EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

APPENDIXC 

FY2005 DRAFT 

PRIORITY-SETTING DATA SHEETS 

FOR "NON-COVERED" PRODUCTS 

(Appendix C products were considered in FY2003 but did not 

become part of the 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page I 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Table of Contents (Non-Covered Products) 

Product Rulemaking Priority Page 

Commercial Refrigeration 

Standards 

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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 2 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Table of Contents (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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 3 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Ice Machines1 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

Combination of Energy 

Savings Technologies 

0.182 

Canadian Standards 

03 

FEMP Recommended/ 

Best Available 

0.16 I 0.31 4 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '""T~c-h~oJ~g~ - - - - - - - - -P;Vb;ck P;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 of CFC's in the mid-I 990's. 

$ If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

$ Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies, 

which own divisions that have been subject to energy standards of other products. 

--------------------------·---------------------------------------------------

Status of Test Procedures $ ASHRAE29 

$ ARI 810-2000: Based on ASHRAE 29 

$ CSA C742-98: Based on ASHRAE 29 

--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------

Other Regulatory Actions . Canadian Regulations and availability of ARI Data. 

--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------

Evidence of Market-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 of Standards 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page4 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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, l 996 

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 of efficiencies 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 5 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of actual 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 of ice machines at full capacity overestimates duty cycle of machines 

used in many applications. 

The current test procedure involving high ambient and water temperatures and 100% duty 

cycle is an ideal indicator of peak load and peak load impact. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 6 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of the 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 ;nd HFC 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 of potential 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. If the Kyoto 

protocol were ratified, this would be a significant issue for the supermarket refrigeration 

industry. 

$ Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies that 

own divisions that have been subject to energy standards of other products. 

Status of Test Procedures $ Separate Test Procedures for display cases and compressors and/or condensing units. 

$ Display Cases: CRS-S 1-96 (ARI CRMD), ASH RAE 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 7 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Market penetration of energy-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, I 995) 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) NI A 

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 of many components. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 8 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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. 

$Test procedures for separate components of supermarket 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 of a 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 of condenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of 

capacity and power input during 100% run of an air-cooled condenser. The standard rating 

condition for this test procedure involves 95°F entering air temperature. 

$ Application of energy standards to supermarket refrigeration systems is extremely 

complicated due to the wide range of system 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 of peak 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Combination of Energy Saving Options= 0.3?6 

Te~~;;i;;gy - - - - - - - - -P~yb~~k-P~rlod6 - - 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 

Brush less 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 of CFC's in the mid- I 990's. 

$ If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

• Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies 

that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards of other 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 10 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 996f Oistrib;tio7iAnnua1 Shipments (millions, 1995) 0.02 of sales by type proportional to installed base distributions. A larger 

number of Walk-In refrigeration systems are sold for replacement. 

l~stal1;d-aa;e-c;;ii1io~~ I 995)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "NI i -- - - -- -- -- - --- --- - --- --- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 

oo ers. 

Page 11 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Combination of Energy Saving Options= 0.357 

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 of CFC's in the mid-J 990's. 

$If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

• Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent 

companies that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards of other 

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 DC Evaporator and 

Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82¢/kWh). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 12 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 

30,000 Walk-In Sales [ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996] Distribution 

of sales 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 

$Test procedures for condensing units, which would serve walk-in refrigeration, generally 

focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use. 

$ An example of a 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 of condenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of 

capacity and power input during 100% run of an air-cooled condenser. The standard rating 

condition for this test procedure involves 95°F entering air temperature. 

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) $Application of energy 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 of insulated box and condensing unit actually used in the field, and (2) the 

importance of field 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 of peak 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Energy 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/Cost information): Thermal Bond between coil and evaporator, and Storage Coil Redesign range from 2 to I 0 

years.9 

Cumulative Burden 

--------------------------------------------------- $The industry dealt with the phaseout ofCFC's in the mid-1990's. 

$If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

Status of Test Procedures $ ASHRAE 18-1987 (RI 997) 

$Canadian Standards Association C8 l 5-99, based on ASHRAE 18, includes both pulldown 

and standby impacts. 

Other Regulatory Actions Not known. 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Energy Star Program, Penetration for first year of program will be reported to EPA shortly. 

