AlVIERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY

\Vashmgton. D.C. Berkeley, California

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

CONSENSUS NATIONAL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS 

FOR LAMPS, KOTORS, SHOWERKEADS, 

AND COMMERCIAL HVAC EQUIPMENT 

Howar d S. Ge ller 

Steven M. Nade l 

Marc h 1992 

A;'v!ERICAN COC:-';CIL FOR A~ E:"iERGY-EFFlCIENT ECONO!V!Y 

WashingtOn. D.C. Berkeley. Cal ifornia 
paper prepared for the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, August, 1992.

consensus National Efficiency standards for Lamps,

Sbowerheads, and Commercial HVAC Equipment

Boward S. Geller and Steven M. Nadel

American council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

B:l. SYNOPSIS

Motors,

This paper describes and estimates the energy savings that will

result from new national efficiency standards on lamps, motors,

showerheads, and commercial HVAC equipment. The standards are

moving through Congress and are likely to be adopted in 1992. The

paper also addresses the implications of the standards for states

and utilities.

H: 2. ABSTRACT

As of early 1992, the U.S. Congress was in the process of adopting

new national efficiency standards on lamps, motors, showerheads,

and commercial HVAC equipment. The "consensus standards" have the

support of energy efficiency advocates as well as equipment

manufacturers. For most product categories, the legislation

contains initial standards that will eliminate the production of

less efficient products once the standards take effect. The

standards are presented in detail and analyzed in terms of expected

energy savings.

These standards should contribute more energy savings than any

other provision in the comprehensive energy legislation moving

through Congress. It is estimated that the standards will reduce

projected national electricity demand by 1.5% and 2.1% in 2000 and

2010, respectively. Primary energy savings should reach about 0.7

Quadsjyr by 2000 and 1.2 Quads/yr by 2010, with 11.8 Quads of

primary energy saved cumulatively during 1993-2010.

states and utilities should take a number of actions if the

standards are enacted. Since the new federal standards will

preempt state standards, states should focus on adopting their own

standards on faucets, large air conditioning equipment, and other

products left out of the national legislation. utilities and

regulators should take account of the standards as they forecast

electricity demand and conduct integrated resource planning. Also,

utilities should adjust their DSM programs once the standards take

effect (if not sooner) so that they are not promoting products that

are required by the standards. Utilities should take advantage of

the testing and labeling requirements for luminaires and office

equipment, and consider participating in "golden carrot" programs

for the types of products covered by the bill.

H:3. INTRODUCTION AND STATUS

National minimum efficiency standards were adopted in 1987 for

refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, water heaters, furnaces,

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

'. aper prepared for t h e ACEEE Summer Study on Energv Err ' . • _ .:. l.cl.ency i n Buildings, Pacifi c Grove, CA, August, 1992 . 

consensus National Efficiency 

Sbowerheads, and Commercial BVAC 

standards 

Equipment 

for 

aoward S. Geller and Steven M. Nadel ~erican council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

":1. SYNOPSIS 

La.m.ps, Motors, 

rhis paper describes and estimates the energy savings that will 

..-esult from new natIonal efficiency standards on lamps, motors, 

;nowerheads I and commercial HVAC equipment. The standards a re 

moving through Congress and are likely to be adopted in 1992. The 

paper also addresses the implications of the standards for states 

and utilities. 

H: 2. ABSTRACT 

AS of early 1992, the U.S. Congress was in the process of adopting 

new national efficiency standards on lamps, motors, showerheads, 

and conunercial HVAC equipment. The "consensus standards" have the 

support of energy efficiency advocates as well as equipment 

manufacturers. For most product categories, the legislation 

contains initial standards that will eliminate the production of 

less efficient products once the standards take effect. The 

standards are presented in detail and analyzed in terms of expected 

energy savings. 

These standards should contribute more energy savings than any 

other provision in the comprehensive energy legislation moving 

through congress. It is estimated that the standards will reduce 

projected national electricity demand by 1.5% and 2.1% in 2000 and 

2010, respectively. Primary energy savings should reach about 0.7 

Quads/yr by 2000 and 1.2 Quads/yr by 20 1 0 , with 11.8 Quads of 

primary energy saved cumulatively during 1993-2010. 

states and utilities should take a number of actions if the 

standards are enacted. Since the new federal standards will 

preempt state standards, states should focus on adopting their own 

standards on faucets, large air conditioning equipment, and other 

products left out of the national legislation. utilities and 

regulators should take account of the standards as they forecast 

electricity demand and c onduct integrated resource planning. Also, 

utilities should adjust their DSM programs once the standards take 

effect (if not sooner) so that they are not promoting products that 

are required by the standards. Utilities should take advantage of 

the testing and labeling requirements for luminaires and office 

equipment, and consider participating in "golden carrot" programs 

for the types of products covered by the bill. 

H:3. INTRODUCTION AND STATUS 

National minimum efficiency standards were adopted in 1987 for 

refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, water heaters, furnaces, 
and other appliances. Also, national efficiency standards were

adopted in 1988 for fluorescent lighting ballasts. The standards,

which apply at the point of manufacture or import, remove

inefficient products from the market thereby assuring that all

consumers purchase products of moderate or high efficiency.

standards are typically set so that the vast majority of equipment

purchasers save money on a life-cycle basis.

The national appliance and ballast standards followed the

successful implementation of standards by California and other

states. Existing national standards on electrical products are

expected to save approximately 72 billion kWh/yr and cut peak power

demand by 28,000 MW by 2000 according to one estimate (Geller 1987;

Geller and Miller 1988). Overall, federal standards adopted as of

mid-1990 are projected to save 21 Quads of primary energy during

the 1990-2015 period, yielding $34-44 billion in net economic

savings for consumers (McMahon et. ale 1990). Additional energy

and economic savings will result from revised standards which the

U.S. Department of Energy is required to issue if it determines

that more stringent standards are technologically feasible and

economically justified.

It is reasonable to extend minimum efficiency standards to lamps,

motors, showerheads, and commercial heating, ventilating, and air

conditioning (HVAC) equipment. For these products, both standard

and improved efficiency products are widely available; higher

efficiency products are cost effective to end-users as a whole; and

many consumers and businesses are now purchasing less-efficient

products due to a wide range of market barriers. For example, only

about 20% of motors and only about 20-40% of fluorescent lamps sold

in the United States as of 1988 were high efficiency or energysaving types (Nadel and Geller 1991).

National efficiency standards for these products were first

proposed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in

1990. These standards were incorporated into legislation (H.R.

2451 -- the Energy Efficiency Standards Act of 1991 -- sponsored by

Representative Markey and others). In spite of opposition from

equipment manUfacturers, the proposed standards were accepted to a

large extent by the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House of

Representatives when it adopted comprehensive energy legislation in

mid-1991.

This action pursuaded equipment manufacturers to negotiate

compromise standards with ACEEE. The negotiations centered around

the details of initial standards, inclUding the efficiency levels,

effective dates, and list of excluded prOducts, as well as the

process for revising standards and issuing initial standards on

certain types of products. Agreements were eventually reached with

all relevant industry associations. with support from

manufacturers as well as conservation advocates, these consensus

standards were then incorporated into energy legislation as it

moved through both the House of Representatives and Senate. The

legislation is expected to be enacted into law sometime in 1992.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

and other appliances. Also, national efficiency standards were 

adopted in 1988 for fluorescent lighting ballasts. The standards, 

which apply at the point o f manufacture or import, remove 

inefficient products from the market thereby assuring that all 

consumers purchase pr~ducts of moderate or high efficiency. 

standards are typica lly set so that the vast majority of equipment 

purchasers save money on a life-cycle basis. 

The national appliance and ballast standards followed the 

successful implementation of s tandards by california and other 

states. Existing nationa l standards on electrical products are 

expected to save approximately 72 billion kWh/yr and cut peak power 

demand by 28,000 MW by 2000 according to one estimate (G eller 198 7 ; 

Geller and Miller 1988 ) . overall, federal standards adopted as of 

mid-1990 are projected to save 21 Quads of primary energy during 

the 1990-2015 period, yielding $34-44 billion in net economic 

savings for consumers (McMahon et. al. 1990) . Additional energy 

and economic savings will result from revised standards which the 

U.S. Department of Energy is required to issue if it determines 

that more stringent standards are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

It is reasonable to extend minimum efficiency standards to lamps, 

motors, showerheads, and commercial heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) equipment. For these products, both standard 

and improved efficiency products are widely available; higher 

efficiency products are cost effective to end-Users as a whole; and 

many consumers and businesses are now purchasing less-efficient 

products due to a wide range of market barriers. For example, only 

about 20% of motors and only about 20-40% of fluorescent lamps sold 

in the United States as of 1988 were high efficiency or energysaving types (Nadel and Geller 1991). 

