# 2002 Priority Setting for New 

# Products

October 

## 26,2001

## FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR NEW PRODUCTS The enclosed data sheets provide information on new products that are not currently coveredby existing energy legislation. For these new products, the Department of Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards is considering some type of action to reduce their energy consumption (e.g.,minimum energy efficiency or maximum energy consumption standards, voluntary Energy Star programs, or federal procurement programs). The Office requests comments on the data sheets and whether energy reduction programs should be developed for the products listed. Any new actions taken by the Office are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2002. Written comments should be submittedby November 20, 2001, to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000Independence Ave., SW, Washington,D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Bryan Berringer, EE-41, or by e-mail at Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. If you have any questions, please contact Bryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371.

## Table of Contents Product 

## I I Page Product 

# I I Page Miscellaneous Residential Equipment

Ceiling Fans Compact Audio Component Stereo and RACK Audio Compact Audio, Component Stereo, and RACK Audio Dehumidifiers Set-Top Boxes Televisions Video Cassette Recorders 1 2 3

6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

### Commercial Refrigeration Beverage Merchandisers Ice Machines Reach-In Freezers Reach-In Refrigerators Reach-InFreezersIRefrigerators Supermarket Refrigeration Systems Vending Machines Walk-In Coolers Walk-In Freezers and Combination CoolerlFreezers 

## -Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and

Combination Cooler/Freezers Water Coolers Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Standards Consideration 

### Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary



### Commercial Laundry Commercial Clothes Washers 

## - 35 36 37 38 39 40 5 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 

### Office Equipment Copy Machines 

# --- Desktop Computers Fax Machines Laser Printers Low-End Servers, Commercial Monitors Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration 

# -- Test Procedure Summary l9 20 22 

### Commercial Beating Equipment Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 

# --- Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration


## .Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Gas Duct Furnace Gas Unit Heaters Oil Unit Heaters 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6 1 

### Pumps Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Pool Pumps Well Pumps 23 24 25 26 27 28 

### Lighting Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 62 63 64 65 29 30 31 32 33 34 Exit Signs Torchieres Traffic Signals 

### Commercial Cooking Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Broilers Fryers Griddles Ovens Ranges Steamers A11 Commercial Cooking Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 66 67 68 69 70 7 1 72

# Standards Consideration Product: Beverage Merchandisers 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory High-Efficiency Compressor

## + Brushless DC Fan Motors = 0.22' 

### Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ProductI Technology Availability (Including Technology Payback Period' Tech. Maturity' Peak Load Imuact 

### PriceICost information): High-Effcy Compressor -1 New High Brushless DC Fan Motors 1.4 to 4.4 New High


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cumulative Burden The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Statusof Test Procedures Treated as a Glass-Door Reach-In by California. Applicable Test Procedure Standards are as follows: ASHRAE 117 CSA C827-98: Based on ASHRAE 117 Coca Cola Test Procedures (includes CL-I-OO6aefor steady-state energy use)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 

## ' Based on "Energy Savings Potential for CommercialRefrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-17, Row 12. Payback

period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82$/kWh). 

### Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### "ethnology Maturity Description definitions-Current: Available but not widely used; New: Availablebu not used in commercially available equipment;Advanced: Needs development prior to commercialization. California: Treated as a Glass-Door Reach-In.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Importance of energy use during pulldown versus steady state.



### Background Material

Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 0.052 ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Unit Energy Consumution (kwh) 3,981 Divide energy use by installed base. 

# I I ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) 0.06 to 0.12 According to more recent communicationswith Copeland and Delfield 

# I Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency

Other Notable Efficiency Level Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technolow) 

# I 10.42kWhlday 

# I ASHRAE 117 Test consumption for 27 cu.ft cabinet Pro~osed CA Tier 1Regulation. 0.8 7 to 10

NIA representatives,these estimates are probably low.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy consumption for a typical 27 cuft merchandiser.ADDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 -10 kWhlday N/A N/A NIA Assume similar to stock.


## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

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



## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Beverage Merchandisers



### Test Procedure Overview 

# IFuturelPotential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology California treats Glass-Door Beverage Merchandisers as Glass-Door Reach-Ins, for which ASHRAE Standard 117 is the established test procedure (see discussion on Reach-Ins for Test procedure details). Coca Cola has proprietary test procedures which include evaluation of energy use. 

## ....................................................................................................................................................... A test procedure could be developed which is more suited than ASHRAE 117 to the operation of beverage merchandisers. In particular, the energy effect of loading of warm beverages is not addressedby the current procedure.


### .......................................................................................................................................................

The test procedure ambient temperatureof 75°F is appropriate for typical temperatures for beverage merchandisersin most applications. The test procedure does not have 

### a component which evaluates the energy required to pull down the temperature of warm beverages loaded into the machine.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... The ASHRAE 117 test procedure's lack of a component addressing the loading of warm beverages into the machine, and its moderate ambient temperature would tend to make peak load predictions of the procedure low for beverage merchandisers.

# Standards Consideration Product: 

### Ice Machines Potential.Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product/ 

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



## ............................................................................ Cumulative Burden

Statusof Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions


## ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary EMicieucy Imorovements 

### Combination ofEnergy FEMP Recommended1 Savings Technologies Canadian Standards Best Available 0.12~ 

# o4 0.11 10.21~ 

## ....................................................................................................................................................... Technoloey Payback Period3 Tech.Maturity Peak Load Impact High-EffcyCompressor 1.8 years New High Reduced Evap ThemCyc 1.2 years New High


## .......................................................................................................................................................

The industry dealt with thephaseout ofCFC's inthe mid-1990's. Ifthe Kyoto protocol were ratified,the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some ofthe companies involved inmanufacturing this equipment haveparent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards ofother products.


## .......................................................................................................................................................

ASHRAE 29 ARI 810-2000:Based onASHRAE 29 CSAC742-98:Based onASHRAE 29


## ....................................................................................................................................................... CanadianRegulations and availabilityof ARI Data.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... FEMP Recornmendataions 

# 1~ssues 

# 1Significant ~roduct variety. 

# I Based on "Energy Savings Potentialfor Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADLfor DOE, June 1996. Table 5-17,Row 12. Includes High-EfficiencyCompressorand Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor. Payback period inyears based on medium energy cost locations (7.82GlkWh). Seeplot ofStandards vs.ARI data. Nearly all units comply with the current standard. Based onARI average consumption for air-cooled ice makers with 401 to 500 Iblday capacity (7.05 kWN1001b)and water-cooled ice makers with 301 to 5001blday capacity (5.62kWh1100lb)compared with FEMP recommended and "best available" datafor these ranges. Background Material 

# t Product Lifetime (years) ADUDOE RefrigerationStudy, 1996

Minimum EfficiencyStandard Stock Efficiency Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) UnitEnergy Consumption (kwh) Annual Shipments (millions, 1998) Installed Base (millions, 1995) 

# 1 Typical New Efficiency 

# 1 7kWh/1001b 

# 1Average ofeffrclencles for 500 lb/dayalr-cooled units 

## -ARI 

### data. 

# I 0.102 7,822 0.296

1.2 ADWDOE RefrigerationStudy, 1996


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divide energy use by installed base.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Census datafor 1998.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADWDOE RefrigerationStudy, 1996

Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency(FutureTechnology) 5.8 kWNlOO Ib NI

### A NIA Best available 500 lblday air-cooled unit 

## -ARI data.


### ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Ice Machines



### Test Procedure Overview

FuturePotential Test Procedure(s) ASHRAE Standard 29 has been adopted for performance and energy evaluation for Ice Machines Both ARI and Canadian test procedures are based on the ASHRAE standard Although the ASHRAE standard does not spec~fy temperatures, the ARI test is based on the following

90°F Ambient Temperature 70°F Supply Water Temperature and/or Cool~ng Water Temperature for water-cooled Ice Machines Ice machine runs at full capaclty during test 

## ...................................................................................................................................................... It is unlikely any new test procedure will be developed. However, a test procedure with more typical ambient and supply water temperatures would be more representative of actual energy use 

### How effectively do test procedure(s) and The ambient and water temperatures are higher than typical temperatures for ice machines 

### metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

# I in most applications. The test procedure uses higher temperatures because it was initially 

### consumptionand potential savings? developed to test primarily ice machine capacity. In addition, the testing of ice machines at full capacity overestimates duty cycle of machines used in many applications.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation The current test procedure involving high ambient and water temperatures and 100%duty 

### with Test Procedure and Metric, by cycle is an ideal indicator of peak load and peak load impact. 

### Technology 

# I -

# Standards Consideration Product:Reach-In Freezers

Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 0.065 ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) 7,477 Divide energy use by installed base.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) 0.08 ADLlDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base (millions, 1995) 0.8 ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

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

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation):

Cumulative Burden

Statusof Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

"Energy Savings Potential for Commercial

Product Lifetime (years) ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Combination of Energy California Regulations Saving Options (Tier 1,Tier 2) Energy Star 0.276 0, 

## o7 

## o7

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Technoloiq Pavback Period8 Tech. Maturity peak ~~~d

### Imoact System Optimization 1year Current High Rifled Tubes No savings unless heat exchangers are space-constrained Var-Speed Compressor 1.4years New Medium Dual Compressor 1.5 years New Low Brushless DC Fan Mtr 0 to 3 years NewlAdvanced High PSC Fan Motors 2 to 14yrs Current High Evap Fan Shutdown 1year New High Face Frame Impr 0 years New High Condensate Trap 0.5 year Current High Improved Insulation 2.4 years Current High Thicker Walls 1year Current High


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ASHRAE 117: Door-opening test with load and ambient humidity. NSF 7: Closed-door test without load for performance test. CSA C827-98: Based on ASHRAE 117.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Regulation of Reach-Insby California. Tier 1takes effect 07/01/02 and Tier 2 takes effect 07/01/04.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star Program launched in September, 2001.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Significant product variety. ASHRAE 117test issues: Repeatability issues with door-opening tests. Expense of test means that not all products are tested, and limited spot checks are made by the manufacturer. RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-18, row 13. Includes Hot Gas



## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# 1 1 . . Average for 20 cuft freezer based on CEC data (ASHRAE 117 Energy Typical New Efficiency kWh/da~ Test), 

# I

Antisweat,High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and CondenserFan Motors, 35% Energy Reduction. 