Issues 

8 See priority-setting FY2003 Technical Support Document (TSO). 9 "Characterization of Commercial 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 15 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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;rgy St;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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 16 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Water Coolers 

~"' " i" "'"" " / ~;:; 7 "' s ;P"-'?"~t ~ijj 

Factors :A:ssessment "" v x "

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 of water 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 of water 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 on just standby energy use probably captures most of 

the energy use associated with water coolers. 

$ The ambient temperature of 75°F used in the EPA test is appropriate for most applications. 

$ Peak load impact of Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Thermal Bond Between Coil and 

Evaporator, and Storage Coil Redesign are high, while peak load impact of High Insulation 

Value is Low. 

$ The EPA Energy Star test procedure is not a good indicator of peak 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 17 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

$ Humidity Sensor= 0.40 

$ Modulating= 0.81 

Not available. 

Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy 

savings indicated above are indicative of the 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 of standards, 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 of operating time purchased rather than dryness (humidity) of the 

clothing. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 18 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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~alMaximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 1.43 new" per BTS (2000) 

Othe~N;t;ble-Efflcie~;y-L~~el- -------->-- --NfA-- -· -- - - --- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 19 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of cycles per year; 3412 converts from Btu to kWh. 

• A standard load consists of 7 lbs. of test cloth; a compact size dtyer uses 3 lbs. of test cloth. 

• Test cloth is moistened with I 00°F water containing 0-17 ppm hardness water is extracted 

until the moisture content is between 66.5 and 73.5 % of the bone-dty weight. 

• Bone dty is defined as the weight of the 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 of the annual energy consumption is dependent on the accuracy of the 

estimate of 419 dtyer loads per year and the assumptions made in the derivation of the 

constant 66 in the formula. 

$Test procedure requires the use of Time Termination ifit is available. Clothes are dried 

until the moisture content is between 2.5-5% of the 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 of the device, but does reduce the 

amount of time spent at peak load by reducing over-dtying. 

$Modulation increases the peak load; however it reduces the duration of the peak load as well 

as the overall dtying time. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 20 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 Data IO, 11 

Pr~du~t-/ T~;h-;.~"t~g), - - - - - - '""$-Hori;o~ta~;xis frunlly--;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 of Test Procedures $ Energy Factor (EF) test changed to the Modified Energy Factor (MEF) test to account for remaining 

moisture content at end of cycle. 

$ 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 21 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Energy 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 

(weighted per cycle) [kW-hr] + Water Energy Consumption (weighted per cycle) [kW-hr] + 

Energy Consumption for removal of Remaining Moisture Content RMC (per cycle) [kW-hr] 

$A test load is detennined based on the capacity of the 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 of operation 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 of product 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. 

$Test procedure 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 of the 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 of electric dryers. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 23 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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%) = 0.00612• 1

3 

$Pulse Combustion (Et= 90%) = 0.008 12• 

13 

$Condensing (Et= 93%) = 0.015 12• 1

3 

-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- 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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-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/ ASH RAE Standard I 03). 

Not known. 

Market share of power 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) of 82%. 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 24 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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-l 00 - - - - - - - - - -

--------------------------~--------------------------------------------------- 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 25 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of the 

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 of energy lost (in the form of water vapor, unburned fuel, and warm air) 

through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). 

$ Calculate the thermal efficiency of the duct furnace, equal to I 00% - %flue loss. 

$ For unit heaters installed indoors, jacket losses are not considered since the energy 

"lost" by the jacket 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 of unit 

heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type of air-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 if the 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 of peak electricity demand). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 26 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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)= 0.4915 

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 of Test Procedures "ENERGY ST AR Program Requirements for Consumer Audio and DVD Products" 

Other Regulatory Actions Not known. 

--------------------------------------------------- Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

$ 54% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000) 

$ -50 Different Models Consume I W 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) I I 0 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 of JO-Watt standby. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 27 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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)= 0.1017 

17 Energy Star Year 2003 (I Watt standby)= 0.20 

Best Available (0.26 Watt standby)= 0.2717• 

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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-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 ST AR 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- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --3 W-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) NI A 

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; 1.1 W was the lowest standby Rack system power draw measured by Rosen and Meier (LBNL, I 999). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 28 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 Peak Load 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 of the product 

(in Watts), are recorded within a time measurement that is long enough to measure the 

correct average value within a+ l 0% - 0% error range. 