National efficiency standards for these products were first 

proposed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in 

1990. These standards were incorporated into legislation (H. R. 

2451 -- the Energy Efficiency Standards Act of 1991 -- sponsored by 

Representative Markey and others). In spite of opposition from 

equipment manufacturers, the proposed standards were accepted to a 

large extent by the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House of 

Representatives when it adopted comprehensive energy legislation in 

mid-1991. 

This action pursuaded equipment manufacturers to negotiate 

compromise standards with ACEEE. The negotiations centered around 

the details of initial standards, including the efficiency levels, 

effective dates, and list of excluded products, as well as the 

process for revising standards and issuing initial standards on 

certain types of products. Agreements were eventually reached with 

all relevant industry associations. with support from 

manufacturers as well as conservation advocates, these consensus 

standards were then incorporated into energy legislation as it 

moved through both the House of Representatives and Senate. The 

legislation is expected to be enacted into law sometime in 1992. 
H:4. DESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS

The different standards established in the pending legislation are

summarized in Table 1. More detailed information on the standards

are described in the sections below.

H: 4.1. Lamps

The proposed lamp standards are based on standards developed for

Massachusetts. These standards were carefully developed and

analyzed (Nadel et. al. 1989), but were never issued due to

political events in that st:ate. The proposal includes initial

standards on four-foot and eight-foot fluorescent: lamps and

incandescent reflector lamps (see Table 2). Reflector lamps are

commonly refered to as flood and spot lights. The standards are

performance-based and are expressed in terms of minimum lumens of

light output per watt of energy use (lumens per watt LPW) .

While it difficult to summarize the proposed regulations in a few

sentences, the approximate impact is as follows:

Fluorescent lamps. Generally all reduced-wattage lamps (e.g.,

34 watt four-foot lamps) as well as tri-phosphor, cathode

cutout, and reduced diameter (i.e., T-S) lamps will comply.

Incandescent reflector lamps. Generally all tungsten halogen

lamps as well as elliptical reflector lamps will comply.

complying lamps have LPW values that are generally 2-20% higher

than the standard lamps that will be eliminated when the standards

take effect (Nadel and Geller 1991). In addition, many special

purpose lamps, which are in limited use or for which there are

presently no energy-saving substitutes, are exempted from the

initial standards.

The initial standards will

warranted, revised by DOE.

complete this review process

the legislation; revisions to

later.

be periodically reviewed and, if

Under the legislation, DOE must

five years and ten after passage of

the standards take effect three years

Initial standards are not included in the legislation for ordinary

incandescent lamps (known as general service incandescent lamps).

In this category, manufacturers do produce some energy-saving and

halogen lamps that have higher LPW levels than standard lamps.

Standards are possible, but the legislation calls for energy

efficiency labeling to promote both improved incandescent lamps and

compact fluorescent lamps. DOE is required to assess the

effectiveness of this labeling program and then consider issuing

standards on general service incandescent lamps. DOE must complete

this rulemaking within five and a half years from the date of

enactment of the legislation.

The legislation also requires DOE to consider adopting standards on

high intensity discharge lamps within three years of enactment of

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

H:4. DESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS 

The different standards established in the pending legislation are 

summarized in Table 1. ~ore detailed information on the standards 

are described in the sections below. 

H:4.1. Lamps 

The proposed lamp standards are ba sed on standards developed for 

Massachusetts. These standards were carefully developed and 

analyzed (Nadel at. a1. 1969 ) I but were never issued due to 

political events in that state. The proposal includes initial 

standards on four-foot and eight-foot fluorescent lamps and 

incandescent reflector lamps (see Table 2). Reflector lamps are 

commonly refered to as flood and spot lights. The standards are 

performance-based and are expressed in terms of minimum lumens of 

light output per watt of energy use ( lumens per watt LPW) . 

While it difficult to summarize the proposed regulations in a few 

sentences, the approximate impact is as follows: 

Fluorescent lamps . Generally all reduced-wattage lamps (e .g., 

34 watt four-foot lamps) as well as tri-phosphor, cathode 

cutout, and reduced diameter (i.e., T-8) lamps will comply. 

Incandescent reflector lamps. Generally all tungsten halogen 

lamps as well as elliptical reflector lamps will comply. 

Complying lamps have LPW values that are generally 2-20% higher 

than the standard lamps that will be eliminated when the standards 

take effect (Nadel and Geller 1991 ) . In addition, many special 

purpose lamps, which are in limited use or for which there are 

presently no energy-saving substitutes, are exempted from the 

initial standards. 

The initial standards will 

warranted, revised by DOE. 

complete this review process 

the legislation; revisions to 

later. 

be periodically reviewed and, if 

Under the legislation, DOE must 

five years and ten after passage of 

the standards take effect three years 

Initial standards are not included in the legislation for ordinary 

incandescent lamps (known as general service incandescent lamps). 

In this category, manufacturers do produce some energy-saving and 

halogen lamps that have higher LPW levels than standard lamps. 

Standards are possible, but the legislation calls for energy 

efficiency labeling to promote both improved incandescent lamps and 

compact fluorescent lamps . DOE is required to assess the 

effectiveness of this labeling program and then consider issuing 

standards on general service incandescent lamps. DOE must complete 

this rulemaking within five and a half years from the date of 

enactment of the legislation. 

The legislation also requires DOE to consider adopting standards on 

high intensity discharge lamps within three years of enactment of 
the legislation., High inte~sity discharge lam~s include mercury

vapor, metal hallde, and sodlum vapor lamps. Thls rUlemaking could

prohibit further production of less efficient, mercury vapor lamps.

In conducting these rulemakings, DOE is instructed to use the

criteria in the original appliance standards legislation.

H:4.2. Motors

The proposed motor standards require the production of so-called

energy-efficient motors for major types of motors in the range of

1-200 horsepower. The standards are based on accepted minimum

efficiency values developed within the motor industry. The energyefficient motors that wi 11 be required when the standards take

effect are typically 2-10% more efficient than ordinary motors

(Nadel et. al., 1991). Manufacturers will have five to seven years

from date of enactment before the standards take effect. The long

phase-in was requested by manufacturers who argued that thousands

of motors will be effected and that testing and certification of

new designs takes many years.

As with lamps, under the legislation DOE is required to complete

reviews of the initial standards and opportunities for stronger

standards five and ten years after passage of the legislation. New

standards promulgated through this procedure take effect five to

seven years after the final regUlations are published.

The legislation also requires DOE to consider adopting efficiency

standards on motors under 1 horsepower in size and to complete this

rulemaking within four years from enactment of the legislation. If

DOE issues standards on small motors, manufacturers will have five

to seven years before the requirements take effect.

For both of these proceedings, DOE is instructed to use the

criteria in the original appliance standards legislation.

H:4.3. Showerheads

Numerou~ states have adopted maximum flow limits on showerheads and

faucets (Ranton 1991). Reducing water flow means that less energy

is consumed for water heating in addition to less water

consumption. The proposed legislation contains a showerhead flow

standard of 2.5 gallons per minute (GPM) measured at a water

pressure of 80 psi. This is the most restrictive requirement that

any state has enacted and put into effect. A large number of

showerheads now meet this standard and consumer acceptance is very

high (BPA 1990; Nadel and Geller 1991). The national standard is

intended to take effect at the time of enactment or shortly

thereafter.

Under the legislation, DOE cannot revise the standards on its own

initiative. Instead, the initiative for developing new standards

rests with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).

Once ASME completes its work, DOE is instructed to adopt the ASME,

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

the legislation., High inte~sity discharge lamps include mercury 

vapor, metal ha11de, and sod1um vapor lamps. Th1S rulemaking could 

prohibit further production of less efficient, mercury vapor lamps. 

In conducting these rul emakings, 

criteria in the original appliance 

H:4.2. Mo t;)rs 

DOE is instructed to 

standards legislation . 

use the 

The proposed motor standard s require the production of so-ca lled 

energy-efficient mote rs for ma jo ~ types of motors in the range of 

1-200 horsepower. The standar:::'s are based on accepted minimum 

ef f iciency values deve loped wi thin the motor industry . The energyefficient motors that wi ll be required when the standards take 

effect are typically 2- 10% more efficient than ordinary motors 

(Nadel et. al., 1991). Manufacturers will have five to seven years 

from date of enactment before the standards take effect . The long 

phase-in was requested by manufacturers who argued that thousands 

of motors will be effected and that testing and certification of 

new designs takes many years. 