# ' Based on the assumptionthat a baseline 20cuft solid-door Reach-In will have 8.65kWhldayenergy consumption (Delfield 61258). "Applicationof Best Industry Practice to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators",ADL, Review Meeting with DOE, 3/21/01. All payback periods are in years based on modification of a typical two-door solid-door refrigeratorwith top-mount condensing unit. Assumes current unit energy use of 12kWh/day, $0.076/kWh.

Best Available Efficiency Soon to be commercially available. Rough estimate of energy use of new Delfield freezers for 20 cuft volume. 

# I

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star Efficiency 

# f 9.36 kWhiday 

# 1unww.EnerevStar.govfor 20 cu.ft freezer


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I

### ..._...__ 

## ................................................................... .................................................................. 

## .................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

### N/ A 

# Standards Consideration Product: Reach-In Refrigerators California Regulations Energy Star 0.299,0.431°, 0.52" 0.19"
Medium Brushless DC Fan Mtr PSC Fan Motors 2 to 14yrs Current High Evap Fan Shutdown



### Cumulative Burden If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies
CSA C827-98: Based on ASHRAE 117. 

### Other Regulatory Actions Significant product variety.

"Energy SavingsPotential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-19, row 10.Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, 44% Energy Reduction lo "Application of Best Industry Practice to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators", ADL, Review Meeting with DOE, 3/21/01, p. 16, fifth row. Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, Reduced Antisweat Heater Wattage, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor, PSC Condenser Fan Motor, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Refrigeration System Optimization, 67% Reduction. 'I Ibid., Row 6. Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, Reduced Antisweat Heat Input, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, Variable-Speed Refrigeration System, Hot Gas Antisweat Heating, 80% Reduction. I' Based on the assumption that a baseline 43.5cuft solid-door Reach-In will have 9kWNday energy consumption (Delfield 6051s). l3 "Application of Best Industry Practice to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators", ADL, Review Meeting with DOE, 3/21/01. All payback periods are in years based on modification of a typical two-door solid-door refrigerator with top-mount condensing unit. Assumes current unit energy use of 12kWh/day, $0.076kWh.

# Standards Consideration Product: Reach-In Refrigerators 

### Backzround Material ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


### .......................................................................................................................................... Divide energy use by installed base.


### .............................................................................................................................................................................. ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


### .......................................................................................................................................................................... ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



## ................................................................................................................................. T.. Total Energy Use (quads, 1995)


## ............................ ..__._ 

### ............................... .un?!.En:~g~.c2n::.m~:?2nikwhl Annual Shipments (millions, 1995)


### ................................ __._ Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) 

## ,M!?.?m~m.Fi.%f:!e!!~~.SFai!dard..
..................., StockEfficiency TypicalNew Efficiency Best AvailableEfficiency 0.054


### .................... 3,822 0.12 1.3 

### 8 to 10

NIA 

## ...........................

................................................................................................ Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 9 kwhlday
"4 Assumed same as typical new. 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Measured by ADL (ASHRAE 117 Test) for "Typical" 43.5 cu.ft. two-solid-door reach-in. Also consistent with CEC data.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Soon to be commercially available. Energy measured for Delfield prototype iointlv develoaed with ADL with DOE funding.

___ 6.39 kwhlday -2 kWh1day a, 

## - 

## ..................................................................................................... ........................... -. www.EnergyStar.gov for 43.5 cu.ft. freezer


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Estimates developed for variable-speed refrigerator 

### as part ofDOE-funded

### project,

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Reach-In Freezers and Refrigerators



### Test Procedure Overview Precedent has been set for use of ASHRAE Standard 117 for determination of Reach-In Energy Use. This standard has been adopted by Canada, California, and EPA Energy Star.

Ambient Conditions 

### 75+/-2F Dry Bulb Temperature, 64 

### +/-2FWet Bulb Temperature 

### (55% Relative Humidity) Internal Load consisting of containers of salt-water solution and wood filler Automatic door-opening for the first 8 hours of the test. Doors remain closed for remaining 16 hours. 

# I The ASHRAE procedure does not specify an internal temperature (energy standards based on this procedure must make this specification). Typical temperatures specifiedby energy standards are 38F average internal temperature for refrigerators, 

### OF for freezers, and 

### -5F for ice cream freezers. 

# I I The complexityof the test procedure is a potential issue in spite of its acceptance among key 

# I manufacturers.

CEC has qualified only two test laboratories for energy testing of Reach-Ins 

# I CEC requires energy testing only for representative cabinets and allows projections of energy use for similar cabinets. 

# I I The test's complexitymake verification of compliance very difficult. ADL is aware of two examples in which reported energy test results are definitely low or likely to be low. 

# I

.............................................................................. FutureIPotentiat Test Procedure(s)



## ............................................................................. 

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


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

# I Experience with residential energy test procedures shows that repeatability is suspect with



## ........................................................................................................................................................ test procedures involving door-openings and/or internal loads. Test procedures involving no internal load and no automatic door openings would be s~gn~l~cantly easlcr to C~ITY out and would have greater repea~ahility. 

# .1

..........

# :

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

The ambient temperature condition is somewhat low compared to temperatures often seen in commercial kitchens employingthe equipment. The automatic door-openings provide a reasonable representation of typical reach-in use. 

## ....................................................................................................................................................... Correlation of peak load impact with ASHRAE 117 test procedure would be fair, since the test procedure ambient temperature is relatively low.

# Standards Consideration Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems



### Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 ProductI Technology Availability (Including PricelCost information):

Cumulative Burden

Statusof Test Procedures



## ............................................................................. Other Regulatory Actions


## ............................................................................. Evidence 

### ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Brushless DC Evaporator Other Options with less Fan Motors than 5-year payback 0.31 0.2814



### ...................................................................................................................................................... Most of the technologiesand design options noted in the data sheet are currently available. Technology Payback PeriodI4 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact Brushless DC Fan Motors 1.6years New High Hot Gas Defrost 1.4years Current High Antisweat Heater Control 1.6 years Current High Defrost Control 3 to 7 yearsAdvanced High Liq-Suct. Heat Exchangers 4 to 14years Current High Evaporative Condensers <1 year Current High Floating Head Pressure 2.5 years Current Low Heat Reclaim 2.5 years Current Low Mechanical Subcooling 4.9 years Current High


## ......................................................................................................................................................

The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. HFC and HFC blend replacements for traditional refrigerants R-502 and R-12 have been developed and are now generally established. There is continued concern regarding the level of potential emissions associated with leakage and service in supermarket refrigeration systems. Since most systems are now using non-ozonedepleting refrigerants, the environmental concern focuses on global warming. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, this would he a significant issue for the supermarket refrigeration industry. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards of other products.


## ......................................................................................................................................................

Separate Test Procedures for display cases and compressors andlor condensing units. Display Cases: CRS-S1-96 (ARI CRMD), ASHRAE 72, CSA C657-95 Compressors and CondensingUnits: Many different test standards depending on compressor and heat rejection type. 

## ...................................................................................................................................................... None known.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Market penetration of energy-saving technologies (ADLmOE Study)

Floating Head Pressure 62% Mechanical Subcooling 65% Liquid-Suction Heat Exchanger 25% (MT), 50% (LT) Antisweat Heater controls 69% 

# IIssues Many system types Systems are engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed) 

# I 

# I Interactionbetween air-conditioning and refrigeration systems 

# I l4 "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Includes Hot Gas Defrost, Antiswcat Heater Control, Defrost Control, Liquid-Suction Heat Exchangers for Low Temperature applications, Evaporative Condenser, Floating Head Pressure, Heat Reclaim, and Mechanical Subcooling. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations ($0.0782lkWh).



### IMinimum Efficiencv Standard 

### I Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) 0.326 1,000,000

0.055 0.03

10 5 to 15



### ..................................................................................................... Stock Efficiency


### ..................................................................................................... Typical New Efficiency


## .................................................................................................... Best Available Efficiency 

## .................................................................................................... Energy Star Efficiency 

## .................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) ADLmOERefrigeration Study, 1996


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divide energy use by installed base.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Compressor shipments for Supermarkets, ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996, CBECS 1995


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Compressors, Condensers:ADLIDOE Ref Study, '96


## .............................................................................................................................................................. Disolav Cases: ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA No suitable efficiency definitions have been established for Supermarket Refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems composed of many components.

# Test Procedure Su~llrnarp Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems 

# 1 Test Procedure Overview

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



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

### Technology No applicable test procedures for complete supermarket refrigeration systems. Test procedures for separate componentsof supermarketrefrigeration systems (1.e. display cases, condensing units, condensers, compressors) generally focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use, although energy input may be measured during the test. An example of a test standard for a refrigeration system component is ARI Standard 460- 2000, "Remote Mechanical-Draft Air-Cooled Refrigerant Condensers". Reporting for this standard includes reporting of condenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of capacity and power input during 100%run of an air-cooled condenser. The standard rating condition for this test procedure involves 95°F entering air temperature.


### .......................................................................................................................................................

Applicationof energy standards to supermarket refrigeration systems is extremely com~licated due to the verv wide range of system architecture utilized. 

# - Energy test proceduresmight focus on individual components, such as display cases. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................

Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions which are more energy intensive than average typical conditions. For example, the 

### 95°Fentering air temperature for ARI Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceeds a typical average condition. Furthermore,the standard does not take into consideration that the systemdoes not operate at 100% capacity at all times. A condenser fan would cycle to maintain a head pressure, thus resulting in less fan power. Or, the condenser fan would run continuously, thus allowingvery low condensing conditions at low ambient temperatures. This latter scenarios would result in significant reduction in compressor power. 

## ....................................................................................................................................................... Correlation of peak load impact with typical test procedures would be good, since test procedures generally do not addresspart load operation.

# Standards Consideration Product: Vending Machines 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Combination of Energy Saving Options = 0.4515 

# 1 Action;

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product

### I Technology Availability (Including Technology Payback Periodx5 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Imuact 

### Price/Cost information): High-Effcy Compressor -1 year New High Brushless DC Fan Motors -2 years New High


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cumulative Burden The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Statusof Test Procedures ASHRAE 32.1 CANICSA (304-96: Based on ASHRAE 32.1


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other Regulatory Actions California: Registration required; design standard for use of T8 lamps.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Energy Star in development. 

### Efficiency Im~rovements Issues 

# I Significant product variety. ""Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-21, Row 11. Includes HighEfficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor, 28% energy use reduction. The 28% energy use reduction estimateis consistent with other estimates presented in "Commercial Packaged Refrigeration: An Untapped Lode for Energy Efficiency", Toru Kubo et. al., presented at the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82UkWh). 

### Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 0.134 ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


### ............................................................................ 

# 1

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

# 1

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

# 1

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

# t Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) 3,008 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base

Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) 

# I ::: 

# I

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inventory dividedby -10 year life Installed Base (millions, 1995) ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

## / Product Lifetime (years) 

# 1 7 to 10 

# 1 ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

# I

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

# 1 

# 1 

# I Average for 600-can beverage machine. Based on limited data received by Best AvailableEfficiency kwhlda~ EPA, 

# I MinimumEfficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# I IOther Notable Efficiency Level NIA NIA 10.8kwhlday 10.8kWh1day 

### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Assumed same as typical new.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Average for 600-can beverage machine. Based on limited data received by 

### EPA,

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Vending Machines



### Test Procedure Overview



## ..................................................................... FutureRotentialTest Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metricts) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?
ProductPeak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology ASHRAE Standard 32.1 has been adopted for performance and energy evaluation for Refrigerated Vending Machines.

Three test procedures for (1) Steady State Energy Consumption, (2)Vend Test (recovery capability after loadinghalf of the machine with warm beverages, and (3)Recovery Test (recovery capability after loading the entire machine with warm beverages. The second and third tests do not measure energy use associated with recovery. Ambient Conditions 90+/-2"FDry Bulb Temperature, 65+/-5% Relative Humidity. Beverage Temperature 36 +/- 1°Ffor energy test. Energy test duration is 6 hours after attainment of steady state. Attainment of steady state will take more than 24 hours according to the test procedure requirements. The proposed Canadianenergy standard is based on the ASHRAE 32.1 Steady State test.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... A test procedurebased on ASHRAE 32.1 (but perhaps with more moderate ambient and product loading temperatures) should be developed which gives proper weighting of energy use associated with steadv-stateand temmrature recoverv.

The ambient temperatures are higher than typical temperatures for refrigerated vending machines in most applications. The energy test procedure does not provide weighting of energy use associatedwith steady state and recovery after loading of product. The test procedure does not have a procedure for evaluation of energy used for keeping product from freezing for outdoor units during the winter.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... The current test procedures involving high ambient and product loading temperaturesare relatively good indicator of peak load. However, an appropriate weighting consistent with typical vending machine operation for the three test parts of ASHRAE 32.1 would improve correlation with peak load impact.

# Standards Consideration Product: Walk-In Coolers

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2008-2030


### ............................................................................. Product/ Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Combination of Energy Saving Options = 0.3716



### ....................................................................................................................................................... Technology Payback PeriodI6 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact Floating Head Pressure 0.3 year New Low Ambient Subcooling 1.7years New Medium Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium Brushless DC Fan Motors -1 year New High External Heat Rejection 7 years New High Hot Gas Defrost 1.8years Current High Cumulative Burden The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. 

# I Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products. 

# I

l6 "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-23, row 13. Includes Floating Head Pressure, Ambient Subcooling, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82GkWh). Statusof Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

Background Material Various Test Procedures for Compressorsand Condensing Units, depending on compressor and heat rejection type. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known.


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known.



## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Significant product variety. Systems are often engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed). Standards for compressors and/or condensing units?



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# t Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 0.095 ADWDOERefrigeration Study, 1996

Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) 

# 1 16,200 

# 1Divide Energy Use by Installed Base


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30,000Walk-In Sales TADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 19961Distribution

Typical New Efficiency Appropriate Efficiency Definitions have not been defined for Walk-In Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard


## .............................................................................................................. Stock Efficiencv Energv Star Efficiencv 

### I NIA 

### I c, "

### .................................. : 

### ......................................... 

### ............ 

# ;*

........... Max~murn Eff~c~cncv c Future 'l'echnoloey) 

# 1 0.02 0.54 12 to 25 8 to 12

NIA NIA

Other Notable EfficiencyLevel 

# I N/A 

# I - of salesby type proportional to installed base distributions. A larger number of Walk-In refrigeration systems are sold for replacement.


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Insulated Box: ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Refrigeration Systems:ADWDOE Ref. Study, 1996


## .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

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



### Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Ouads)2008-2030 Product 1

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



## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden



## .............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures Combinationof Energy Saving Options 

### = 0.3317 Technology Payback PeriodI7 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact Floating Head Pressure 0.3 year New Low Ambient Subcooling 1.7years New Medium Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium Brushless DC Fan Motors -1 

### year New High External Heat Rejection 7 years New High Hot Gas Defrost 1.8years Current High


## .......................................................................................................................................................

The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... Various Test Procedures for Compressors and Condensing Units, depending on compressor and heat rejection type.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... 

# I Other Regulatorv Actions 

# INot known. 

# I Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements


## .............................................................................. Issues Not known. 

# I

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

Significant product variety. Systems are often engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed). Standards for compressorsandlor condensing units? I7"Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-24, row 13. Includes External Heat Rejection, Hot Gas Defrost, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82$/kWh). 

### Background Material

Total Energy Use (quads, 1995)


## ............................................................................ Unit Energy Consumption (kwh)



## ............................................................................ Annual Shipments (millions, 1995)



## ............................................................................ Installed Base (millions, 1995) 

# IProduct Lifetime (years) 

# 1 .:

........................................................................... 'VllnirnumEl'fic~cncv 

### Standard 

# 1""

............................: 

## ........................................... Stock Efficiency



## ............................................................................ Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiencv 

# I.."" .."" ""

### ....................... ...................................... Energy Star Efficiency



### ............................................................................ Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Other Notable EfficiencvLevel 

# 1 0.085 

# 1ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## .......................................................................................................................................................



# I 2 1,400 Freezers Divide energy use by installed base.

30.200 Combo


## ....................................................................................................................................................... 

# j

' 

### 0.02 

# 130,000 Walk-In Sales [ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 19961Distribution of salesby type proportional to installed base distributions.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... 

# I 0.275 Freezers 

# I ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 0.065 Combo


## ....................................................................................................................................................... 12to 25 Insulated Box: ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996



### ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 to 12 Refrigeration Systems:ADWDOE Ref. Study, 1996


## ......................................................................................................................................................... N/A


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

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and CombinationCoolerlFreezers 

# ITest Procedure Overview 

# I No applicabletest procedures for complete walk-in refrigeration systems Test procedures for condensing units which would serve walk-in refrigeration generally focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use. An exampleof a test standard for a refrigeration system component is 

### ARI Standard 460- 2000, "Remote Mechanical-DraftAir-Cooled Refrigerant Condensers". Reporting for this


### FuturelPotentialTest Procedure(s)

Furthermore,the standard does not take into consideration the fact that the system is not operating at 100% capacity at all times. A condenser fan would cycle to maintain a head pressure, thus resulting in less fan power. Or, the condenser fan would run continuously, standard includes reporting of condenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of capacity and power input during 100% run of an air-cooled condenser. The standard rating condition for this test procedure involves 95°F entering air temperature.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Applicationof energy standards to walk-in refrigeration is complicatedby (1) the range of combinations of insulatedbox and condensing unit actually used in the field and (2) the importanceof field installation to overall energy use. Energy test procedures should focus on individual components, such as the condensing 

### How effectivelydo test procedure(s)and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? thus allowingvery low condensing conditions during low ambient temperatures. This latter scenarios would result in significant reduction in compressor power. units and/or the insulated boxes.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions more energy intensive than averagetypical conditions. For example, the 95°F entering air temperature for ARI Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceeds a typical average.



### Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Correlation of peak load impact with typical test procedures would be good, since test procedures generally do not addresspart load operation.

# Standards Consideration Product: Water Coolers 

# IPotential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action;

............................................................................. Cun~ulative (Quads)2008-2030 IJroduct/ Technology Availability (Including 

# 1 PricelCost information):

Cumulative Burden Combinationof Energy Saving Options 

### =0.2618



### ....................................................................................................................................................... Payback Period Ranges for High Insulation Value, Energy Efficient Compressors,Better Thermal Bond between coil and evaporator, and Storage Coil Redesign range from 2 to 10 years.''


## .......................................................................................................................................................

The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global w~ng potential. 

# I Statusof Test Procedures 

# 1 ASHRAE 18-1987 (R1997) Canadian Standards Association C815-99, based on ASHRAE 18, includesboth pulldown and standby impacts.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# 1 Other Regulatory Actions Not known. 

# I

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

# 1

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

# 1

Backeround Material

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues



## ............................................................................. 

# I Total Energy Use (quads, 1992) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh)


## ............................................................................. Annual Shipments (millions, 1998) Energy Star Program, Penetration for first year of program will be reported to EPA shortly.