The testing procedure does not change with the implementation of Energy Star Phase II 

requirements on January I, 2003. 

The test procedure correlates mildly with the energy consumption of compact audio devices, 

as standby energy consumption currently accounts for about 50% of compact audio energy 

consumption. On the other hand, standby power is a poor proxy for RACK/Component audio 

energy consumption; only about I 0% of RACK/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 power draw but many units operate during peak load times. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 29 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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) = 0.1919 

Best Available ( 1.85 L/kWh) = 0.53 19 

Product/ Technology Availability (Including As of August 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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

The major manufacturers of dehumidifiers 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 of which 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~~;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.35 L/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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 30 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of the condensate collected by the energy consumption. That result is divided by the 

density of water at the test temperature (l kg/litre at standard conditions) and expressed in 

terms ofL/kWh. 

There are no indications of imminent 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 31 

', 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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)= 0.4521 

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 of February, 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 of Test Procedures 

$ "Testing Guidelines for ENERGY ST AR 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 32 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 7 W standby 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 

15 W standby www.EnergyStar.gov 

NIA 

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

Page 33 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of the 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 of an imminent change in the testing procedure. 

The lack of active 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%). If the 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 peak power draw and the test method will decrease if standby power draw 

decreases, as many set-top boxes operate in the active mode during the peak demand periods. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 34 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-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 of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy 

savings indicated above are indicative of the 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) 

$LCD Televisions Commercialized; 2.7% market share in Y2000 based on distributor unit 

sales. (Appliance Magazine, May 2001) 

$ Impact of Electronic 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 of 5-Watt standby. Used 25-inch and 27-inch TVs for savings estimates. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 35 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 36 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of standby 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). Off mode 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/off switch. 

$ 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 of the TV 

in the standby mode - turned off with 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 of the 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 of date and in need of revision. 

Neither the original nor the revised Energy Star test procedures effectively model the majority 

of TV energy consumption or potential energy savings. The Energy Star test procedure 

measures only standby power, while active power dominates (89%) TV energy consumption. 

Consequently, the test procedures will not account for potential energy savings from 

approaches that decrease the active power draw of TVs (such as LCD). 

1) If updated, 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 37 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of September, 200 I, that satisfy the Phase I 

requirements. 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-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) of 4-Watt standby. Baseline consumption extrapolated for year 2000 

from Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 38 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of June 19, 2001; the Energy Star program 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 of the 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 Star program would have a 

low correlation with VCR energy consumption; standby mode accounts for~35% of VCR 

energy consumption. 

The degree of correlation between stand-by power and VCR peak power impact depends upon 

the (unknown) distribution of VCR operational mode during peak power demand periods and 

cannot be readily determined. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 39 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Copy Machines 

% ~ "' "' ~y "' '" ~ " ;< ~ 

Factors for Consideration Assessment ' ' ~ ,,'• :;"'~ 

Commercial Residential 

Potential Energy Savings from $ Copier of the future, 100% Power management= 

Regulatory Action; O. J 2

6 

$ Copier of the 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),- - - - - --f Copf;:; 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 of keeping 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. 

-- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -f 90% ~f C;;py ;.;~;hTn~ ;t~ck v2ooo is-E~~rgy St;r -1-52o/: &i;rgy &; Ma;k~t-P~~tn;ti7i; tn:g;t f;r - - -

Evidence of Market-Driven or Compliant Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements $ 34% of Copiers in stock are Power management 

enabled 

$ 52.3% of the 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% of Copiers 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 of the 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 of machines. 

$ 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, I 00% power management-enabled. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 40 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Background Material 

Comm Res id 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) 

I 00% Power management enabled 

(ADL, 2002) 

Copier of the 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 of the future requirements , 

(ADL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001; 

Nordman et al., 1998) 

I 00% Power management enabled 

(ADL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) 

Conversion to Inkjet processes (ADL, 

2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 41 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of time specified (based on copier speed) for the copier to switch into Off mode. 