As with lamps, under the legislation DOE is required to complete 

reviews of the initial standards and opportunities for stronger 

standards five and ten years after passage of the legislation. New 

standards promulgated through this procedure take effect five to 

seven years after the final regulations are published. 

The legislation also requires DOE to consider adopting efficiency 

standards on motors under 1 horsepower in size and to complete this 

rulemaking within four years from enactment of the legislation. If 

DOE issues standards on small motors, manufacturers wi l l have five 

to seven years before the requirements take effect. 

For both of these proceedings, DOE is instructed to use the 

criteria in the original appliance standards legislation . 

H:4.3. Showerheads 

Numerou~ states have adopted maximum flow limits on showerheads and 

faucets (Ranton 1991). Reducing water flow means that less energy 

is consumed for water heating in addition to less water 

consumption. The proposed legislation contains a showerhead flow 

standard of 2.5 gallons per minute (GPM) measured at a water 

pressure of 80 psi. This is the most restrictive requirement that 

any state has enacted and put into effect . A large number of 

showerheads now meet this standard and consumer acceptance is very 

high (BPA 1990; Nadel and Geller 1991) . The national standard is 

intended to take effect at the time of enactment or shortly 

thereafter. 

Under the legislation, DOE cannot revise the standards on its own 

initiative . Instead, the initiative for developing new standards 

rests with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 

Once ASME completes its work, DOE is instructed to adopt the ASME, 
provided the ASME standard is consistent with the purposes of the

law. Energy and water efficiency advocates believe that this

process puts too much control in the hands of ASME, and hence

amendments to give a greater role to DOE are likely.

The proposed national legislation does not include faucet standards

in spite of conservation advocates recommending their inclusion.

Manufacturers of plumbing fixtures have accepted national standards

on showerheads but not faucets and the Congress has supported their

oosition so far. Water -3.nd er:.ergy conservation proponents TNill

continue to advocate in21udi~g faucets in the final legislation.

H:4.4. Commercial HVAC equipment

Existing appliance standards cover heating and cooling equipment

used in housing and small commercial buildings. The proposed

legislation extends standards to larger air conditioning systems,

heat pumps, furnaces, boilers, and water heaters. The initial

minimum efficiency requirements are derived from ASHRAE standard

90.1, the most recent model commercial building standard issued by

ASHRAE (ASHRAE 1990). In the proposed legislation, the current

minimum efficiency requirements for HVAC equipment in ASHRAE 90.1

become national standards on January 1, 1994 for most types of

products. In a few product categories, national standards do not

take effect until January 1, 1995.

Revisions to the initial standards are the joint responsibility of

ASHRAE and DOE. If ASHRAE revises its model standard, DOE is

required to issue new national standards that are at least as

stringent as the new ASHRAE numbers for HVAC equipment. DOE can go

beyond ASHRAE if this is technologically feasible, economically

justified, and would result in significant additional energy

savings). The new national standards do not take effect until two

to three years after the effective date in the amended ASHRAE model

standard (or four years if DOE adopts a standard that is stronger

than ASHRAE' s) .

Very large air conditioning systems (known as chillers) and unitary

systems greater than 20 tons in cooling capacity are excluded from

the national standards. Even though these products are included in

the ASHRAE model standard and consequently in some state building

codes, manufacturers argued that large air conditioning systems are

custom-designed and site-assembled rather than mass-produced,

making them inappropriate for national standards that apply to

manufacturers or importers. While cooling equipment of 75 tons or

more fits into this category, the distinction is questionable for

equipment that is 20-70 tons in capacity.

H:4.5. Other equipment

The proposed legislation requires DOE to consider issuing minimum

efficiency standards on utility distribution transformers.

Distribution transformers consume about 2% of electricity generated

in the United states through core losses. High efficiency

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

provided the ASME standard is consistent with the purposes of the 

law. Energy and water efficiency advocates believe that this 

process puts too much control in the hands of ASME, and hence 

amendments to give a greater ro l e to DOE are likely. 

The proposed national l egislation does not include faucet standards 

in spite of conservatio n advocates recommending their inclu sion . 

Manufacturers of p lumbing fixtures have accepted national standards 

on showerhe3ds but not fa uce t3 and the Congress has supported the i r 

oosi tion so far. Wa't.er -'lr.d er;e!"gy conser·.ration proponents will 

continue to advocate l ..... .; !. ud i ng faucets in the final legislatio n. 

H:4.4 . Commercial HVAC e qu ipment 

Existing appliance standards c ever heating and cooling equipment 

used in housing and small commercial bui Idings . The proposed 

legislation extends standards to larger air conditioning systems, 

heat pumps, furnaces, boilers, and water heaters. The initial 

minimum efficiency requirements are derived from ASHRAE standard 

90 . 1, the most recent model c ommercial building standard issued by 

ASHRAE (ASHRAE 1990). In the proposed legislation, the current 

minimum efficiency requirements for HVAC equipment in ASHRAE 90.1 

become national standards on January 1, 1994 for most types of 

products. In a few product categories, national standards do not 

take effect until January 1, 1995 . 

Revisions to the initial standards are the joint responsibility of 

ASHRAE and DOE. If ASHRAE revises its model standard, DOE is 

required to issue new national standards that are at least as 

stringent as the new ASHRAE numbers for HVAC equipment. DOE can go 

beyond ASHRAE if this is technologically feasible, economically 

justified , and would result in significant additional energy 

savings). The new national standards do not take effect until two 

to three years after the effective date in the amended ASHRAE model 

standard (or four years if DOE adopts a standard that is stronger 

than ASHRAE' s) . 

Very large air conditioning systems (known as chillers) and unitary 

systems greater than 20 tons in cooling capacity are excluded from 

the national standards. Even though these products are included in 

the ASHRAE model standard and consequently in some state building 

codes, manufacturers argued that large air conditioning systems are 

custom-designed and site-assembled rather than mass-produced , 

making them inappropriate for national standards that apply to 

manufacturers or importers. While cooling equipment of 75 tons or 

more fits into this category, the distinction is questionable for 

equipment that is 20-70 tons in capacity. 

H:4.5 . Other equipment 

The proposed legislation requires DOE to consider issuing minimum 

efficiency standards on utility distribution transformers. 

Distribution transformers consume about 2% of electricity generated 

in the United States through core losses. High efficiency 
transformers can,reduce these losses by 65-80% (Knight 1990). The

legislation requ~res DOE to issue transformer efficiency standards

if feasible within three years from date of enactment.

The proposed legislation also requires the development of uniform

test procedures and labeling programs in two product areas:

luminaires (i.e., fluorescent light fixtures) and office equipment

(1. e., personal computers, printers, copiers, etc.). In both

areas, standardized efficiency testing and rating is not yet

occuring. Instituting testing and labeling will enable consumers

to identify more efficient products, allow utilities to promote

efficient equipment through rebate programs and other means, and

should stimulate manufacturers to improve energy performance. The

legislation allows two to three years for establishing the test

procedures and labeling programs.

H:5. ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS

H:5.1. Methodology

We have made a preliminary estimate of the approximate energy

savings that will result from the new standards. The analysis is

based on a relatively simple spreadsheet model that requires:

1) projections of the annual sales of each relevant product;

2) estimates of the fraction of new sales covered by the standards

once they take effect;

3) estimates of the fraction of covered products that are

influenced by the standards (i.e., accounting for products that

will be energy efficient even if the standards are not adopted);

4) estimates of the average energy and peak power savings per

product influenced by the standards;

5) assumptions about standards that are issued via DOE rUlemaking.

Regarding the fifth item, we only assume that DOE issues initial

standards according by the indicated deadlines for products where

initial standards are not specified in the legislation. We do not

include or make any assumptions about revised standards that may be

promulgated. In this respect, our analysis is conservative since

it applies to 1993-2010, a time period during which revised

standards are likely.

H:5.1. Results

Table 2 summarizes the energy savings estimates. For the

electrical products, savings of nearly 50 billion kWh/yr are

projected by 2000, increasing to nearly 85 billion kWh/yr by 2010.

These values represent 1.5% and 2.1% of projected national

electricity consumption in 2000 and 2010, respectively (EIA 1992) .

The reduction in peak power demand reaches 20,000 MW by 2000 and

nearly 32,000 MW by 2010. It should be noted, however, that these

estimates are non-coincident among products as well as with overall

peak electrical loads experienced by utilities. Among the covered

products, fluorescent lamps contribute the most savings.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

tran5for~ers can. reduce thes~ losses by 65-80% (Knight 1990). The 

legislat~on requ~res DOE to ~ssue transformer efficiency standards 

if feasible within three years from date of enactment. 