## .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................. Installed Base (millions, 1992) Product Lifetime lvears)

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



### ............................................................................. 

# I Minimum ElliclekyStandard 

# I Stock Efficiency



### ............................................................................. Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiencv


## ....................................... 

## ....................................... Energv Star Efficiencv 

# I MaximumEfficiency (Future Technolom) 0.044 ADUDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base Census Data (1998) 6.03 ADUDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


## .........................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................... NIA 2.19 kWNday Assume same as typical new. 

# IOther Notable EfficiencyLevel

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Water Coolers



### Test Procedure Overview

FuturelPotential Test Procedure(s)



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


### ............................................................................ Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology ASHRAE Standard 18-1987 (R1997)is the basis of water cooler test standards. However, this standard does not provide much detail regarding test conditions (ambient and water inlet and outlet temperatures are not specified), and is focussed on capacity testing rather than energy testing. The EPA Energy Star test is based on ASHRAE 

### 18 with the following clarifications. Only energy use to maintainwater temperatures is measured. No draw of water during the test. Test period 24 hours Ambient temperature 75 +I-2°F Cold Water Temperature not more than 50"F, Hot water not less than 165°F The proposed Canadian test standard, also based on ASHRAE 18, includesboth energy associatedwith water coolinglheatingand standby loss. This standard also uses different temperaturesand specifieswater inlet temperatures for water coolers connected to city water lines.


### ....................................................................................................................................................... It is not very likely that alternative test procedures will be developed. In any case, all future test procedures will likely be based on the ASHRAE procedure.


## .......................................................................................................................................................

The EPA test procedure's emphasis on just standby energy use probably captures most of the energy use associated with water coolers. The ambient temperatureof 75°Fused in the EPA test is appropriate for most applications. Peak load impact of Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Thermal Bond Between Coil and Evaporator, and Storage Coil Redesign are high, while peak load impact of High Insulation Value is Low. The EPA Energy Star test procedure is not a good indicator 

### of peak load, because it includes only standby energy use. The test's ambient temperature of 

### 75°F is only slightly lower than expected typical temperatures for water coolers for peak load conditions.

# Standards Consideration Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas



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


## ............................................................................. Potential Economic BenefitsBurdens Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Statusof Test Procedures Hum~dlty Sensor = 

### 0.40 Modulating = 

### 0.81

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

### Not available.


## ........................... ............................................................................................ 

## ............................... , , 

### Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimatedenergy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible.


## ........................................................................................................................................................ Energy Factor (EF) measure according to CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B App D 

### Other ReeulatorvActions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements



## ............................................................................. Issues Not known.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

There is 

### no Energy Star program for clothes dryers. Due to lack of standards,market-driven efficiency gains occur when coincident with convenience and quality improvements(e.g., shorter cycle time resulting from modulation).


## ........................................................................................................................................................

CFR EF test does not accurately account for sensor systems (e.g. humidity) Humidity sensors are rare in laundromats because coin-operated dryer operating times depend upon the amount of operating time purchased rather than dryness (humidity) of the clothing. 

### Background Material 

# I Energy Star Efficiency NIA 

### No Energy Star program Modulation burner (ADL, 2001) with performance normalized to "typcial Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) new" per BTS (2000) Total Energy Use (quads, 1990) Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu)


## ............................ _._ 

### Annual Shipments (millions)


## .................................. v 

### Installed Base (millions) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency 

# I Other Notable Efficiency Level 

# I N/A 

# I 0.122

72 0.113

1.7 15 N/A Unknown 1

### .O Unknown ADUDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADUDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


## ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ADUDOE CommercialAppliance Study, 1993


## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... ADUDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No federal minimum.


## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Normalized to typical new, per BTS (2000)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Small efficiency differences expected for commercial gas clothes dryers.

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas



### Test Procedure Overview Clothes dryer efficiency is measured as Energy Consumed/ load as follows: Energy Consumed (kW-hr) = [ 66 / moisture removed (Ibs.) ] x FU 

### x [ Electric Energy Supplied (kW-hr)

## + Gas Energy Consumed/ 3412 (Btulhr)

## +Total Annual Pilot Energy Consumed/ (416 

### x 3412) (kW-hr)

### J 66 is an experimentally established value for the percent reduction in the moisture content ;FU is the Field Use factor, it equals 1.18 for Time Termination and 1.04 for Automatic Termination; 416 is the number of cycles per year; 3412 is the conversion from Btu/hr to kW-hr. A standard load consists of 7 Ibs. of test cloth; a compact size dryer uses 3 Ibs. of test cloth. Test cloth is moistened with 100°F water containing 0-17 ppm hardness water is extracted until the moisture content is between 66.5 and 73.5 % of the bonedry weight. Bone dry is defined as the weight of the cloth after it has not changed weight more then 1% following a ten minute dry cycle. The ambient test conditions must be 75°F and 50% relative humidity. A test procedure to compare automatic termination control is needed since most new aroducts include such devices. Pilot light energy consumption may not be accounted for correctly in current standard (for older machines; current machines cannot have a pilot). 

### How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? The accuracyof the annual energy consumption is dependant on the accuracyof the estimate of 419 dryer loads per year and the assumptions made in the derivation of the constant 66 in the formula. Test procedure requires the use of Time Termination if it is available. Clothes are dried until the moisture content is between 2.5-5% of the bone dry weight. It is unrealisticto measure actual energy consumption by drying clothes to a precise condition. The Field Use factor is general and does not indicate variations in automatic cycle termination controls, i.e. not all moisture sensors work the same yet they all qualify for an FU of 1.04. 

### Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology I Test procedure does not identify design impact on peak demand Automatic cycle termination does not impact peak load of the device, but does reduce the amountof time spent at peak load by reducing over-drying. Modulation increases the peak load; however it reduces the duration of the peak load as well as the overall drving time.

# Standards Consideration Product: Commercial Clothes Washers



### Product/ 

### Technology Availability(Including Price/Cost information): Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008- 2030

Cumulative Burden Family Sized Energy Star (MEF=1.26) = 0.2719 Horz. Axis, MEF=2.0 =0.4619 Soil Sensor = InsufficientDatai9"' Horizontal-axis family-sizedwashers have come to market. Five (5) family-sized commercial washer models have 

### an MEF >=2.0; more than 25 have an MEF>I 30.



### Statusof Test Procedures Industrial Sized Soil Sensor = Insufficient Data" Ozone = 0.26 Many large-capacity commercial clothes washers are horizontal axis machines, as the high utilization makes the first-cost premium affordable.



### Other RegulatoryActions


## ..................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements


## .................................................... Issues No mlnlmumenergy efficlency standard exlsts for large capaclty commercial clothes washers The res~dentlal clothes dryer has seen no regulations, however, restdentlal clothes washers are on an efftclencyImprovement plan w~th m~lestones In '04 and '07 Many commerctal clothes washer manufacturers make other "wh~te" goods that have mnlmum energy efficlency standard Res~dentlal d~shwashers In the process of startlng a standardsreview (effective date of ~mplementatlon -2005), Res~dentlal refrlgeratlon standards were set In 1990,1993, and In 2001 In March 2001, a broad cross-sectlonof consumer advocacy organlzatlons pet~tloned DOE to recons~der ~ts



## ....................................................................................... 1

## ......................................................................................

No federal standards exist. Energy Star program applied to family-sized commercial units only. new energy conservation standards for clothes washers.


## ...............................................................................................................................................................................

Energy Factor (EF) test changed to the Modified Energy Factor (MEF) test to account for remaining moisture content at end of cycle. EF and MEF measured according to CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. 

### B, App J & J1

Accounting for remaining moisture content (RMC) has been resolved. CFR Test does not account for energy savings resulting from soil sensors because CFR test uses clean cloth. 

## ....................................................................................... Not known.


## ............................................................................................................................................................................. Energy Star minimumMEF=1.26 and is only for family sized units.

Few reliable sources of information on energy and water consumption of commercial washers since there are no DOE testing requirements. (CEE,1988) *

## ...................................................................................... No Energy Star Program or Federal Minimum.

l9 Data is based on commercialfamily sized units only. Savings based on baseline MEF = 1.0. 20 Soil sensor effectivenessunder all conditions is unclear (Meier, 1998).Background 

### Material

ADUDOE 1993 ADUDOE 1993 ADmOE 1993 No federal minimum. Assumed same as typical new. Horizontal Axis (performance normalized to "typical new"); 

### BTS Best Available Efficiency Energy 

### Star Efficiency Ozone washers (performance

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Commercial Clothes Washers

Test Procedure Overview

FutureRotential Test Procedure(s) Modified Energy Factor MEF = Capacity 

## [ft3] /(Machine Electrical Energy Consumption (weightedper cycle) [kW-hr]

# + Water Energy Consumption (weightedper cycle)[kW-kr]

## + Energy Consumption for removal of Remaining Moisture Content RMC (percycle) [kW-hr]



### A test load is determined based on the capacity ofthe test unit Modified Energy Factor accounts for remaining moisture content (RMC) Energy test cloth is usedfor no more than 25 

### cycles. Measurements are made overfull arrange ofoperation temperatures (extrahot, hot,warm, and cold)andfill levels (maximum,average,and minimumfill). Temperature UseFactors (TUF) and Load UseFactors accountfor various water temperatures andfill levels as well as manual and adaptivefill control systems. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................