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 of 0.1 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 of device 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 of the 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 of the potential gains. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 42 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

- - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - ---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 of the 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 of the Future criteria would decrease 

peak loads somewhat by decreasing the 

"standby" power draw and the amount of time 

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 of Energy 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Desktop Computers28 

:G "" ~ '" 

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

Commercial Residential 

Potential Energy Savings from $ 50% Power Management Enabled = .8929 $ I 00% Power management enabled, Pentium III = 

0.0829 

Regulatory Action; $ 100% Power management enabled, Pentium Ill= 

$ 1 Watt 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= 3.8 29 

• Low-Power Design = 3.629 

$ Laptop Computer= 0.35 29 

$ Low-Power Design = 0.4829 

ir~clu~t-17r~c-h;;,;g), - - - - - -y o;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 of the 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 of Test 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 of Market-Dnven or Energy·Star Compliant (Webber et al., 2000) management enabled (Nordman et al., 2000) Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements $ 25% of Desktops in stock are Power management 

enabled (Nordman et al., 2000) 

$ 85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 

$ 17% of the Personal Computer (i.e., desktop + 

laptop) stock are computers of laptop design 

$ Federal government must purchase E*-compliant 

computers 

• Executive order mandates that the Federal 

Government purchase of devices 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% of the personal computer stock (i.e., desktop 

+laptop) in Y2000 is of Laptop design 

$ Current best market performer: SCENIC L.i8 l 5, 

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 of power-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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page44 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 I 00% 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 

Residential 

Kawamoto et al., 200 I 

ADL, 2002 

ADL, 2002 

ADL, 2002 

Pentium II, 25% power enabled 

(Kawamoto et al., 2001; ADL, 2002) 

Pentium III, 25% power enabled 

(Kawamoto et al., 200 l; ADL, 2002; Intel 

'2001) 

Laptop Technology (Kawamoto et al., 

2001; ADL, 2002) 

I 00% 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 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 II Models (manufactured after July 1, 2000) - only considering guideline A 

$ 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 of inactivity, 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 Star Test 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% or more of the 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%) of actual computers, the "active" mode 

energy consumption dominates the UEC. If the 

Power management enabled rate increases 

appreciably (to 100%), the sleep mode energy 

consumption would account for a majority of the 

UEC and strengthen the correlation between the 

Energy Star test procedure and UEC. 

The Energy Star test procedure is not capturing the 

majority of energy savings because of the 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 I 00% 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 of desktop 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 of the day, 

procedure directly addresses, would reduce the PC's and monitors draw minimal power, in modes 

aggregate peak demand of desktop PCs by not measured under the test procedure. 

increasing the number of PCs that power down 

during peak demand periods 

$ A PC of laptop 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page46 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 1 Watt Sleep (Current Power management 

30 enabled rate)= 0.24 

Residential 

$ Inkjet l Watt Sleep= 0.075

u 

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 of Test Procedures Energy Star test procedure document. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _._$_ 9s%-En~rgy St;r-Ma~ket Pe;etr;tio~ T;rget fo; YlOOO (Webbe; ~t ~I~ 2000)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

$ 38% of Faxes sold in Y2000 are of Inkjet 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 (F AX5000L, a laser jet); 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 of devices 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 of faxes 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page47 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 48 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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, and mailing machine MOU, version 3.0 

$ Power measurement of devices in the sleep mode. 

$ Test conditions: 

$ Power source must be 115 V AC 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. 

Testing procedures and metrics accurately capture the essence of energy consumption and savings tactics for 

this device, because standby energy consumption represents the vast majority of the UEC. 

Because facsimile machines operate in active mode infrequently, the standby power draw measured by the 

test procedure correlates closely to the peak impact (and reduction potential) of facsimile machines. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 49 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Laser Printers 

Ye S G 

Factors for Consideration Assessment 

Commercial Residential 

Potential Energy Savings from $ Copier of the 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;-;;f the-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 of the sleep-mode for higher-speed laser printers (e.g., Large Office band) may 

Price/Cost information): be difficult. However, commercially-available laser printers that fulfill the Copier of the 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 of Test 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 of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

$ 54% of Lasers in stock are Power management enabled 

$ 99% of Printer 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 of devices with <l W/sleep power draw 

where available and cost-effective (7 /31 /0 I) 

I;s-;.;s- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -!f En-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 of the 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 of inkjet 

$ Change to inkjet technology might not be performance equality is necessary. 

consumer acceptable due to beliefs of laser 

technology superiority. 

