l-p~~p sp~cifi-c** **te-;;t-p~o~;d-;:-11~ Ts-a~ail;hle~**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ MotorTest Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines

- Methods for Determining Losses and Efficiency ofRotating Electrical Machinery from Tests. This is a general procedure

- not solely aimed at pump motors. 

## $**S-o~th;~ c;iifo~ia-** **Edls~;**lists

### ~ffi~i~nt

## j;o";!pu;;ps-a7i<l

### gi~e~**;e"b;i~**fo-;.

### -p;r;h~sing**~-:;-ch** - equipment. The efficiency ofthis equipment was not included in the analysis due to inconsistencies in the data. $Some equipment is marketed for its energy efficiency (e.g., Pentair, Speck, and Sta-rite). $ GE ECM motors are available.

Description Value Comments/Source Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) 0.04 (ADL, 1998)



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) NI 

### A**Sto~k {;r;iffi~n~,-2000)-**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,_ - - -**-5~5-** 

### - - - -**(ADL~** 

### I99S)-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**P~;d~ct**

# Lif**eti~~ (y~a~0**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,_ - - - -1-0

- - - - - (**ADL~**

# iooI)

-- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Current UEC (kWh/year) 725 (ADL, 1998)**Typi~al**

# N;;

# ui3c**(kwh!'Y~a~)-** 

### - - - - - -- - _,__ - 

# --12s
___ - -**(ADL~** 

### t99S)--

- - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**ie;tA~;ii7tb"1;**

# uE:cck.wh;)r;a;)-

- - ----- _,__ 

# --635
___ -- (in(

# iool>
___ - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- Energy Star UEC (kWh/year) NIA**Mi;i~;~**

# -u"Ec(k"whi;e;r)**Futu;e-Te~~;1~iY_,__** 

### - 

# -517--

-- (A'nL:

# iool>--

- - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**othe;.N;t;b!e-uEc-ckwh"tye~~** 

### - - - -- - ___

# ,__--"Nii---- -- ---- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - --- - -- - -- - - -- - -- Additi;n:i!N"otabkUEc**(kwhiy~;r)-** 

### - -- __

# ,__--"Nii---- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 59

## Product: Pool Pumps

Test Procedure Overview Future/Potential Test Procedure(s)
How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology 

# Test Procedure Summary

No product specific test procedures. National Pool and Spa Institute may be trying to implement a test procedure for pool pump manufacturers, says David Nibbler ofWaterpikTechnologies/Jandy Pool Products. Detailed information was not known. Not applicable.

These devices operate several hours per day. This period may or may not coincide with peak load sensitive times. Pool pumps can operate at any time as long as the National Sanitation Foundation requirement ofone water change every 8 hours is met.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 60

# Standards Consideration Product: 

## Well Pumps

, , Factors for Consideration , A.sscssment , , « , , " , ,,' '*• Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030

Cumulative Burden

Status ofTest Procedures

Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements $ Best available (best pump and best motor) = 0.17 $Optimum technology (best pump and best motor technology)= 0.24

Manufacturers ofmotors > 1 HP have been regulated for energy efficiency (EPACT). It is unknown ifpump industry has ever been regulated for other applications and also unknown if companies who manufacture pumps have been subject to regulations for other equipment they manufacture. 

# f**No-sp;cifi~ -;,;t~r-;eii** **j;t7~p-t;st p;.;c~du;e~**  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $MotorTest Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines

- Methods for Determining Losses and Efficiency ofRotating Electrical Machinery from Tests.



# --------------------------------------------------- $ High efficiency pumps are commercially available; however, they do not appear to be marketed as such (inferred from viewing product literature) $ Bmshless DC motors are available (e.g., from GE) but are not marketed as motors for well pumps.



# -------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Issues $ Lifetime and durability are important factors for this equipment. $ Submersible pump motors have unique geometry
- narrow design and must fit into a well hole. Technical challenges may exist in applying energy efficient motor designs to this application. 