CFR LO 

### Pt. 430, 

### Subpt. B,

### App. J1 

### will be usedfor determining compliance with standards set beginning 1/1/2004. 

### For Family-Sized residential washers only, on July 27, 2000, 

### all manufacturersof residential clothes washers sold in the United Statesjoined several energy conservation advocacy organizationsand utilities in submitting to DOE aJoint Stakeholders Comment (JointComment),endorsing new standardsfor clothes washers. These standards would require a 22

### percent increase in efficiency by 2004 

### and a 35

### percent increase by 2007 

### above



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I the standards currently in effect. How effectivelydo testprocedure(s)and App. J1 

### is more realistic since it incorporatestestprocedures to includedifferentwater metric(s)represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology temperatures. There are many factors in the calculations and derived resultsfrom test measurements that are estimatedfor means of product comparison. Estimates may effect annual usagefigures. For Family-Sized washers only,DOE accepts waivers for systems that cannot be tested appropriately under the J1 

### guidelines. Themanufacturer must supply an acceptable test procedurefor that clothes washer.


## ......................................................................................................................................................

Testprocedure does not identifydesign impact onpeak demand, only total energy consumption; furthermore, water heating energy consumption oftenoccurs off-peakandlor via non-electric water heating means (oil,gas) which do not impactpeak electric demand. TheMEF metric ofthe testprocedure takes into account additional moisture extracted by the washers that reduces the energy consumed by the dryer,also reducing thepeak demand impact ofelectric dryers.

# Standards Consideration Product: Gas Duct Furnace

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative(Ouads)

### 2008-2030 .- . ............................................................................. 

### Product 1'Technology Availability (Including PricelCost information):



## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden



## ............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Power Vent (E,= 

### 82%) = 

### 0.0221 Pulse Combustion (E,= 

### 90%) = 

### 0.10'' Condensing (E,= 

### 93%) = 

### 0.13"



### .....................................................................................................................................................

The installed cost of duct furnaces varies by the type of unit and by capacity.The smallest units (1

### SOMBtu) cost approximately four times more (USD per Btu) than the largest units (5OOMBtu). On average, units in the best-selling size range (400-500MBtu) cost -$8IMBtu, installed (GRI. 1997) Gas duct furnace manufacturers often make unit heater products, which fall under many building codes (e.g., via ASHRAE 90.1); some manufacturers make commercial roof-top airconditioning products, which have minimum energy efficiency levels.
,

## .................................................................................................................................................... , 

### Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-statethermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9).Any references to seasonal efficienciesuse AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAEStandard 103).


## ..................................................................................................................................................... Not known. Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Power vented units account for a significant fraction of unit sales.



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Efficiency Improvements Issues Gas Duct Furnaces currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Actual energy savings will be larger for units that have higher seasonal efficiencies ke.. higher AFUE). EL

is steady-statethermal efficiency as definedby ANSI 283.9 test procedure. Savings based on baseline typical efficiency (E,)of 80% Background Material 

# I Total Energy Use (auads, 1998) 

# 1 0.122 

# I GRI-9710100 

# I

Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 

# I 72 

### ] Divided total energy use by installed base. 

# I Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) GRI-9710100 Installed Base (millions, 1995) Average based on shi~ments and lifetime. 

# I

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

# t - 

# 1 1GRI-9710100;estimated average accounting for geographical variations Product Lifetime (years) and cavacitv 

# I

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

# 1 . 

# - Steady-statethermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASHRAE 90.1- Minimum Efficiency Standard 74% i 

### 78% 

## * 

# 1 19g9, 

# I 1""

...............................................................................................................".""

## .........................................................................................................

Stock Efficiencv 

# 1 80% 

# 1 2001 (commercial HVAC 

### vol. 1) 

# I Typical New Efficiency 

# I 80% 

# I ADL, 2001 (CommercialHVAC vol.1) 

# I 

# I Best Available Efficiency 93% Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# IOther Notable EfficiencyLevel 82% 

# I Power vented, improved heat transfer. 

## * As of 29 October, 2001. ASHRAE 90.1-1999 indicates a minimum combustion efficiency (i.e., 100%minus flue losses) of 80%.

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: 

### Gas Duct Furnace

Test Procedure Overview



## ............................................................................ FuturePotential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s)and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? 

### All measurements are taken during standardized, full-load, steady-state operation ofthe heater. Measure inlet and outlet air temperatures. Flue gas temperature, CO, concentration, and condensate rate measured. Based on the above measurements and the measured heating value in thefuel,calculate percent ofenergy lost (intheform ofwater vapor, unburnedfuel, and warm air) through theflue to the outdoorair (called "%flueloss"). Calculate the thermal efficiency ofthe ductfurnace,equal to 100% 

## - %flueloss. Calculate jacket losses, the energy lost through the body ofthe heater, using measured temperaturesofthe outermost furnace surfaceand the temperatureofthe ambient air.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... There are no known new test procedures being developed for gas ductfurnaces.


### ...................................................................................................................................................... The testprocedure accurately measures thermal (or combustion)efficiency for ductfurnaces operating underfull-load and steady-state conditions. However, thermal efficiency measured under these conditionsdoes notfully indicate the actual annual energy consumptionofduct furnaces. Firstly, the testprocedure only measures aductfurnace'sfull-load steady-state efficiency and does not indicate how well the heaterperforms during "warm-up" and "cooldown" operationnor duringpart-load operation (whenthe aifflowthrough the furnace is reduced). Secondly, thejacket loss calculations are based on empirical correlations,not measured directly, and may be slightly inaccurate.Lastly, duct furnaces areprimarily used to heat air in an occupied space to temperaturesthat are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively the heater distributes its warm air to keep the space comfortable. Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology 

### Negligible (naturalgas energy dominates gas duct furnace annual energy consumption,and thefurnaces almost never operate during periods of peak electricity demand).

# Standards Consideration Product: Gas Unit Heaters



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Power Vent (E, = 82%) = 0.25" 

### Action; Pulse Combustion (E,= 90%) = 0.69'2



### Background Material

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product/ 

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation):

Cumulative Burden Statusof Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

7"

Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) GRI-9710100 and ADL (2001)


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 

# I 

# 1

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divided total energy use by installed base. Annual Shioments (millions. 1995) GRI-9710100 Condensing (E, = 93%) = 0.73"


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The installed cost of unit heaters variesby the type of unit and by capacity. The smallest units (25MBtu) cost approximately four times more (USD per MBtu) than the largest units (SOOMBtu). Standard (Typical)units are widely available in sizes between 25MBtu and SOOMBtu, with an installed cost of -$8lMBtn for the best-selling size range (250-375MBtu). Power-vented units are widely availablein sizes between 25MBtu and SOOMBtu, with an installed cost of -$lOIMBtu for the best-selling size range (250-375MBtu). Pulse-combustionunits are available in sizes between 25MBtu and SOOMBtu, with and installed cost of -$18/MBtu for the best-selling size range (250-375MBtu). Condensing units are manufactured by one major manufacturer and are available in three sizes (225MBtu, 300MBtu, and 400MBtu). While available in the U.S. since 1999, condensing units are primarily marketed in Europe. The list price of the 300MBtu unit is currently -$5,500 ($18.25/MBtu).Estimating the installation cost as 25% of list price gives a total installed cost estimate of -$23lMBtu.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Gas unit heater manufacturers often make duct furnace products, which fall under many building codes (e.g., via ASHRAE 90.1); some manufacturers make commercial roof-top airconditioning products, which have minimum energy efficiency levels.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-statethermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9). Any references to seasonal efficienciesuse AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAE Standard 103).


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known. 

## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Power Vent: 15% market share (circa 1995) Pulse Combustion: 0.6% market share (circa 1995) Condensing Units only beginning commercial availability (circa 1999)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Gas unit heaters currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Actual energy savingswill be larger for units that have higher seasonal efficiencies (i.e., higher AFUE).



### .................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................... Installed Base (millions, 1995) 3.2 GRI-9710100



### ....

## ...................................... .............................................................................................. 

# _ .............................................. 21.5 GRI-97/0100; estimated average accounting for geographical variations Product Lifetime (years) and capacity.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Steady-statethermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASI-TRAE90.1- Minimum Efficiency Standard 75% 178% 

## * 

# , 999, 

## -- E, is steady-statethermal efficiency as definedby ANSI 283.9 test procedure. Savings bascd on baseline typical efficiency (E,) of 80%.



### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# t .? - -

Stock Efficiency 78% 

# 1ADL, 2001 (CommercialHVAC vol. 1)


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Tvoical New Efficiencv 

# 1 78% ADL, 2001 (Commercial HVAC vol. 1) Energy Star Efficiency MaximumEfficiency (Future Technology) Other Notable EfficiencyLevel 

### * As of 29 October, 2001, ASHRAE 90.1-1999indicates a minimum combustion efficiency (i.e., 100%minus flue losses) of 80%. NIA N/A 82% 

## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Power vented, improved heat transfer.

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Gas Unit Heaters



### Test Procedure Overview



## ........................................................................... FuturePotentialTest Procedure(s) How effectivelydo test procedure(s)and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology All measurements are taken during standardized, full-load, steady-state operation of the heater. Measure inlet and outlet air temperatures. Measure flue gas temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, and condensate rate. Based on the above measurementsand the measured heating value in the fuel, calculate percent of energy lost (in the form of water vapor, unburned fuel, and warm air) through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). Calculate the thermal efficiencyof the duct furnace, equal to 100%- %flue loss. For unit heaters installed indoors, jacket losses are not considered since the energy "lost" by thejacket goes into the space being heated.


## ........................................................................................................................................................ There are no known new test procedures being developed for oil unit heaters.



### ....................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure accurately measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters operatingunder full-load and steady-state conditions. However, thermal efficiency measured under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption of unit heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type of air-rnover)built in to the unit that consume electricity but are not covered under the current testing procedure. Secondly, the test procedure only measures a unit heater's full-load steady-state efficiency and does not indicate how well the heater performs during "warm-up" and "cool-down" operation nor during part-load operation (when the dampers are partially closed or if the fan operates at partial speeds).Lastly, unit heaters are primarily used to heat air in an occupied space to temperatures that are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively the heater distributes its warm air to keep the space comfortable.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Negligible (natural gas energy dominates gas unit heater annual energy consumption, and the furnaces almost never operate during periods of peak electricity demand).