31 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100% Power management 

enabled. 

32 Copier of the Future technology scenario is defined as requirement of printers to meet the Target 1 copier 

requirements. It specifies a maximum of 10 Watts in sleep mode. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 50 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Background Material 

T_o~a~ ~n:r~ ~~e jq_u~<!; ~0_02) __ _ 

~n2i:_a~ ~hiP.!11~!!.t~ (Til~<:_n~, 4.4 _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 of all Equipment, 54% Power 

management enabled Rate (AOL, 2002) 

I 00% Power management enabled Rate 

(AOL, 2002) 

I 00% Power management enabled Rate, 

(AOL,2002) 

I 00% Power management enabled Rate 

(AOL, 2002) 

Conversion to Inkjet Technology (AOL, 

2002) 

Copier of the Future Requirements, Current 

power management enabled rate, (Nordman 

et al., 1998; AOL, 2001) 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets 

Residential 

Kawamoto et al., 200 I 

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

~r:L_(3Q.03) _____ --- ___ ----- __ 

~l?_L_ (3~03)_ ______ --- _______ _ 

~r:L_ (3~03) _________________ _ 

AOL, 2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001 

I 00% Power management enabled (AOL, 

2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) 

Conversion to inkjet printer (AOL, 2002; 

Kawamoto et al., 200 I) 

I 00% Power management enabled (AOL, 

2002; Kawamoto et al., 2001) 

Conversion to inkjet printer (AOL, 2002; 

Kawamoto et al., 200 I) 

Page 51 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with Test 

Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

From the Printer, Fax, Printer/Fax, and mailing machine MOU, version 3.0 

$ Power measurement of devices in the sleep mode. 

$ Test conditions: 

$ Power source must be 115 V AC 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 of the 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 of energy 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 of laser printers, as laser because residential laser printers are estimated to 

printers operate in "active" and "standby" modes spend >95% of their time in the Off mode. 

during much of the peak period portion of the 

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 of time 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 52 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of power management schemes is possible (Gubler & Peters; RLX) 

$ RLX Technologies and Amphus products are examples of energy 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 of Desktop computers and server usage from Gubler & Peters (2000). 35 RLX Technologies uses a transmetta chip and a PM scheme. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 53 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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""al Notabk UEC (kWhfy~;r) - - - - - - "" - - - 869-- -- C~;e~t-d~sig;-wlth P;;e; M;n7ige~~rrt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 54 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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~ 

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 test procedure exists. 

None are available. 

Not applicable. 

Not applicable. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 55 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Monitors36 

/ ~ ' ~ 

Factors for Consideration 'A.ssessment · " 

Commercial Residential 

$ 100% Power management enabled, 17-inch CRT= $ Potential Energy Savings from 2.

5

37 $ 

Regulatory Action; Cumulative 

100% Power management enabled = 0.1 ·'" 

1 Watt sleep, Current Power management enabled 

(Quads) 2008-2030 $ 1 Watt 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 - - - - - -T LCD::- ~~~~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 l 7-inch CRT 

due to the LCD's more efficient use of screen space for viewing and higher display resolution.) 

$ Organic LED technology is under development but not commercially available in monitors. 

• As of 1 January, 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 of Test Procedures 

-- - - -- - -- - - -- --- - -'""f 95%-En-;;;gy St;r-Ma-;.ket Pe~etr;tTo; ta;g-;;tf~r- - - -f S9o/; ;r"-;;1~~ito;s in-sto~k ;;r; Po~-;;; ;;a-;;;;g~~;nt -

Evidence of Market-Driven or y 2000 (Webber et al.) enabled (ADL, 2002) 

Voluntary Efficiency $ 60% of monitors in stock are Power management $ 95% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Improvements enabled (Nordman et al., 2000) Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 

$ 3% of monitors sold in Y2000 were LCD (ADL, $ 3% of residential monitors sold in Y2000 were 

2002) LCD (ADL, 2002) 

$ Executive order mandates that the Federal 

Government purchase of devices 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 of energy 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 of power- 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 of 8 Watts. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 56 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Background Material 