## Background Material Description Value Comments/Source '. Total Energy Use (quad, 2000) 0.03 (ADL, 1998) and (ADL, 2001) An;i7al**Ship~~~t; (~i1ii;n;,-2000)**  - - - - - - - - - - - 

## NJ 

# A- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- Sto-ck**(mllli;;-n~,-2000)-** - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 

# -14.3-

-- -**(AOL~** I9°9S)**:i~d-(RECS:** 1997)-

-- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**p~;d~ct Lifeti~~** **(y~a~~** -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 

# -17.5--

- - GWP**(200~ p;r~~al~o~-;;u~i~ati~n)-**  -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Cu~;nt**

# uEc**(kwwy~;)-** - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 

# -173-

- - - - (A'oL:**2oo!):i~d-(A.i:i,-1998)-** -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**Typi~al**

# i\i;;

# uEc**(kwh;)r~a~)-** -- - ---- ----- 

# --173
___ -- (A'o(**200!)-;~d-(A.01.,-1998)-** -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Best Available UEC (kWh/year) 90.9 (ADL, 2001) and (AOL, 1998)**E~~~;&;uEc(kww~;~--------------"N/i**

# _____________________________________________**Mi-;;i~~~**

# uE:c(k"Whi;e;r)**Futu~e-ie~h;~1~g),-** - - - - 

# 6o.2- - - - (A'D-L:2oot)**~~d-(ADL,-1998)** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Notable UEC (kWh/year) NI A**AddUi~n~lNotabkUEC (kWWy~;r)**  ____**--~-** 

## --NfA--
-- -- - - -- - --- - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 61

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: Well Pumps

Factors Assessment " "**~** ""' ,,**~ ~** **~** "**"~** 

### Test Procedure Overview Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology No product specific test procedures. Nothing under development. A submersible pump test (not specifically for well water pumps) will be available at the end of2001, says the Hydraulic Institute. Not applicable.

This product most likely has a limited affect on peak load. Equipment is most heavily used in the morning and operates for a minimal amount oftime each day (19 minutes/household-day).



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 62

# Standards Consideration
Product: Broilers

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 0.04439 Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Product I Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.

Description Value Comments/Source**~** "**~,** Total Energy Use (quad) 0.033 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (AOL, 1993)



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2,250 elec 6,500 gas FE&S (1997) Annual Shipments (millions, 1997)



# -- - -

# -- - 

# -- - 

# --- - 

# -- - 

# - 

# --

# --

# -- 

# - -·**~**

# ---

# - - - 

# -- - 

# - -

# - - - 

# -

# -- -

# -- --- - 

# -- - - 

# -- 

# - - -

# -- -- - - 

# -- - 

# -- 

# - - -- 

# -

# -- Installed Base (million, 1995) 0.157 NAFEM (AOL, 1995)**p~~~ct Lifeti~~** **(y~a~~** - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - -1

# S: 

# 20-

- - - ADL**E~i~;t~**

## (2001)-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Minimum Efficiency Standard N/A**----------------------------2o~4o%g~-------------------------------------------** stockEfficiency "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (AOL, 1993) 40- 60% elec**--------~---------------------------------------------------------------------** Typical New Efficiency 30% gas Year2000 estimates based on "Characterization ofCommercial Building 60% elec Appliances" (AOL, 1993)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Best Available Efficiency**En~rgy**St;r**Efflcle~cy**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

## Nf 

# A- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology)



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments Installed Base is 91%gasI9% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

39 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings ofelectric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 63

# Standards Consideration Product: Fryers '



### Factors for Consideration , , , ,, .A:sscssmcnt , , , , , 0 0,**«'~~,** @ *'; 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 0.2740 

### Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

### Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Price/Costinformation): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material 

# --------------------------------------------------- Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.

Description Value Comments/Source Total Energy Use (quad) 0.060 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**~** 

