## AlVIERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY \Vashmgton. D.C. Berkeley, California CONSENSU S NATIONAL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR LAMPS, KOTORS, SHOWERKEADS,

AND COMMERCIAL HVAC EQUIPMENT Howard S. G e ller Steven 

### M . N ade l March 1992



## A;'v!ERICAN CO C:-';C I

L FOR**A~** 

## E:"iERG Y

- EFFlC IE N T ECON O!V!Y W

ashingtOn. D.C. Berkeley. California

### 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,

'.aper prepared for t he A CEEE Summer Study on Energv Err '

. • _.:. l.cl.ency i n Buildings, Pacifi c Grove, C A, August, 1992

.



### consensus National Efficiency Sbowerheads, and Commercial BVAC standards Equipment for


### aoward S. Geller and Steven M. Nadel**~e rican**  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 are m

oving 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.



### 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**pr~ducts** 

### 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 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 (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 bi llion 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 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 based 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 m inimum 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,

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 rulemakings, criteria in the original appliance H:4.2. M ot;)rs DOE is instructed to standards legislation

. use the

The proposed motor standards require the production of so-called energy-efficient moters for**ma jo** **~** 

### types of motors in the range of 1-200 horsepower. The standar:::'s are based on accepted minimum eff iciency values developed 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 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 conservation advocates recommending their inclu sion

. Manufacturers of p lumbing fixtures have accepted national standards on showerhe3ds but not faucet3 and the Congress has supported thei r oos i tion so far. Wa't.er -'lr.d er;e!"gy conser·.ration proponents will continue to advocate l

......; !.udi ng faucets in the final legislation. H:4.4

. Commercial HVAC equ ipment Existing appliance standards c ever heating and cooling equipment used in housing and small commercial buiIdings

. 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.**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. T

he proposed legislation also requires the developwent of uniform test procedures and labeling programs in two product**a~eas:** luminaires (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 program s 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 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.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.

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 1 00 trillion Bt us / yr by 2000 and 215 trillion

### at~:**rea?h** Sh h d ( . . ., d .

. th fl ' yr cy 2010.

. 

### ower .ea 5

_**:.~** 

### .1?\.u .... lngs INl.

. ue -flred '

....ater heating ) contrlbute about t·

....o - tnlrds of the all and gas savings · ..hile commercia!**heati g**  equipment c ontr ibute the remaining savings

. When electrieit y use is**rt ed**  tc prLnary energy using 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 2000 and 1.2 Q u ads / yr by 2010

. The estimated**mu la** **~ive** energy savings during 1993

- 20 1 0 is 11

. 8 Q uads,**equivalen~** t o S1 days of nati onal 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 O NS FOR STATES AND UTILITIES H:6 .1. State issues Regarding federa l preemption of states' authority to set standards on the products covered in the proposed legislation , in general the legi s 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 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 trans fo r mers if they act before the federal government adopts specific standards on these products. Of course states can stil l 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 i nc luded in the bills are based on the values 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 electrici t 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~ tt hat 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.

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 luorescent 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 ffici ent than the i nitial**minimu~ ~hat**  are 

### In general, uci lities shculd carafully monitor market**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 for luminaires and office equipment should open new areas : or utility DSM activity. Once standardized efficiency t est ing begins, utilities wil l be able to promote the purchase of mora efficient products through rebate programs and other means. As suming the legislation is enacted later this year, comprehens ive data on luminaire and office equipment efficiency should become available in**approxi ately**  1995. Uti lities also can encourage the development and c ommercializ ation of 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 luminai 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 greater if DOE r evises and increases 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

A relatively simple methodology was Used to gene t savings estimates. More sophisticated analysis

### ~~ e these en

## 7 rgy 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~q ui** **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 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: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 . d H '" II ' 

### ,roVl.Slons Senate 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. 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 Er

,e-::";I 'i

### Efficient Economy, Washi ng-can, D.C.**~ a~**  

### Knight, 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. "Impacts of U

. S. Appliance Energy Performance Standards on Consumers, Manufacturers, Electric U

t 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 1 989

. 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, O R.