The proposed legislation also requires the developwent of uniform 

test procedures and labeling programs in two product a~eas: 

l uminaires (i.e., fluorescent light fixtures) and office equipment 

(i.e. ; personal computers, printers, copiers, etc. ) . In both 

areas, standardized efficiency testing and rating is not yet 

occuring . Instituting testing and labeling will enabl e consumers 

to identify more efficient products, allow ut. i l i ties to promot.e 

efficient equipment through rebate programs and other means, and 

should stimulate manufacturers to improve energy performance. The 

l egislation allows tT .... O to three years for establishing the test 

procedures and labeling programs. 

H:5. ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS 

H:5.1. Methodology 

We have made a preliminary estimate of the approximate energi 

savings that will result from the new standards. The analysis is 

based on a relatively simple spreadsheet model that requires: 

1) projections of the annual sales of each relevant product; 

2) estimates of the fraction of new sales covered by the standards 

once they take effect; 

3) estimates of the fraction of covered products that are 

influenced by the standards (i.e., accounting for products that 

will be energy efficient even if the standards are not adopted); 

4) estimates of the average energy and peak power savings per 

product influenced by the standards; 

5) assumptions about standards that are issued via DOE rulemaking. 

Regarding the fifth item, we only assume that DOE issues initial 

standards according by the indicated deadlines for products where 

initial standards are not specified in the legislation. We do not 

include or make any assumptions about revised standards that may be 

promulgated . In this respect, our analysis is conservative since 

it applies to 1993-2010, a time period during which revised 

standards are likely. 

H:5.1. Results 

Table 2 summarizes the energy savings estimates. For the 

electrical products, savings of nearly 50 billion kWh/yr are 

projected by 2000, increaSing to nearly 85 billion kWh/yr by 2010. 

These values represent 1.5% and 2.1% of projected national 

electricity consumption in 2000 and 2010, respectively (EIA 1992) . 

The reduction in peak power demand reaches 20,000 MW by 20 00 and 

nearly 32,000 MW by 2010. It should be noted, however, that these 

estimates are non-coincident among products as well as with overall 

peak electrical loads experienced by utilities. Among the covered 

products, fluorescent lamps contribute the most savings. 
Incandescent lamps, showerheads (in bUildings with 1 t '

heating), and motors also provide considerable electr: ~Ct riC ~ater Cl y savings.

For the oil- and gas-fired products, the projected savi' , 11' I ngs reach nearly 100 trl lon ,~tu~/X~ ~y 200~ and 215 ~rillion Btus/yr by

2010., Showerheads \ l~, !?ul ... dlngs wJ.th ,fuel-flred water heating)

contrJ..bute about two-tnl.rds of the 011 and gas savings ',.;hile

commercial heating equipment contribute the remaining savings.

When electricity use is converted to prl~ary energy using a

conversion factor of 11,500 8tus/kWh (to account for both

generation and T&D losses), the total primary energy savings for

all the products reach nearly 0.7 Quads/yr by 2000 and 1.2 Quads/yr

by 2010. The estimated cumulative energy savings during 1993-2010

is 11.8 Quads, equivalent to 51 days of national energy use at the

current rate. Furthermore, the standards should contribute more

energy savings than any other provision in the comprehensive energy

legislation moving through Congress (Geller et. al. 1992).

H:6. IMPLICATIONS FOR STATES AND UTILITIES

H:6.1. State issues

Regarding federal preemption of states' authority to set standards

on the products covered in the proposed legislation, in general the

legislation amends and follows the 1987 NAECA law. Once the law is

enacted, states are preempted from setting more stringent standards

on the products for which there are federal standards. Existing

state standards or new state standards adopted before final passage

of the federal legislation are grandfathered . Also, states can

adopt their own standards on general service incandescent lamps,

HID lamps, small motors, and distribution transformers if they act

before the federal government adopts specific standards on these

products. Of course states can still adopt efficiency standards on

faucets, very large air conditioning equipment, and other products

left out of the national legislation.

As mentioned previously, the HVAC equipment standards included in

the bills are based on the values in the ASHRAE 90.1 model

standard. States, however, are allowed to adopt building codes

that contain the HVAC equipment standards recommended by ASHRAE

prior to their becoming federal law.

H:6.2. Utility issues

As noted in the previous section, the standards are expected to

have a non-trivial impact on national electricity use. It will be

important for utilities and energy planning authorities to take

account of the standards as they forecast electricity demand and

conduct integrated resource planning. The standards should permit

utilities to avoid or defer numerous new power plants; in fact

society will not realize the full economic benefits of the

standards unless this plant construction is avoided.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

Incandescent lamps, showerheads (in buildings with 1 . 

heating) I and motors also provide considerable electr~ ~Cttrlc ~ater C~ y savlngs . 

for the oi1 - and gas- fired products , the projected savin 

nearly 100 trillion Bt us/ yr by 2 000 and 215 trillion at~: rea?h Sh h d ( . . ., d . . th fl ' yr cy 2010. . ower .ea 5_ :.~ .1?\.u .... lngs IN l. . ue -flred ' .... ater heating ) 

contrlbute about t· .... o - tnlrds of the all and ga s savings · .. hile 

commercia! heati g equipment c ontr ibute the remaining savings . 

When electr iei t y use is rt ed tc pr L nary energy us ing a 

conversion factor of 11.5 00 Btus/ k'N"h ( to a ccount for both 

generation and T&D losses) , the total pri~ary energy savings for 

all the products reach nearly 0 .7 Quads! yr by 200 0 and 1.2 Qu ads/ yr 

by 2010 . The estimat ed mu la ~ive energy savings during 1993 - 2 0 1 0 

is 11 . 8 Quads, equivalen~ t o S1 days of n a tional energy use at the 

current rate. Further~ore , the standards should contribute more 

energy savings t han any other provision in the comprehensive e nergy 

l egislation moving through Congress (Geller et. a l . 1992) . 

H:6 . IMPLICATI ONS FOR STATES AND UTILITIES 

H:6 .1. State issues 

Regarding federa l preempt ion of states' authority to set standards 

on the products covered in the proposed legislation , in general the 

legis lation amends and follows the 1987 NAECA law . Once the law is 

enacted, states are preempted from setting more stringent standards 

on the products for wh ich there are federal standards. Existing 

state standards o r new state standards adopted before final passage 

of the federal legislation are grandfathered. Also , states can 

adopt their own standards on general service incandescent lamps, 

HID lamps, small motors, and distribution transfo r me rs if they act 

before the federal government adopts specific standards on these 

products. Of course states can still adopt efficiency standards on 

faucets, very large air conditioning equ ipment, and other products 

left out of the national legislation. 

As mentioned previously, the HVAC equ ipment standards i nc luded in 

the bills are based on the valu es in the ASHRAE 90. I model 

standard. states, however, are allowed to adopt building codes 

that contain the HVAC equipment standards recommended by ASHRAE 

prior to their becoming federal law. 

H:6 . 2. Utility issues 

As noted in the previous section, the standards are e xpected to 

have a non-trivial impact on national electricity use. It will be 

important for utilities and energy planning authorities to take 

account of the standards as they forecast electricit y demand and 

conduct integrated resource planning. The standards should permit 

utilities to avoid or defer numerous new power plants; in fact 

society will not realize the full economic benefits of the 

standards unless this plant construction is avoided. 
The standards also have implications f "

utilities Sh<::lUld stop promoting some o~f utlllty DSM programs.

products requlred by the standards (e.g., enerthe e~ergy-efficient lamps and energy-efficient motors) as the eff~Yt-7~v~ngfluorescent . l" . h ... d . c 'Je da1:es or occur. Utl ltles mlg t .1n lt cost effective a d b ap~roach

continue promoting T8 lamps and other prod~ct enef ~Cl.al to

significantly more efficient than the initial minimu~ tthat are

1 . 1 '. . h 1 d & 1 l' s andards In genera~, utl l~les s.ou~ care~u~ y mon~tor market trend . . '. . d +- b Sand conservatlon opportunl~les on a pro uc~- y-product basis.

The testing and labeling requirements for luminaires and office

equipment should open new areas for utility DSM activity. Once

standardized efficiency tes~ing begins, utilities will be able to

promote the purchase of more efficient products through rebate

programs and other means. Assuming the legislation is enacted

later this year, comprehensive data on luminaire and office

equipment efficiency should become available in approximately 1995.

utilities also can encourage the development and commercialization

of innovative, highly efficient technologies in the areas covered

in the legislation. This can be done through so-called "golden

carrot" programs, Whereby a number of utilities promise rebates if

products are introduced that meet certain performance criteria.