# Standards Consideration Product: Oil Unit Heaters

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


### ............................................................................. Product/ 

### Technology Availability (Including Price/Cost information): Power Vent (Ec = 

### 84%)= 

### 0.002233'4 Pulse Combustion (E,= 

### 90%) = 

### 0.00823,24 Condensing (E,= 

### 93%) = 

### 0.010'3,'4


### ....................................................................................................................................................

Oil unit heaters costbetween 8-IO$USIMBtu depending on capacity (GRI, 1997) Currently, only standard gravity vented ("low-tech") models are available for oil-Fired unit heaters. No manufacturer was found that markets a "higher-efficiency" model. CumulativeBurden



## ............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures Oil unit heater manufacturers often make other products (gas duct furnace, gas unit heaters), that fall under many building codes (e.g., via ASHRAE 90.1); some manufacturers also make cornrnercialroof-top air-conditioning products, which have minimum energy efficiency levels.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see 

### UL Standard 731). 

### Any references to seasonal efficienciesuse AFUE (see ANSIfASHRAE Standard 103).



## ............................................................................. Other RegulatoryActions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Not known.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

Market share of power vented, pulse combustion, and condensing units approaches0%. Issues Oil Unit heaters currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Actual energy savingswill be larger for units that have good seasonal efficiencies. Actual energy savings will be larger for units that have higher seasonal efficiencies (i.e., higher AFUE). 23 

### EL is steady-statethermal efficiency. Savingsbased on baseline typical efficiency 

### (E,) of 82%. 24 

### Without existing oil-fired unit heaters in these categories, the thermal efficiency values for potential improvements are estimated to be the same as for gas-fired unit heaters. Background Material 

# I Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) GRI-97/0100 and ADL (2001) Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) Divided total energy use by installed base. Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) 

# 1 82% 

# 1 I"..'.""""."

........................................................... ". "

## ............ """"' 

### ...... ...:.. 

## .."" """

### ................................................................................................ Stock Efficiency Same as tvvical new efficiencv. Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard 

# I Typical New Efficiency 

# 1 82% 

# 1 Average of six available models (Modine and Reznor) 

# I

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

# I Best AvailableEfficiency 

# 1 4 

# 1Modine model POR-100 Energy Star Efficiency


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... MaximumEfficiency (Future Technology) 0.03 13.7 81% / 

### 81% 

## *


# IOther Notable EfficiencyLevel 

# I N/A 

# I * As of 29 October, 2001, ASHRAE 90.1-1999 indicates a minimum combustion efficiency (i.e., 100%minus flue losses) of 80%. 

### GRI-9710100


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GRI-9710100;estimated average accounting for capacity variations.


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Steady-state thermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASHRAE 90.1- 1999)

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Oil Unit Heaters



### Test Procedure Overview

FuturePotentiat Test Proeedure(s) All measurements are taken during standardized, full-load, steady-state operation of the heater. Measure inlet and outlet air temperatures. Measure flue gas temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, and condensate rate. Based on the above measurements and the measured heating value in the fuel, calculate percent of energy lost (in the form of water vapor, unburned fuel, and warm air) through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). Calculate the thermal efficiency of the duct furnace, equal to 100%

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


## . . .

.. . . . . . 

## . .

## . . .

. ..

..

. .. . . . . .



## . . . . .



## . . . . . . . . .

. . .



## . . . . 

## . .

.. . .

.. . .

. . .

. .. .



## . . . . . .. . .

.

## . . .

.. .



## . .. .

. . . .. . . . . ..

. .

. .. . . . . 

## . . 

## . .

..

. . ..

.. . .

..

. .



## . . . .. . . . . .

. .. . . . .

. ..

. . . .

## . . . There are no known new test procedures being developed for oil unit heaters. 

### How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? The test procedure accurately measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters operating under full-load and steady-state conditions. However, thermal efficiencymeasured under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption of unit heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type of air-mover) built in to the unit that consume electricity hut are not covered under the current testing procedure. Secondly, the test procedure only measures a unit heater's full-load steady-state efficiency and does not indicate how well the heater performs during "warm-up" and "cool-down" operation nor during part-load operation (when the dampers are partially closed or if the fan operates at partial speeds). Lastly, unit heaters are primarily used to heat air in an occupied space to temperatures that are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively the heater distributes its warm air to keev the space comfortable. 

### Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Oil unit heaters do not use electricity (except for small amounts to power any fans, blowers, or pumps), so do not contribute to electric demand peaks.

# Standards Consideration Product: Exit Signs



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


### ............................................................................. Product 1

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information):



## ........................................................................... Cumulative Burden 14Watt Maximum = O.O6'* 1Watt Maximum = 0.41Z5 5 Watt Maximum (Energy Star) =0.3125 3.5 Watt Maximum 

### = 0.35"


### .......................................................................................................................................................

LED exit signs are readily available - Energy Star has more than twenty certified manufacturers. 10-year total ownership costs for LED signs are $65compared to $380 for incandescent sign. Price for plastic LED sign without battery backup is $40 compared to $25 for comparable incandescent sign. FEMP provides a table of exit sign lighting options, these include: LED signs: $22 initial purchase, $5 annual operating Incandescent: $6 initial purchase, $42 annual operating


## .......................................................................................................................................................

California may implementa standard that specifies a 5W per face maximum. The proposed efficiency standardswill be reissued on November 6,2001. The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. Some statesbanned incandescent lamps from exit signs in the 1990's. * Although not energy related, exit sign manufacturers must comply with strict performance

and safety standards for this product contained in building codes administered from the



## ................................................................................................................................... 

# I state to the local level. 

### ____. Statusof Test Procedures Other specifications for Exit Signs include visibility (letter size and spacing, luminance contrast, luminance)and reliability (warranty, backup power source). The EPA has ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Exit Signs. Other standards bodies include NFPA, UL, US OSHA, BOCA, and the Uniform Building Code publishedby the International Conference of Building Officials.


## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) 0.05 uEighting Report - Phase 

### I Inventory, 2001.


## .........................-. Unit Energv Consumotion (kwh) 143.5 Based on stock efficiencv. 

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

", ,-, ACEEE, 2001. Calculated for 2000 using 1994 data, assuming2% ~rowth. 

# I Not known.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The ENERGY STAR program has 22 certified manufacturers. FEMP recommends the ENERGY STAR guideline. Exit signs are identified as one of the top 

### 3 highest potential energy efficiency technologies for market transformation, including energy savings potential, cost savings, and likelihood of successfulmarket transformation (ACEEE report, 1998).


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Codes from all types ofjurisdictions require regular exit sign inspection, despite predicted lamp life.



## ...."

## ....................................................................... ................................... .1'.Y 

## ............................................................................................................... Installed Base (millions) 29.5 ADL Draft US Lighting Report - Phase 

### I Inventory, 2001. 

# 1 25 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 15Watts where 75% of installedbased are 15Watt exit signs.

Product Lifetime (years) 

# IIncandescents: 2-20 years. Fluorescents: 1-2 years. LEDs: 25years Various vroduct saecifications sheets.


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Minimum Efficiencv Standard 

# t 5

## w per face in CA 

# 1CEC, 20bl ( effeciiveJuly, 2002).


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# 1 16.4W 

# 1Weighted average of installed base. Stock Efficiency ADL Draft US Lighting Re~ort - Phase I Inventow. 2001.


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# t 1 ""A ,. 9-40W Incandescent and CFL from Hubbell, Lithonia, Noralighting, and Typical New Efficiency Chloride oroduct soecification sheets.


## ............. 

## .............. 

## .............................................................................. 

# t

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

# t.; : : 

## .................................................................................. Best Available Efficiencv 0.9 

## - 3.5 W LED exit signs from Hubbell and Chloride Specification sheets.


### ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Enerm Star Efficiencv 

# '/Yw or less per face 

# TEPA, 2001

### .- MaximumEfficiency (Future Technology) <lW Electroluminescent and some LED panels already use 1

### W or less. Photoluminescent materials require zero electrical energy input.

# Test Procedure Surnrnarv Product:Exit Signs



### Test Procedure Overview Energy Star and the proposed California Energy CommissionAmendments to Title 20 Energy Efficiency Standards give the same testing method guidelines for exit signs.

Prior to measurement, the exit sign shall be operated at the rated input voltage for 100 hours. Input power shall be measured with an appropriate True RMS Watt Meter. Each of the photometric characteristicsof the sign shallbe measured at three voltages:

Rated input voltage which represents normal operation, Voltage corresponding to the minimum voltage provided either by the internalbattery or a remote emergency power source, and Voltage corresponding to the minimum voltage provided by the internal batter after the marked rated operating time or at 87.5% of the rated emergency input voltage.



### FutureJPotentialTest Procedure(s)



## ............................................................................. Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Luminance measurement positions "Measurement of Exlt Sign Luminance," NFPA 101,Life Safety Code. "Directional Indicator Luminance Measurement Points," ANSIIUL 924, Standard for Safety: Emergency Lighting and Power Equipment, May 9, 1995.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No issues to mention at this time. 

### How effectively do test procedure(s)and xnetric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Exit signs operate 24 hours per day; so duty cycle and the per-fixture installed savings potential can be accurately determined. There is some uncertainty around the installedbase in the U.S., which affects the Quad savings calculation.


## ..........................................................................................................................................................

Because exit signs operate 24 hours per day, the peak load impact is proportional to the power draw measured under the test standard.

An exit sign must be operated for 100 hours before testing, enabling the power systemto stabilize. Lumen output may be higher at testing time than at the average life of the light source, which will occur after at least 3000 hours of operation.