### - - - - - - - - - - ;;Opp;rtu;;iti;s**-a~d-Co;p~tti~n-i~** 

### th;**Fo~d 5;~i~e-Eq~ip~;ntl~du~t~;;-**  

### Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 62 (ADL, 1995)**--------------------------~----------------------------~----------------------** 

### Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 117,000 Appliance (May 2000) About 70% gas/30% elec. FE&S (1997)**1~staii;d-ia;e-(~iiiio~,-1995)** 

### - - - - - - - - - -**~** 

### - - - 

# o:97- - - - NAFEM**&-F;;d-Ma;;g~;;;;nt (~.-1990)**  

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Product Lifetime (years) 7

- 10 ADL Estimate (2001)**M~i;~~Effi~~~ys~~<l7i~----------~---N7A--------------------------------------------- --------------------------~---------------------------------------------------**  

### Stock Efficiency 40- 50% gas 55

- 

### 65% elec "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Typical New Efficiency 50

- 60% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization ofCommercial Building 95% elec Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Best Available Efficiency 80% gas 98% elec Large increase in fryer-liquid heat exchange surface area (ADL, 200 l)**in~gy-&~Effi~k;cy--------------~---N7A---------------------------------------------**



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology)**~o~~~~t;----** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---- --- --**In~t;lledB;s;~ 5s%g~/42%-ele~tri~**  

### (N-AFEN(&**Fo~d M;;age~~;t;-c~**  

### 1990)

40 

### All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings ofelectric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices.



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 64

# Standards Consideration
Product: Griddles

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 0.1441 

### Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material 

# --------------------------------------------------- Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.

;;; ,.,.,, » " / v'=**~** 

### Description Value Comments/Source**~** 

### " " 

# < Total Energy Use (quad) 0.039 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 34,455 FE&S (1997)**I~stal1;iB~;e-(~ii1io~,-1995)-** 

### - - - - -- - -- ,__ --0.312--

-- 

## NAFEM(A"oL, J9°9S)-

- -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



### ... 

# - - - - 

# - - 

# -- - - 

# ------ 

# --- - -

# --- -- -.

# -·-

# --- - - 

# --

# --- - 

# - 

# -- -

# -- - - 

# -- -

# -- - 

# -

# -- - 

# - 

# -- -

# -- - 

# - 

# -- - 

# -- - 

# --- - 

# -- Product Lifetime (years) 10

- 15 ADL Estimate (2001)**M~i~~~Effi~~~cy.s~~~~--------------N7i--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------~~4so/.g~-------------------------------------------**  

### Stock Efficiency "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 50-65% elec**Typi~al**

# N;;**Effl~i;n~y** 

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Best Available Efficiency 55% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization ofCommercial Building 65% elec Appliances" (ADL, 1993) En;rgySt;r Effi-ck;;-cy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# NJ 

# A

- --- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# --- 

# ----- -

# -------- --- 

# -- ----·

# -- ------- -- -- -

# --- --- 

# - - 

# -- - 

# -- - -

# -- - - 

# -- -

# --- - 

# -- - 

# -- - -

# -- -

# -- Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -**In~t;lledB;s;~ 5o%ga~** **/5o%-ele~tri~** 

### (NAFEM-&**Fo~d M;n~ge~~~t;-c~**  

### Comments 1990)

41 

### All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings ofelectric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices.


### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 65

# Standards Consideration Product: Ovens

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 0.2842 Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Product I Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.