The development and introduction of these highly efficient products

then facilitates the adoption of more stringent standards when DOE

conducts its review. A number of utilities are now participating

in an initial golden carrot program for refrigerators (L'Ecuyer

1992). Similar programs may be possible in the areas of lamps and

motors. Moreover, the House bill directs DOE to support the

planning of golden carrot programs.

H:7. CONCLUSION

National minimum efficiency standards for lamps, motors,

showerheads, and commercial HVAC equipment are on the horizon.

Standards on distribution transformers also could be adopted along

with testing and labeling requirements for luminaires and office

equipment. It is likely that the standards and other requirements

will be enacted in 1992 as part of comprehensive energy

legislation. If the bill fails to be enacted this year (due to

issues besides the equipment standards), the standards are likely

to be adopted in the near future since they were agreed to by

manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates.

Initial requirements, including those in the legislation and those

left to DOE to promulgate, should result in significant energy

savings. We estimate that the standards will reduce projected

national electricity demand by 1.5% and 2.1% in 2000 and 2010,

respectively. primary energy savings should reach about 0.7

Quads/yr by 2000 and 1.2 Quads/yr by 2010, with 11.8 Quads of

primary energy saved cumulatively during 1993-2010. The savings

could be even greater if DOE revises and increases the stringency

of the standards following the procedures and timetables set out in

the agreements.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

The standards also have implication f .. 

Utilities should stop promoting so:'e ~f ut~ll.ty DSM programs. 

products required by the standards (e.g., enerthe e~ergy eff icien t lamps and energy-efficient motors) as the eff~Y~7av lng f luoresc ent 

or occur . Utilities might find it cost effecti~el~edd~tes ~p~roach 

continue promoting T8 l amps and other orOd~ct enefl.c::..al to 

significantly more e fficient than the i nitial minimu~ ~hat are 

In general, uci lities shculd carafully monitor ma rket tS~eannddardS. . . . db· Sand conser'Jatl.on oppo rt unl:~es on a ? ro uct - y-prcduct basis. 

The testing and labe l :'nq !''3quirements fo r luminaires and office 

equipment should o pen new areas : o r utility DSM activity. Once 

standardized efficiency t est ing begins, utilities wil l be able to 

promote the purchase of mo ra efficient produc ts through rebate 

programs and other means. Ass uming the legislation is enacted 

later this year, comprehensive data on lumina ire and office 

equipment efficiency should become available in approxi ately 1995. 

Uti lities also can encou rage the development and c ommercia lization 

o f innovative, highly efficient technologies in the areas covered 

i n the legislation. This can be done through so-called "golden 

c arrot" programs, whereby a number of ut ilities promise rebates if 

products are introduced that meet certain performance cri teria . 

The development and introduction of these highly efficient products 

then facilitates the adoption of more stringent standards when DOE 

conducts its review. A number of utilities are now participating 

in an initial golden carrot program for refrigerators (L' Ecuyer 

1992). Similar programs may be possible in the areas of lamps and 

motors. Moreover, the House bill directs DOE to support the 

planning of golden carrot programs . 

H: 7 . CONCLUSION 

National minimum efficiency standards for lamps, motors, 

showerheads, and commercial HVAC equipment are on the horizon. 

Standards on distribution transformers also could be adopted along 

with testing and labeling requirements for lumina i res and office 

equipment. It is likely that the standards and other requirements 

will be enacted in 1992 as part of comprehensive energy 

legislation. If the bill fails to be enacted this year (due to 

issues besides the equipment standards), the standards are likely 

to be adopted in the near futUre since they were agreed to by 

manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates. 

Initial requirements, including those in the legislation and those 

left to DOE to promulgate, should result in significant energy 

savings. We estimate that the standards will reduce projected 

national electricity demand by 1.5% and 2.1% in 2000 and 2010, 

respectively. Primary energy savings should reach about 0.7 

Quads/yr by 2000 and 1.2 Quads/yr by 2010, with 11 . 8 Quads of 

primary energy saved cumulatively during 199)- 2010 . The savings 

could be e ven greate r if DOE r e vises and incr e ases the stringency 

of the standards following the procedures and timetables set out in 

the agreements. 
A relatively simple methodology was used to gene t

savings estimates. More sophisticated analysis ~af e these en~rgy

11 . 1" 1; t d' . energy savlngs as we as econom1C, U~1 y, an env1ronmental lmpa~t h

d - s s auld be performed. Mo els comparable to those used to assess the t'

appliance efficiency standards are needed for this ~~ lonal

1 '+-h d' d <= ' th rpose. Deve oplng ese mo e~s an per~orm1ng e assessments of standards

specified in the bill will require a significant effort on the part

of the U.S. DOE.

States and utilities should take a number of actions if the

standards are enacted. Si:;,ce the ne'N' federal standards will

preempt state standards, states should focus on adopting their own

standards on faucets, large air conditioning equipment, and other

products left out of the national legislation. Utilities and

regulators should take account of the standards as they forecast

electricity demand and conduct integrated resource planning. Also,

utilities should adjust their DSM programs once the standards take

effect (if not sooner) so that they are not promoting products that

would be produced and sold anyway.

Testing and labeling requirements for luminaires and office

equipment, included along with the efficiency standards, should

open the door for education, promotion, and incentive programs on

these products as well as tracking of progress in efficiency

improvement. If these strategies are not successful in removing

inefficient, uneconomical products from the marketplace, then DOE,

the Congress, or states should consider adopting minimum efficiency

standards.

In summary, important new equipment efficiency standards and

testing/labeling requirements were negotiated and are likely to be

enacted in the near future. Successful implementation of these

provisions will require the cooperation and support of equipment

manufacturers, the federal government, and utilities.

H:8. REFERENCES

ASHRAE .1990. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, Energy Efficient

Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning

Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

ASHRAE 1992. ASHRAE/IES 90.1b, Addendum to ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning

Engineers, Atlanta, GA.

BPA 1990. "Low Flow Shower Head Consumer Acceptance Study Final

Report." Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

EIA 1992. Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2010. DOE/EIA0383(92). U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Geller, H. S. 1987. "Energy and Economic Savings from National

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

A relatively simple methodology was Used to gene t 

savings estimates. More sophisticated analysis ~~ e these en7rgy 

as well as economic, utility, and environmental irnpeancetrgYhsavlngS • • S 5 auld be performed. Models comparable to those used to assess the t > 

1 > ff> > d d na lanaI app lance e ~clency stan ar 5 are needed for this nu 

1 > -h d 1 d ' > th ~ rpose. Deve oping ~ ese rno e 5 an per~ormlng e assessments of standards 

specified in the Dill ' .... i11 r~qui re a significant ef:ort on the part 

of the U.S. DOE. 

States and utilities should ;:ake a number of actions if the 

standards are enacted. .s':::ce the ne' ..... federal standards will 

preempt state standards , s;:ates should focus on adopting their own 

standards o n faucets, l arge dLr conditioning equipment, and other 

products left out of the national legislation. Utilities and 

regulators should take account of the standards as they forecast 

electricity demand and conduct integrated resource planning. Also, 

utilities should adjust their DSM programs once the standards take 

effect (if not sooner) so that they are not promoting products that 

would be produced and sold an~way. 

Testing and labeling requirements for luminaires and office 

equipment, included along with the efficiency standards, should 

open the door for education, promotion, and incentive programs on 

these products as well as tracking of progress in eff iciency 

improvement . If these strategies are not successful in removing 

inefficient, uneconomical products from the marketplace, then DOE, 

the Congress, or states should consider adopting minimum efficiency 

standards. 

In summary, important new equipment efficiency standards and 

testing/labeling requirements were negotiated and are likely to be 

enacted in the near future. Successful implementation of these 

provisions will require the cooperation and support of equipment 

manufacturers, the _federal government, and utilities. 

H:B. REFERENCES 

ASHRAE ~990. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, Energy Efficient 

Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning 

Engineers, Atlanta, GA. 

ASHRAE 1992. ASHRAE / IES 90.1b, Addendum to ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning 

Engineers, Atlanta, GA. 

BPA 1990. "Low Flow Shower Head Consumer Acceptance Study Final 

Report." Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

EIA 1992. Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2010. DOE/EIA0383(92). U.S. Department of Energy , Washington, D.C. 

Geller, H.S. 1987. "Energy and Economic Savings from National 
Appliance Efficiency Sta d . . nards It 1\ _ • Efflclent Economy, Washingt . ~erlcan Co '1 f . on, D.C. . uncl~ or an EnergyGeller, H.S. and P.~. Miller

Efficiency Standards: Analysis

Savings. 11 American Council for

Washington, D.C.