# Standards Consideration Product: Torchieres 

# IPotential Energy Savings from Regulatory Wattage Limit set at 190W = 0.8326 

### Action; Wattage Llmt set at 70 W = 1.73'6 

### Cumulative (Quads)2008-2030


### .............................................................................. Product 1

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



## .............................................................................. Cumulative Burden Product is primarily directed toward the residential sector. Readily available at retail outlets for homewares such as Home Depot or Walmart. Utilities have sponsored turn-in and rebate programs for halogen torchieres. Most halogen or incandescent torchieres retail for less than $20, while non-subsidized CFL torchieres typically cost in the range of $30to $50 (CWEB, 2000).


## .......................................................................................................................................................

California may implement state-wide maximum wattage of 190W on fixtures. The proposed efficiency standards will be reissued on November 6, 2001. The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. Although not mandated, many manufacturers are responding to the combination of safety concerns and high energy consumption,by installing safety measures such as lower wattage bulbs and ~rotective cages to avoid materials coming into contact with the bulb.


### .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

### .................... 

# I 

# 1 - -

__._ 

### Status of Test Procedures No test procedure for efficiency, although applicable measurement standards on efficacy, lamu life, color rendering, etc. do exist (EPA, 2001). These testing standards are



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I 

# I promulgatedby the IES~A, ANSI and 

### IEEE. - EPA has developed ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures. 

### Other Regulatory Actions


## ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements



## ........................................................................... 

# I Issues Not known.


## .......................................................................................................................................................

DOE worked with LBNL to develop a CFL-based torchiere lamp (BTS, 2000) Many universities (Brown, Harvard, Stanford & Yale) have banned halogen torchieres from dormitories for safety reasons (LBNL, 1999) FEMP and several utilities around the country have sponsored "Torchiere Trade-in" schemes,where consumers swap their old halogen torchiere for a new CFL one (FEMP 1998;HE, 1999). Regulations should be considered across all sectors (e.g., not excluding residential) as this is primarily a residential sector product While not an energy efficiency regulation issue, regulations could lead to lower wattage lamps and may reduce fire risk. 26 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 300 Watts. Savings estimatesbased on installed base remaining constant (i.e., no growth in sales). Greater savings will be realized if sales increase.

kotalEnergy Use (quads. 1997) 

# 1 0.188 

# 1 Assumes all installed units are 300W halogen lamps (C. Calwell, 1998;BTS, 2000) and 3.9 hr. o~eration oer dav (ADL. 19981.


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I . ~ 

# 1 427 

# 1 Based on halogen installed base. ACEEE, 1999;BTS, 2000; LBNL, 1999. Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Based on stock efficiencv. 

# I

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

# 1 

# IHalogen, 9000; Incandescent:4500; CFL: 650. Annual Shipments (millions) Calwell and Granda, 1999.


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Minimum Efficiency Standard StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency



## ............................... 

## __ Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 300 W Halogen: 300 W

CFL: 65 W

j0
" 67 "40 Installed base assumes all halogen.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sales of halogen torchieres have been decreasing following fires. Move to lower wattage incandescent (< 190W)or CFL (< 70W).


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... BTS, 2000. One of seven CFL substitute lamps developed due to DOE initiative.


## ............................................................................................................................................................... EPA 2001. Calculated using 60 Im/W Energy Star specification (for fixture 24 inches and 30 watts) and 4,000 lumen output (typical 300W Halogen).


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Assume efficacy will improve to highest linear florescent tube (100 Im/W) and 4000 lumen demand.

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Torchieres



### Test Procedure Overview



### .......................................................................... Future/Polential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy Energy Starrequires testing using the methods in Table 1 for performance characteristics including input power and light output. CEC Dro~osed standards do not s~ecifv a test method for torchiere fixtures. Energy Star states that there will potentially be revisions for durablltty testlng that may Include on-off cycllng, voltage varlattons and current variations among other factors.


### ...................................................................................................................................................... The test procedures cover the two key energy efficiency metrics that represent energy consumption and the potential savings 

## - Input power and l~ght output



### Table 1:

### Residential Indoor and OutdoorLights:Energy Star Program Reference Standards 

# I consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technolo~v 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Test procedure and metric of energy input correlate highly with the peak load impact.



### Performance Characteristic 

### Efficacy Light output Inputpower Power factor Lamp current crestfactor Lamp starttime lam^ 

### Life Reference standardfor method ofmeasurement



### IESNALM-9; LM-66 

### IESNALM-9; LM-66; 

### ANSI (282.2 

### ANSI C82.11-3.3.1 ANSI C82.11-3.3.3 ANSI C82.11-5.2 LESNA LM-40: LM-65 Lamp Color Rendering Lamp Correlated Color Temperature Dimming Warranty Safety -

### Portable Fixtures Safety -

### Hardwired Fixtures Safety -

### Ballasts and "Fluorescent Adapters" EBNA LM-58; LM-16 EBNA LM-58; LM-16 Use manufacturer protocol Use manufacturer protocol ANSJ/UL 153 

### UL 1598 ANSI/UL 935; 

### UL 1993 Ballast Frequency LESNA LM-28 Transient Protection 

### EEEC 62.41

# Standards Collsideration Product: Traffic Signals

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory All Red Signals to LED = 0.30Z7 All traffic signals to LED = 0.60Z7 Action; Red and Green Signals to LED = 0.4927 Cumulative (Quads)2008-2030 Red and Green pedestrian to LED = 0.5927 

## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product/ Technology Availability (Including Prices vary, but the first cost of a 12-inch red LED signal is approximately $125. Amber LED PriceICostinformation): signals cost about $170 and green signals are about $250. Payback periods of 1 to 1.5yrs (Delean, 1996), 1.5 to 3 yrs (Lundberg, 1997b),4.5 yrs (Haussler, 1997), and 6 to 7 yrs (Vargas, 1994)have all been reported. The actual period will depend on elechicity prices, unit costs, and possible financial incentives offered by utility or government organizations (Bullough et al., 2000). Since LED signals first hit the market, prices have declined considerably and manufacturers Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures believe this trend will continue. Energy Star currently has 4 certified manufacturers.


## .......................................................................................................................................................

California may implement a standard of 8-22 W, corresponding to signal type (e.g. red ball, green arrow, etc.).

The proposed efficiency standards will be reissued on November 6,2001. The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. California, Minnesota, Texas, Ohio, and Oregon have standards pertinent to performance, visibility and use requirements of LED traffic signals (Bullough et al., 2000). Although not related to energy consumption, traffic signals are subject to performance, visibility, electrical, and quality assurance requirements set forth by the Institute of Transportation

-- C~ ~-- 

### ......................................................................................................................................................

Inil~u:te 01 Tran>r~orr Eng~nccrs (ITF.)has spucif~cat~ons I)rLEI) trar'iiz signals u hlch lncludc 

## - chromaticity, luminous intensity, compatibility with load switches, QA, etc. EPA has ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Traffic Signals EPA is working with the ITE to develop the visibility requirements for LED yellow signals. 

# I Other Regulatorv Actions 

# 1 Not known. 

# 1

Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements ENERGY STAR program is less than one year old and has 4 certified manufacturers. Consortium for Energy Efficiency launched a similar program in January 2000 with 22 partner utilities around the U.S. Philadelphia was an early adopter, investing $2.33 million program to replace all 28,000 signals in the city. LED Traffic signals may reach saturation soon simply because installation makes clear economic sense, especially in cases where utilities sponsor rebate programs.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Issues 

# I " Savings based on a baseline of 99% incandescent and 1%LED. Total Energy Use (quads, 1997) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions) Product Lifetime (years) 

# ITypical New Efficiency 

# 1 NIA Minimum Efficiency Standard 150 W Stock Efficiency Incand: 125,150 W 

# I LED: 10-22W 

# IITE, 2001; ADL Draft Phase I. 2001: Didight Corp.. 2001. 0.04 11110 1.15 9.6 Incand.: 0.7 LED: 5 - 7


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... There are specifications regarding safety (luminous intensity), power factor,



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... voltage and circuitry, but not efficiency. Contrary to this 1997 value, it is very likely that lower wattage LEDs, especially red, are already at a much higher penetration. ADL Draft US Lighting Report - Phase I Inventory, 2001.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Per intersection, using installed base data.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Suozzo (ACEEE), 1998. Assumed annual replacements of Illifetime plus 2% growth.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADL Draft US Lighting Report - Phase I Inventory, 2001.


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CEE, EPA Energy Star, & Dialight product spec sheets.



## - ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 3-7W LED efficacy expected to double over the next five years (Petrow, 2001) 

# 1 Best Available Efficiency - l3 I - Energy Star Efficiency 

## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Best available LED signals today are 7W red, 9W yellow & 11 W green



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (LedTronics, 2001). When the ITE approves yellow LED'S,EPA Energy Star will develop a criteria for vellow signals (EPA, 2001).

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Traffic Signals



### Test Procedure Overview

FuturePotential Test Procedure(s)



## ............................................................................. How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption

### and potential savings?



## ............................................................................ 

# I Product Peak Load impact and Correlation There is currently no test procedure that evaluates energy consumption of traffic signals; focus of test procedureshas been product performance and safety. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is one of the authorities working directly with the US Departmentof Transportation in the regulation of transport-related technologies. The ITE has established a test procedure to regulate safety and performance standardsfor traffic signals. This same test procedure can be applied to more efficient devices, as the new products must comply with the same minimum standards. The ITE has a specificationand test procedure outlined in their Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads (VTCSH) document. Section 2 and 2a are an interim draft for LED signal modules. 

# I Energy Star products must meet the minimum performance requirements of the relevant ITE specificationand be tested under the conditions presented in Section 6.4.2 of the VTCSH Part 

### 2.


## ...................................................................................................................................................