### 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.

Table 1. summary of new standards by product type.

froduct Lamps: 4 foot**~luorescent** lamps 8 foot f luores c ent lamps Gen'l serv ice incandescent lamps Incandescent**refle c~o** **r** l amps High intensity discharge lamps Motors: 1-200 horsepower Less than 1 horsepower

commercial heating 

### & cooling: Packaged air cooled 

### Ale & HP Packaged water cooled 

### A/C 

### & HP Packaged terminal 

### A/C 

### & HP water heaters Furnaces and boilers Showerheads D

istribution transformers

Luminaires (lighting fixtures ) Office equipment Standards Effective 

### in Bill? Date

Yes 1996 Yes 1 994

No 2001 Y

es 1996 No 1999

'les 1998*

No 2002*

Yes 1994* Yes 1 994 *

Yes 1993

No Not specified Labeling 1996 Labeling 19 95 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.Table 2. Summary of lighting minimum eff'

.**~c~ency** standards. FLL;ORESCE:-..-r L.uI:PS Lamp 7:;pe**~orrunal** Lamp r.ini l'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 <" • .**:~- ~5**  SO.O -Q;) 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:-a2"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 EfficienCj' 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 ' 

## - - 87.5

............................. o I .;)
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()- 94.1 94.5 93.6 94.1 94.5 94.5

_0 ......................... 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 

### 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**  75

.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 1 10--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 1 0

-



# -, ......................... 94

.1 94.5 150


### ......................... 94

.5 95.0 200

... ...... ...... ..... ... .. 94

.5 95.0 1,;,

.5 15.0
efficiency standards. Full·Load Efficienc:; Clos6d )1 0ror5 

# , 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.

Table 4. summary of c ommercial HVAC standards. £roduct Minimum Effic iency Rating packaged air

- coo led 

### A/C & H P Less t han 65 kBTUh 65,000-1 35 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 (heating mode) 

### * 3.0 COP (heatiug mode) 2.9 EER (heating mode)

9.3 EER (cooling mode) 

### * 10.5 EER (cooling mode ) 9.6 EER (cooling 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 "............ 30% 9.2 4,600 1,000 4,600 4,600 4,600 fl..'" 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 1,290 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 Table 5. $aYll"19$ from nat ional eftieil!O(:y s tat'ldards at'ld l abel ing require!lll!fla in 1992 energy legislation.

Watts iota !

Type of eQUipment A.rvual i'erCer1t ?ercl!l'1 t Ay'l. Sales C:yered C OfCllyi:'lg Life**(10~6)** Oy S!CS w/o Stes (yrs) Sayed Sayings**Y9.** Per in 2000 Annua l U n it**l Op.~rs** **L' ~**  " l<.lOrescer:t Gen't sery!ce l :"ICal"Cl. qeHector incandescent HiD
Motors 1

. 200 horsepower <1 horsepower
COIIlIII!rci 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 A

ir'source heat pumps 0.016 Water' source heat pumps 0,098 Packaged terminal A/e 0

. 135 Packaged terminal HP 0

. 098

lncat'ld.**a~** label ing L

uminaire labeling

Office**equi~nt** labeling 793 4S

PC's 12. 3 Printers 8,8 Copiers 1,1.

Di str ibut ion transformers 1.2
Showerheads • elec,

Old • . > 3 gpm ' 0

.94 3 .•> 2.5 gpm 0.94

TOTA.L Elect ricity 100::; 100X laO::: lOa::: 100l loa::: 100X
90::; 

## 'OX

lOa::: lCO::' iCO::' too:::

100% 100::' 30::: 5 7 7,021 3,500 30::: 9.2. 4,&CO 1, aOO 2 13 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 iotaI Sayings in 2000 (GW h/yr)

2(. ,570 Total Sayings in 2010 ( MIl) Total Sayings in 2010**(~n/yr)**

7,020 24 ,5 70 ';',600 (.,&00 4, ;00 (.,280 (.,2130 2, :(.0 3,5(.0 3,"::20 :G,570

2, i(.O 3,1.50 9,230 6,850 o 2,5611



### 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

C

OIIlIII!rcia l heat ing s tds

Cas furnace> 300 k8 TUh Oil furnace > 300 kSTU h Cas boi ler > 300 !taTUn Oi l boiler > 300 !taTUh Cas &oil water heaters (STUh) 16 52,636**~~II TUl'l)**  1,760 ( ';:'";1**3~ :':** **)(" "II** **::"l'I){':'? ~'** **:,,)**

Snowerheads • oi l & gas

Old

. •> 3 gpm 3 --> 2.5 gpm
TOTAL· Fuels 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