1988. "'~~a ' >.::Id r, h ' of E1 ,L~q tlnq

a >;:' ectrlcitj and

n -nergY-Ef"; , l....I,.Clent. t..-.:onC:::'i,

Geller, H., S. Nadel, M. Hopkins, and B H'

, E t' t f .:., . ,a.... ard 1992 Savlngs s lma es rom t:lle .t:.nergy Efficiency p .

Senate d H '" II ' ,roVl.Sl ons an ouse Energy Bl~~S I Amerlcan COuncll for

Efficient Economy, Washingt:on, D.C. - an

11-

=-~er~'l

lTl ':.he

Energy_

Knight, D.E. 1990. "Amorphous Metal Distribution Transfo ' C t Eff t · C ' t . II ' rmers - A os ec lye onservat:lon Oppor unity. Allled-Signal Parsippany, NJ. Inc.,

L'Ecuyer, M., G. Fernstrom, D. Goldstein, S. Nadel, and H. Sachs

1992. "Stalking the Golden Carrot: Accelerating the Introduction

of Super-Efficient, CFC-Free Refrigerators Through a Utility

Consortium Approach", Proceedings of the 1992 ACEEE Summer StUdy on

Energy Efficiency in Buildings. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, Washington, D.C.

McHahon, J. et ale 1990. "Impacts of U.S. Appliance Energy

Performance Standards on Consumers, Manufacturers, Electric

Utilities, and the Environment. lI Proceedings from the ACEEE 1990

Summer study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Vol. 7, pp. 7.107-

7.116. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

Washington, D.C.

Nadel, S. and H. Geller 1991. "Efficiency Standards for Lamps,

Motors, Commercial HVAC Equipment and Showerheads: Recommendations

for State Action", American council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy, Washington, D.C.

Nadel, S., H. Geller, F. Davis and 0, Goldstein 1989. Lamp

Efficiency Standards for Massachusetts: Analysis and

Recommendations. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

Washington, D.C.

Nadel, S., M. Shepard, S. Greenberg, G. Katz and A. de Almeida

1991. Energy-Efficient Motors Systems. American council for an

Energy-Efficiency Economy. Washington, D.C.

Ranton, J. 1991. "Water Efficient Plumbing Fixture Legislation, A

Poll of States with Legislation Adopted," City of Portland Bureau

of Water Works, Portland, OR.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

Appliance 

Efficient Efficiency Sta-d .. ards ,,~_ . Economy, Washingt . ~erican . on, D.C . Council for.- an 

Geller, H.S. and P.~. Miller 

Efficiency Standards: Analysis 

savings." American Cou!1cil for 

Washington, D.C. 

1988. "1-- 8 of _ ~d Liqh Li~q 

~lecLr ic it" and 

an -nergY-Ef< ' . I"tc1,=;'I.': 

Geller, H., S. Nadel, M. Hookins, and B H . - t' f ~- . . Q''''ard 199 

Energy-

-,",-" "~--~,,,, .: ~,- '-

Savings 1:.5 lICates r o:n ene !:.r.ergy Efficiency p 2. 

d . l' ~~VlS lon s Senate an House Ene=;y 8.l_.J..s " , American council For 1 :1 '::he 

Efficient Economy, Wash i ng-can, D.C. ~ a~ Er,e-::";I'iKnight, D. E. 1990. "Amarpi-lous 

Cost Effective Conserva-cion 

Parsippany, N.J. 

Metal Distribution T~ansf 

O ' , " . ormers - ;>" or~unlty . Allled-Signal I 

nco • 

L'Ecuyer, M., G. Fernstrom, D. Goldstein, S. Nadel, and H. Sachs 

1992. <'Stalking the Golden Carrot: Accelerating the Introduction 

of Super-Efficient, CFC- Free Refrigerators Through a Utility 

Consortium Approach", Proceedings of the 1992 ACEEE Slimmer Study on 

Energy Efficiency in Buildings. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, Washington, D.C. 

McHahon, J. et al. 1990. "Impac ts of U. S. Appliance Energy 

Performance Standards on Consumers, Manufacturers, Electric 

Ut ilities, and the Environment. 1I Proceedings from the ACEEE 1990 

Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Vol. 7, pp. 7.107 -

7.116. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

Washington, D.C. 

Nadel, s. and H. Geller 1991. "Efficiency Standards for Lamps, 

Motors, Commercial HVAC Equipment and Showerheads: Recommendations 

for State Action", American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Washington, D. C. 

Nadel, S., H. Geller, F. Davis and D, Goldstein 1989 . Lamp 

Efficiency Standards for Massachusetts: Analysis and 

Recommendations. American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy, 

Washington, D.C. 

Nadel, S., M. Shepard, S . Greenberg, G. Katz and A. de Almeida 

1991. Energy-Efficient Motors Systems. American Council for an 

Energy-Efficiency Economy. Washington, D.C. 

Ranton, J. 1991. "Water Efficient Plumbing Fixture Legislation, A 

Poll of States with Legislation Adopted," City of Portland Bureau 

of Water Works, Portland, OR. 
Table 1. Summary of new standards by product type.

product

Lamps:

4 foot fluorescent lamps

8 foot fluorescent lamps

Gen'i service incandescent lamps

Incandescent refle~tor lamps

High intensity discharge lamps

Motors:

1-200 horsepower

Less than 1 horsepower

commercial heating & cooling:

Packaged air cooled A/C & HP

Packaged water cooled A/C & HP

Packaged terminal A/C & HP

Water heaters

Furnaces and boilers

Standards

in Bill?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Effective

Date

1996

1994

2001

1996

1999

1998*

2002*

1994*

1994*

Showerheads

Distribution transformers

Luminaires (lighting fixtures)

Office equipment

Yes 1993

No Not

specified

Labeling 1996

Labeling 1995 or 96

* For motors that must be UL certified, or that are used in UL

certified equipment, an additional two years is allowed. For

packaged air conditioners and heat pumps of 12-20 tons cooling

capacity, the effective date is 1995.

Notes: For products for which no standards are contained in the

bill, DOE will promulgate standards if standards are found to be

technologically feasible and economically justified . Effective

date assumes bill signed into law in the fall of 1992. Effective

date rounded to the nearest New Year's Day.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

Table 1. summary of new standards by product type. 

froduct 

Lamps: 

4 foot ~luorescent lamp s 

8 foot f luores c ent lamp s 

Gen'l serv ice incandescent lamps 

Incandescent reflec~o r l amps 

High intensity discharge lamps 

Mo tors: 

1-200 horsepower 

Less than 1 horsepower 

commercial heating & cooling: 

Packaged air cooled Al e & HP 

Packaged water cooled A/C & HP 

Packaged terminal A/C & HP 

water heaters 

Furnaces and boilers 

Showerheads 

Distribution transformers 

Luminaires (lighting fixtures) 

Office equipment 

Standards Effective 

in Bill? Date 

Yes 1996 

Yes 1 994 

No 2001 

Yes 1996 

No 1999 

'les 1998* 

No 2002* 

Yes 1994* 

Yes 1994 * 

Yes 1993 

No Not 

specified 

Labeling 1996 

Labeling 19 95 o r 96 

* For motors that must be UL certified, or that are used in UL 

certified equipment, an additional two years is allowed. For 

packaged air conditioners and heat pumps of 12-20 tons cooling 

capacity, the effective date is 1995. 

Notes: For products for which no standards are contained in the 

bill, DOE will promulgate standards if standards are found to be 

technologically feasible and economically justified . Effective 

date assumes bill signed into law in the fall of 1992. Effective 

date rounded to the nearest New Year's Day. 
Table 2. Summary of lighting minimum eff' . ~c~ency standards.

FLL;ORESCE:-..-r L.uI:PS

Lamp 7:;pe ~orrunal

Lamp r.inil'nurn.

\\ac-'-c1g'e CRr

~~·OOt rr.ediurn ~i-?in >25 \V 69 -SO /'... ='.\'"' < • ;;, .... ..; ~;) 751)

~-fiJot ··r·" ;;haped >:3.5 'X; "1 ';3. r, - , .. 'L .- <"' - \V ~5 0.. 0 _0.)

"-[GO\: s~:nli:::e ., ..... B5 ,,X; 89 30.0

<" • .:~- -Q;) ~5 SO.O

6·foot Cigo ()t:.:;:'.lt ... > lOO'·V 63 300

$1 OG "' ..\- ~5 30 "

'J

·'IYC".L\"'DESCENT REFLECTOR T ~~£PS

-W-50

51-66

67-85

86-115

116-155

156-205

~.Gn.i..mum

.~.:;e:-a 2"e

Laffin Effi·

cacy (LPW)

10.5

11.0

1~.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

Table 3 . Summary of motor minimum efficiency standards.