/ 

Description Value Comments/Source ': "w" 

= , "' 'I' 00 ~B:' ~ "h -m v:l'srfl#iA 

Comm Res id 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, power management enabled rate 

2002) (Kawamoto et al., 2001; AOL, 2002) 

17-inch CRT, I 00% 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, 200 I; Kawamoto et al., 200 I) 

-------------------------- ----- ---------------------- ---------------------- Other Notable UEC (kWh/year) 17 11 OLEO at I 00% Power management 

enabled rate (ADL, 2002) 

OLEO at I 00% 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 

Power management enabled rate (AOL, Current power management enabled rate 

2002) (Kawamoto et al., 2001; AOL, 2002) 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 57 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 II models - (test standard for equipment shipped after July I, 2000) 

$ Monitor into 1st sleep mode within 30 min of inactivity, deep sleep after 60 min - controlled by computer 

$ Testing procedure is the same for that of the computer except power is measured at the two mentioned 

stages instead of only 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 of inactivity. 

$ Detailed Energy Star Test Conditions (from the Computer MOU Version 3.0, EPA - Attachment C) 

$ Power source must be 115 V AC 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% or more of the 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 of the 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 l 00%, the sleep mode energy consumption becomes more significant but the active energy 

use still accounts for a majority of energy 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 of monitors to power down 

during peak periods, 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 58 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

Manufacturers of motors of> 1 HP have been regulated for energy efficiency (EP ACT). 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~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

$ Motor Test Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines - Methods for Determining Losses and 

Efficiency of Rotating 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 of this 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~ ioo I) -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

--------------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Current UEC (kWh/year) 725 (ADL, 1998) 

Typi~al N;; ui3c (kwh!'Y~a~)- - - - - - -- - _,__ - --12s ___ - - (ADL~ t99S)-- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - --- - -- - --- - -- - --

ie;tA~;ii7tb"1; uE:c ck.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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 59 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 ofWaterpik Technologies/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 of one water change every 8 hours is met. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 60 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Well Pumps 

, , Factors for Consideration , A.sscssment , , « , , " , ,,' '*• 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of motors > 1 HP have been regulated for energy efficiency (EPA CT). It is 

unknown if pump 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~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

$Motor Test Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines - Methods for Determining Losses and 

Efficiency of Rotating 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 of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 61 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of time each day (19 minutes/household-day). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 62 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of Commercial Building Appliances" (AOL, 1993) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2,250 elec 

6,500 gas Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) FE&S (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~-------------------------------------------

stock Efficiency "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (AOL, 1993) 

40- 60% elec 

--------~---------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical New Efficiency 30% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial 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 of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 63 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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/Cost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of Commercial 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 of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------

Typical New Efficiency 50 - 60% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial 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 of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 64 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of Commercial 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 of Commercial 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 of Commercial Building 

65% elec Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

En;rgy St;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 of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 65 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

--------------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 282 "Characterization of Commercial 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 of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

-----------------------------45o/;g~--------------------------------------------

Typical New Efficiency ADL Estimate (2001) 

65% elec 

Be;t A ~;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 I 45% 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 of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 66 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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 of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of Commercial 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 of Commercial 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 of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 67 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

Standards Consideration 

Product: Steamers 

0 "" / ::: dv0 "~""~"' 

Factors for Consideration Assessment ', 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory O. l 144 

Action; Cumulative (Quad) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability (Including 

Price/Cost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-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 of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

--------------------------~---------- ----------------------------------------- Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 9,800 FE&S (1997) 

Installed --------------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Base (million, 1995) O. l 7 NAFEM (ADL, l 995) 

P~;d~ct Lifeti~~ (y~~0- -- - - -- - - -- - - ~- --10: 15-- -- A.0L,E:~~7tt~(2001)- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - --

Minimum --------------------------~--------------------------------------------------- Efficiency Standard NI A 

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

Stock Efficiency 

40- 60% gas "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, l 993) 60- 70% elec 

Typical ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Efficiency 

--------------------------~---------------------------------------------------

Best Available Efficiency 70% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial 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 of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 68 
EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.6

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% 

of all site cooking energy consumption (AOL, 1993). 

Department of Energy Draft FY2005 Prioritization Sheets Page 69