Description Value Comments/Source Total Energy Use (quad) 0.24 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 282 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)



# --------- ------- - ---- -- - --·I'--------- -- -- - - -- --- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - --- - -- - -- - - -- - -- Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 89,000 gas Appliance May, 2000 67,000 elec



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Installed Base (million, 1995) 0.85 NAFEM (ADL, 1995)**ir;d~ct Lifeti~;** **(y~a~~** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1

# S:

# 20-

- - - ADL**EAf~-;t~**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**M~~~~Effi~~~ys~;d;~--------------N/i---------------------------------------------** I- - - - - - -· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 -45% gas Stock Efficiency 65% elec "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**-----------------------------45o/;g~--------------------------------------------** Typical New Efficiency ADL Estimate (2001) 65% elec 

# Be;tA**~;ii7tb"1; Efflcl;n~y**  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**E""n~rgy**St;r**Effi~k;cy**- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

## Nf 

# A

- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**M;xim~~-Efflcle;cy-(Ftrtu~;Te~~;1;g),5-** 

# -- -- ---- --- -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comments Installed Base is 55% gas I45% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

42 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings ofelectric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices.


### Department of

### Energy Draft FY2005 

### Prioritization Sheets Page 66

# Standards Consideration Product: Ranges

' '



### Factors for Consideration Assessment , ,, Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 0.1843 

### Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.**~** 

### Description Value Comments/Source ' z 

### Total Energy Use (quad) 0.090 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**-------------------~------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 81,300 FE&S (1997)**I~stall;;-d_B_a;e(;;ii1io~,-1995)-** 

### - - - - - - - - - ,__ - -o.65--

- - NAFEM(AoL: 1995)-

- -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Product Lifetime (years) 15

- 20 ADL Estimate**Mi;i~;;; Effi""c~;cy** **Stu:;·d~;d**

### - - - - - - - - - - ""

- - - 

# NJ 

# A

- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** 

### Stock Efficiency 40- 50% gas 65

- 

### 75% elec "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Typical New Efficiency



# -- - - -- - -- -- -- - -- - - -- -- -- - - -- -6oo/; 

# :g;- --

# Y**~a~**

# ZOOO**;sti~;t;s b~s~d-;n** **-:'Cha~a~t~riz~tio~ ~f** **Co~:n~r~~l BuUdi~g-**  - Best Available Efficiency 80% elec Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**En~rgy**

### St;r**Effi-c~;cy**

### - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# NJ 

# A

- - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- --- - -**In~t~lkctii~s;~ 9lo/~g-a~**  

# 19% cl;c"tri-;;-(NAF-EM-& Fa"°od**M~~ag;;-~e~t;** 

### ;- Comments 1990)

43 

### All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings ofelectric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices.


### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 67

# Standards Consideration Product: Steamers

0 "" / ::: dv 0**"~""~"'** 

### Factors for Consideration Assessment ', Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory O. l 1 44 

### Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

### Product I 

### Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Cumulative Burden Status ofTest Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

## Background Material 

# --------------------------------------------------- Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



### Description Value Comments/Source

### ~ Total Energy Use (quad) 0.056 "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**--------------------------~----------** 

# ----------------------------------------- Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 9,800 FE&S (1997)**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Installed Base (million, 1995) O. l 7 NAFEM (ADL, l995)**P~;d~ct Lifeti~~** **(y~~0-** 

# -- - - -- - - -- - -**~-** 

# --10: 

# 15--

--**A.0L,E:~~7tt~(2001)-** - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Minimum Efficiency Standard NI A



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stock Efficiency 40- 60% gas "Characterization ofCommercial Building Appliances" (ADL, l993) 60- 70% elec



# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Typical New Efficiency**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Best Available Efficiency 70% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization ofCommercial Building 90% elec Appliances" (ADL, 1993)**E~rgy-&;Efflck~y---------~--------NlA** _____________________________________________**M;xl~u~-Efficie~Zy**-(Fut;r;**Te~~;l;gy)** - - -**~** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -**--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------** Comments Installed Base is 33% gas/ 67% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

44 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" 

### gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings ofelectric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices.


### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 68

# Test Procedure Summary
Product: All Commercial Cooking

' " ' 

### Factors Assessment " ,, ·'"v:"' 

### Test Procedure Overview Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.

Unknown; only electric appliances contribute to peak loads, and they account for only**~**19% ofall site cooking energy consumption (AOL, 1993).



### Department ofEnergy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 69