;"1: .~;: ,,.~~ 11'\ Nominal Full-Load E fficienCj'

Open ~lotors Closed ~lotors

NUJ:l.ber of poles 6 4 () 6 4 ()

~iotor Horsepower

1 ............................. 30.0 32.5 80.0 3:2.5 j ;).;)

1.5 84.0 84.0 8() .......................... _.;) 85.5 84.0 8:2.5 .) ............................. 85.5 84.0 84.0 86.5 84.0 84.0

3 ............................. 86.5 86.5 84.0 87.5 87.5 85.5

5 ............................. 87.5 87.5 85.5 87.5 o' - -I .;) 87.5

I .;) .......................... 88.5 88.5 87.5 89.5 39.5 88.5

10 ........................... 90.2 89.5 88.5 89.5 39.5 89.5

IS ........................... 90.2 91.0 89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2

20 ........................... 91.0 91.0 90.2 90.2 91.0 90.2

.) --;) ........................... 91.7 91.7 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0

30 ........................... 92.4 92.4 91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0

40 .........-.................. 93.0 93.0 91.7 93.0 93.0 91.7

50 ............................ 93.0 93.0 92.4 93.0 93.0 92.4

60 ........................... 93.6 93.6 93.0 93.6 93.6 93.0

75 ........................... 93.6 94.1 93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0

100 ......................... 94.1 94.1 93.0 94.1 94.5 93.6

1()- _0 ......................... 94.1 94.5 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5

150 ......................... 94.5 95.0 93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5

200 ......................... 94.5 95.0 94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

Table 2 . 

Table 3 . 

Summary of lighting minimum eff' . ~Clency standards. 

F""!...i,.' ORESCE:-'"1' LD,rPs 

;\';' ::"..1.:1 ... 1 

Lamp 

"'" • ..l.\:", 

.... :·'0: :r.~ dium :a' ?1!l >~~ ",,' 

S.:5 'Y 

:::.(00: " ".'" hJ. ?~ ... :> ~ "\" 

S';j T 

5-,'.)0 : .:';::-..!i::~ ... ...• .;~ ','t," 

sos ".-: 

S-:"C<Jt ::.:~n /1,;:;:;';! •• :>: 00 ',\' 

S: 0C": 

i)~ 

.;.5 

., ,. 

.5 

·H 

.. 5 

,. -, 

.. ,) 

.s O 

7 5.0 ... 'h'l , 

.0 ;'.0 

31).0 

50.0 

30.Q 

~O , 

~lici.::lJ.I: !:! 

.. :: ~~ ~ 

Lamo E5· 

cae:; (LPW) 

40--50 

51- 05 

67- 35 

86-115 

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

10.5 

11.0 

1~ 5 

14.0 

110--155 

156-~05 

Summary o f motor minimum 

'I' , ," .,, "'~ ,1\ l'om.in:t.! 

Op<! D. ~I tors 

:;\u.:::lber 0: poles 6 4 

:'Iotol" B o:-sepower 

1 ... .......................... 80.0 32.5 , - .. , ......... ................ 84.0 84.0 ., ............... 85.5 ~. 0 

3 ........ .................... 86.5 86.5 

5 ................. 87.5 87.5 

7.5 .......................... 88.5 88.5 

10 ........................... 90.2 89.5 

15 ...... ... .. ...... ... ....... 90.2 91.0 

20 ........................... 91.0 91.0 ., . -, ........................... 91.7 91.7 

30 c" ., .......... .......... ....... ~ 92.4 

40 ........................... 93.0 93.0 

50 ........................... 93 .0 93.0 

60 .......................... . 936 93.6 

75 ........................... 93.0 94.1 

100 ......................... 94.1 94..1 

10

-, - ......................... 94.1 94.5 

150 ......................... 94.5 95.0 

200 ......................... 94.5 95.0 

1,;,.5 

15.0 

efficiency standards. 

Full·Load Efficienc:; 

Clos6d )10r or 5 

, 6 . , ., 

50.0 ~., -

.;) 75.5 

B:?5 85.5 ~-i .O 82.5 

~. 0 86.5 6.4..0 54.0 

8-1.0 a7.5 .57.5 35.5 

.55.5 87.5 ~ '" I.:) - 87 .5 

87.5 89.5 ' Q 

~ -.:) 88.5 

88.5 89.5 39.5 89.5 

89.5 90.2 91.0 90.2 

90.2 0. ~ 91.0 90.2 

91.0 91.7 92 .":' 91.0 

91.0 91.7 92.4 91.0 

91.7 93.0 9.'3 .0 91.7 

92.4 93.0 93.0 92.4 

93.0 93.6 93 .5 93 .0 

93.0 93.6 94.1 93.0 

93.0 94.1 94.5 93.5 

93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5 

93.6 95.0 95.0 94.5 

94.5 95.0 95.0 95.0 
Table 4. Summary of commercial HVAC standards.

product Minimum Efficiency Rating

packaged air-cooled A/e & HP

Less than 65 kBTUh

65,000-135 kBTUh

135-240 kBTUh

10.0 SEER (cooling mode) *

8.9 EER (cooling mode)

8.5 EER (cooling mode)

packaged air-cooled HP

Less than 65 kBTUh

65-135 kBTUh

135-240 kBTUh

6.8 HSPG (heating mode) * 3.0 COP (heating mode)

2.9 EER (heating mode)

Pkgd water-cooled A/e & HP

Less than 65 kBTUh

65-135 kBTUh

135-240 kBTUh

9.3 EER (cooling mode) * 10.5 EER (cooling mode)

9.6 EER (cooling mode)

Pkgd water-cooled HP

Less than 135 kBTUh 3.8 COP (heating mode)

Packaged terminal A/e & HP

Cooling

Heating

10.0-(0.16 x capacity/1000) EER

1.3+(0.16 x min. cooling EER) cOP

Furnaces and boilers

Gas furnaces >= 225 kBTUh

oil furnaces >= 225 kBTUh

Gas boilers >= 300 kBTUh

oil boilers >= 300 kBTUh

80%

81%

80%

83%

Water heaters

(Standard requires an entire table -- see ASHRAE 1992J

* For single package units, the minimum SEER and HSPF are 9.7 and

6.6 respectively.

load in accordance with

Cooling efficiencies are

Heat pump efficiencies are

Notes: All efficiencies are at full

applicable industry test procedures.

generally measured at 95 degrees F.

generally measured at 47 degrees F.

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

Table 4. summary of c ommercial HVAC standards. 

£roduct Minimum Effic ienc y Rating 

packaged air- coo led A/ C & HP 

Less t han 65 kBTUh 

65,000-135 kBTUh 

135- 240 kBTUh 

Packaged air-cooled HP 

Less than 65 kBTUh 

65 - 135 kBTUh 

135 -24 0 kBTUh 

Pkgd water-cooled AIC & HP 

Less than 65 kBTUh 

65 -135 kBTUh 

135- 240 kBTUh 

Pkgd water-cooled HP 

Le ss than 135 kBTUh 

Packaged terminal A/C & HP 

Cooling 

Heating 

Furnaces and boilers 

Gas furnaces >= 225 kBTUh 

Oil furnaces >= 225 kBTUh 

Gas boilers >= 300 kBTUh 

Oil boilers >= 300 kBTUh 

Water heaters 

10 . 0 SEER (cooling mode) * 

8.9 EER (cooling mode) 

8.5 EER (coo ling mode) 

0.8 HSPG (heat ing mode) * 

3.0 COP (heatiug mode) 

2.9 EER (heating mode) 

9.3 EER (cooling mode) * 

10.5 EER ( cooling mode ) 

9.6 EER (coo ling mode) 

3 .8 COP (heating mode) 

10.0-(0.16 x capacity/lODD) EER 

1.3+ (0 .16 x min. cooling EER) COP 

80% 

81% 

80% 

83% 

(Standard requires an entire table -- see ASHRAE 1992] 

* For single package units, the minimum SEER and HSPF are 9.7 and 

6.6 respectively. 

load in accordance with 

Cooling efficiencies are 

Heat pump efficiencies are 

Notes: All efficiencies are at full 

applicable industry test procedures. 

generally measured at 95 degrees F. 

generally measured at 47 degrees F. 
Table 5. Savings from national efficiency standards and label ing requirements in 1992 energy legislation.

IJatts iotal iotal iotal Total

Annual Percent Percent Avg. Saved Savings Avg. Savings Savings Savings

Sales C~vered Complying Life Per in 2000 Annual in 2000 in 2010 in 2010

Type of equipment (10~6) by Stds 71/0 Stds (yrs) Unit (M\J) Op.Hrs (GloIh/yr) (M\oI) (GWh/yr)

LalTOS

Fluorescent 461 a"n SOX 5 7 7,020 3,500 24,570 7,020 24,570

Gen'l service incand. 793 "... ......... fl..'" 30% 9.2 4,600 1,000 4,600 4,600 4,600

Reflector incandescent 700 90~ 15~ 1 28 2,140 2,GOO 4,280 2,11.0 4,280

HiD 19.3 95~ 60% 6 67 1,010 3,500 3,540 3,820 10, S70

Motors

1-200 horsepower ;'35 64% 2D~ 15 280 800 2,676 2,140 3,450 9,230

<1 horsepower 113 SOX 5~ 10 51 0 250 0 2,560 6,850

Cocrmercial HVAC

Unitary A/C

< 65 kBTU 0.387 100X 7'5% 15 751 440 1,100 480 1,090 1,200

65-135 kBTU 0.086 100X 25% 15 1,901 730 1,100 800 1,840 2,020

135- 250 0.032 100X SOX 15 3,522 280 1,100 310 850 940

Air-source heat pumps 0.016 100X 25% 15 958 70 2,200 150 180 400

IJater-source heat pumps 0.098 100X 95% 15 522 20 2,200 40 40 90

Packaged terminal A/C 0.135 100X 75% 15 130 30 1,100 30 70 80

Packaged terminal HP 0.098 100X 75% 15 209 30 2,200 70 80 180

Incand. la~ label ing 793 90X NA 1 1.8 1,280 1,000 1,280 1,280 1,280

LLIIlinaire label ing 45 90X NA 16 0.72 170 3,500 600 470 1,650

Office equipment label ing

PC's 12.3 100X NA 5 10 620 2, GOO 1,200 620 1,240

Printers 8.8 100X NA 5 7.5 330 1,500 500 330 500

Copiers 1.4 100X NA 5 18 130 3,000 400 130 390

Distribution transformers 1.2 100X 25% 13 80 220 8,760 1,930 940 8,230

Showerheads - elec. (lJ/day)

Old --> 3 gpll 0.94 100X 36% 18 1,143 350 365 2,JOO 780 4,560

3 --> 2.5 gpll 0.94 100% 18X 18 381 150 365 900 330 1,930

TOTAL - Electricity 20,420 49,820 31,820 84,7'90

Cocrmercial heating stds (STUh) (I"MBTUh) (10'9 3TU)(WMBTUh)('C'9 BTU)

0.011 100X SOX 16 52,636 1,760 ,500 2,600 4,690 7 ,,~

Gas furnace > 300 kBTUh ' .1"0...1

Oi l furnace > 300 kBTUh 0.004 100% SOX 16 42,889 480 ; ,sea 7S0 1,29 0 I ?,-J

Gas boiler> 300 kBTUh 0.008 100X SOX 16 97,723 2,270 , I seo 3,400 6,~7J ~, "0

boiler> 300 kBTUh 0.009 100X SOX 16 138,562 3,560 I,sea 5,300 9,~90 ~':',2t..O

Oi l

Gas & oil loIater heaters 0.244 100X 50% 10 8,517 6,230 4,000 24,900 10,390 41 t sec

Showerheads oil & gas (BTU/dy) (MMBTUd) (I"I"BTUdl - Old --> 3 gpll 3.55 100X 36% 18 6,598 120,020 365 43,800 270, J40 98,560

51,260 365 18,700 115,330 42,100

3 --> 2.5 gpll 3.55 100X 18X 18 2,199

99,400 21 4,550

TOTAL - Fuels

EE-RM-90-201 COMMENT OOR22

Table 5. $aYll"19$ from nat ional eftieil!O(:y stat'ldards at'ld l abel ing r equ ire!lll!fla i n 1992 energy legislation. 

Watts iota ! 

Type of eQUipment 

A.rvual i'erCer1t ?ercl!l'1 t Ay'l. 

Sales C:yered COfCl lyi:'lg Life 

(10~6) Oy S!CS w/o Stes (yrs) 

Sayed Sayings Y9. 

Per in 2000 Annua l 

Un it l Op.~rs 

L'~ 

" l<.lOrescer:t 

Gen't sery! ce l:"ICal"Cl. 

qeHector incandescent 

HiD 

Motors 

1 . 200 horsepower 

<1 horsepowe r 

COIIlIII!rc i a l MVAC 

Uni cary AlC 

19,3 

: .35 

1<3 

( 65 kSTU 0.387 

65·1 35 !tSTU 0.086 

135·250 0.032 

Air'source heat pumps 0.016 

Water' sou rce heat pumps 0,098 

Packaged terminal A/e 0 . 135 

Packaged terminal HP 0 . 098 

lnca t'ld. a~ label ing 

Lum inaire labeling 

Office equi~nt labeling 

793 

4S 

PC's 12. 3 

Printers 8,8 

Copiers 1,1. 

Distri but ion t ransformers 1.2 

Showerheads • elec, 

Old • . > 3 gpm ' 0 . 94 

3 .• > 2.5 gpm 0.94 

TOTA.L Elec t ricity 

100::; 

100X 

laO::: 

lOa::: 

100l 

loa::: 

100X 

90::; 

'OX 

lOa::: 

l CO::' 

iCO::' 

too::: 

100% 

100::' 

30::: 5 7 7,021 3,500 

30::: 9.2. 4,&CO 1, aOO 

213 2.1:'0 2, 000 

67 1. 0 10 3,5CO 

5::: 10 

2eo 

51 

iSl 15 751 

25l 15 1,901 

SOl iS 3,522 

2S:!: 15 9513 

95 % 15 522 

is:!: 15 130 

is:!: 15 209 

" " 

1., 

,.n 

HA. 5 10 

~A 5 7,5 

HA 5 113 

25X 13 60 

(II/day) 

36::: 113 1 , \1.3 

113::' 18 313 1 

800 2.676 

o 250 

440 1,100 

730 1, 100 

280 1,100 

70 2,200 

20 2,200 

30 1,100 

30 2,200 

1,280 1,000 

170 3,500 

620 2,JOO 

330 1,5 00 

130 3,~OO 

220 13,160 

W) 365 

150 365 

iota I 

Sayings 

in 2000 

(GWh/yr) 

2(. ,570 

Total 

Sayings 

in 2010 

( MIl) 

Total 

Sayings 

in 2010 

(~n/yr) 

7,020 24 ,5 70 

';',600 (.,&00 4, ;00 

(.,2130 2, :(.0 (.,280 

3,5(.0 3,"::20 :G,570 

2, i(.O 3,1.50 9,230 

o 2,5611 6,850 

48' 

'00 

310 

lSO 

40 

30 

70 

l, zao 

600 

1,2eo 

500 

:'00 

:,930 

2, ;co 

'" 

1 , 090 

1,8(.0 

,SO 

18' 

40 

70 

80 

1,280 

470 

1,2ao 

2,020 

'" '" 90 

80 

180 

I,Z80 

1,650 

620 1,21.0 

330 sao 

:30 390 

730 ~, ;60 

no l,J30 

COIIlIII!rci a l heat i ng s tds 

Cas furnace> 300 k8 TUh 

Oil fu rnace > 300 kSTUh 

Cas boi le r > 300 !taTUn 

Oi l bo il er > 300 !taTUh 

Cas & oil water heaters 

(STUh) 

16 52,636 

~~II TUl'l) 

1,760 

( ';:'";1 3~ :': )(""II ::"l'I){':'? ~' :,,) 

Snowe rheads • oi l & gas 

Ol d . • > 3 gpm 

3 --> 2.5 gpm 

TOTAL· Fue ls 

0.011 

0,004 

0 ,008 

0,009 

0.24(. 

3,55 

3.55 

lOot 

100% 

tOO::: 

lOa::: 

100X 

lOa::: 

100::; 

lOX ',loa ~,~ao ~,~ .. o 7,~I.: 

50::' 16 t.2,a89 

50::: 16 97,n3 

50% 16 138,562 

50% 10 13,517 

4130 t , 5':0 

2,270 1.5eo 

3,560 t ,5eo 

6,230 ~, JC O 

(BTU/dyHI!I!BTUd) 

36t 18 6,598 120,020 

18X 18 2,199 51,260 

365 

365 

3 ,~OO 

5,300 

21.,900 

i ,2<;0 

6, :7; 

.. , ."0 

10,3 .. 0 

~lI rIJ C) 

I.3,3002ro,3/'0 

113,700 115,330 

99,~ OO 

• , .1.':; 

,56<l 

913,560 

1.2. leO