Although yellow balls and arrows fall under the ITE specifications, compliant products have not yet been developed (Energy Star Program Requirements, 2001). Energy Star is worhng with ITE to revise the specifications. ITE will add specifications for pedestrian and arrow signal modules.


## ..................................................................................................................................................

The test procedures do not cover power input, only power factor and other electrical characteristics. Installed base and duty cycle for traffic signals is fairly well known, so the corresponding energy savings potential is reasonably accurate.


### ..................................................................................................................................................... The peak power draw of traffic signals correlates directly with their impact upon peak. 

### with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology The test procedures do not cover energy input; therefore, they do not correlate with the metric that indicates peak load impact.

# Standards Consideration Product: Ceiling Fans 

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



## ............................................................................. Product/ 

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information): Cumulative Burden



## ............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures Energy Star compliant (75 CFMmatt) = 0.2628 Best Available Aerodynamic (130CFWWatt) = 0.5828 Aerodynamic and Permanent Magnet Motor (260 CFMIWatt) = 0.8S2* Energy Star compliant lighting (pin-based CFL) = 2.4


## ....................................................................................................................................................... According to preliminary data supplied by Energy Star in which 26 fan models bom 9 different manufacturers were tested by the Hunter Method, 8 of the models (31%) met Energy Star guidelines for airflow efficiency. Currently Home Depot stores sell the highest efficiency fan on the market, the Hampton Bay "Gossamer Wind series. Most manufacturers of ceiling fans do not make other products that have faced energy efficiencv regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. "Solid StateTest Method" described in "Energy Star Program Requirements for Residential Ceiling Fans." 

# IOther Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements



## ............................................................................ 

# I Issues Not known.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

"In Development" for Energy Star; expected "launch" in Y2002. Upgraded "Tier 2" Energy Star in Y2003 will include a maximum 1 W standby (www.energystar.gov) Home Depot selling "Best Available" Technology.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

Different capacity fans. Lighting is often integral with ceiling fans and warrants consideration for inclusion. 

# " Savings based on a baseline consumption of 62 CFMIWatt. High speed efficiencies are shown, but the potential energy savings value given assumes that fans operate half the time on high speed and half the time on low speed. The feasibility of employing a permanent magnetfbrushless DC motor is not clear (due to different rotational rates). 

### Backeround Material

Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 0.076 50 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 227



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Sanchez (LBNL, 1997) 

# ICalwell, Chris and Noah Average based on total energy Horowitz. 2001. Home and installed base Energy, January/February 2001, pp 24-29. 16.5 (-75% with lighting)


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NIA


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NIA


## ................................................................................................................................................................................. 87 CFMtWatt 170CFMNatt 115 CFMlWatt 340 CFWWatt Appliance Magazine, May 2001 Sanchez (LBNL, 1997) 

# I Appliance Magazine, September 2000
180 W



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 180 W



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60W



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. (Parker, 1999) Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. (Aerodynamic blades - Parker, 1999) Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. (www.EnergyStar.gov) Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. (Aerodynamic blades and permanent magnet motor) *

## ................................................... 60W incandescent three light fixture 60W incandescent three light fixture Pin-based CFL (www.EnergStar.gov)

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Ceiling Fans



### Test Procedure Overview



### ............................................................................ FuturePotential Test Procedure(s)



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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Energy Star recently adopted the Hunter Method for testing ceiling fans. Fan is hung in a temperature and humidity controlled room above a tunnel or large diameter tube, that is slightly larger than the outer diameter of the fan blades. 

# I Air directed from fan during operation is made to pass through the tunnel, with airflow measurementstaken at various points simultaneously and instantaneously. The average of 

# I the recorded velocities is used in aidow calculations. Throughout operation,power consumption is monitored. Fans are rated for efficiencv on a CFM/Wattbasis. As the Hunter Method was proposed very recently (December 

### 15,2000)there are currently no details on future modificationof testing arocedures.

.................... * The Hunter Method will provide an effective analysis of air flow efficiency. Tier 

### I Energy

Star requirements, set to take effect on January 1, 

### 2002, also govern controls, lighting, warranty, and provided consumer information 

### . Tier 

### I1 levels take effect on October 

### I, 2003, and include amendments for most of the above categories and additional noise regulations. Controls can also increase energy savings, e.g., the GossamerWind fan includes motion sensing controls to insure that the fan does not operate with no one in the room. Beyond air flow, lighting associated with many fans represents another energy-saving opportunity; lighting typically consumes more energy than the fan motors.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Despite the list of qualificationsnecessary for Energy Star compliance, the amount of air moved per watt, as quantifiedby the Hunter Method test, correlates well with the impact of ceiling fans on peak energy loads because the majority of ceiling fans will operate during peak 

# I load times. 

# I

# Standards Consideration Product: Compact Audio



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



### ............................................................................. ProductI Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information):


## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden Current Energy Star (2 Watt standby) = 0.47'9 Energy Star Year 2003 (1 Watt standby) = 0.5329 Best Available (0.25 Watt standby) = 0.5729


### ...................................................................................................................................................... Presently, about 50 compact audio models draw 1W or less in standby mode. This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation.


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# t Statusof Test Procedures 

# 1 -ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Consumer Audio and DVD Products"



### .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

# I 1 Issues 

# I 1

Other Regulatory Actions Evidenceof 

### Market-Drivenor 

### voluntary Efficiency Improvements


## ................................. 

## _.
29 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 10Watt standby. Not known.


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54% Energy Stat' Market Penetration Target (Y2000) -50 Different Models Consume 1Wor Less Standby


## ........................................................................................................................................................................
Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) 

# I Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 11.8 Appliance Magazine, May 2001 Installed Base (millions, 1998)


## ............................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Product Lifetime (years) Appliance Magazine, September 2000



### -. 

## - 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy StarEfficiency 

# f 2 W standbyq 

# f Phase 1 (2002) - www.EnergyStar.gov


### .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# t

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

# : I

Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiencv NIA 9.8 W Standby 9.8 W Standby 0.25 W Standby 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... www.EnergyStar..gov

# Standards Consideration Product: Component Stereo and RACK Audio

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 

# I Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2008-2030 

# I Product / Technology Availability (Including CurrentEnergy Star (2Watt standby) 

### =0.1030 Energy Star Year 2003 (1 Watt standby) = 0.2030 Best Available (0.26 Watt standbv) =0.27303' ,. 

### ........................................................................................................................................................ Prercl~tly. Inore ihiln 25 RACKIComponen~ aud~o nodcls draw I W or less in st;lndl)y lnodc. 

# I

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

# I PriceJCost information): Cumulative Burden 

# 1This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for 

# I
Statusof Test Procedures Other Reeulatorv Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary E~l'ficiency Improvements



### ............................................................................. other regulation.


## ......................................................................................................................................................... "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Consumer Audio and 

### DVD Products"


## ........................................................................................................................................................ Not known.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

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

30 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 6 Watt standby. 3' Only for receiver; 1.1Wwas the lowest standby Rack system power draw measured by Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999). Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh)


## ................................................................................................................................. Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions. 1998)
Best Available Efficiency 0.26 W Standby 

# 1www.EnergyStar.gov



### ............... 

# :
............................................................. 

# 1

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

# I Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Tvvical New Efficiencv



## ............................................................................. 

# t Energy Star Efficiency

MaximumEfficiency (Future Technology)


## ............................................................................. Other Notable Efficiencv Level 0.122 129 10.6 74

Phase 1(2002) - www.EnergyStar.gov NIA 

# I Average based on UEC and installed base.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)

_.__

## .................................................................................................. Average based on installed base and lifetime. (Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) estimate shipments of 

### -5 million in 1998.)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) 7 NIA 3 W Standby 3 W Standby



## ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 W Standby Phase I1 (2003)

## - www.EnergyStar.gov 

## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Appliance Magazine, September 2000


## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL. 1999)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)

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



### Test Procedure Overview



## ............................................................................ 

# 1 FuturelPotential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? In accordancewith Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) 

### <3% THD, Ambient Temperature of 22°C and within Market-Specific Ranges for Voltage and Frequency. Test equipment is set up and the test unit connected properly. The unit is brought to standby mode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately90 minutes). Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements of the product (in Watts), are recorded within a time measurement that is long enough to measure the correct average value within a +lo% 

## - 0% error range. The testing procedure will not change with the lmplementatlon of Energy Star Phase 

### I1 requirements on January 1,2003.


### ...................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure correlates mldly with the energy consumption of compact audio devices, as standby energy consumption currently accounts for about 50% of compact audio energy consumption On the other hand, standby power 1s a poor proxy for RACK/Component audio energy consumption; only about 10% of RACWComponent audio energy consumption occurs in the standbymode. 

### Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology The current test procedure likely fails to evaluatepeak load conditions, as the test procedure only considers standbypower draw but many units operate during peak load times.

# Standards Consideration Product: Dehumidifiers 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 EnergyStar Level (1.5UkWh) = 0.193' Best Available (1.85 UkWh) = 0.533' 

# IProduct/ 

### TechnologyAvailability(Including PriceJCostinformation): As of August 30,2001,2high-capacity dehumidifiers (364lday<57) and 10 standard capacity dehumidifiers (up to 35 Wday) meet Energy Star requirements. 

### Cumulative Burden
Statusof Test Procedures The ma!or manufacturers of dehumidifiers also make other household appliances which have been regulated for energy efficiency, such as room AC units (Fedders, Frigidaire, Whirlpool) and other major white goods (Frigidaire, Whirlpool make dryers, washers, dishwashers, etc., all of which have been regulated in the past). Insufficient data for other regulation.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

"ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers" ANSIIAHAM DH-, for Test Methodology. CANICSA-C749-94 (Section 4.2), for Energy Factor Calculation 

### Other Regulatory Actions


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I

Not known. 

### Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 12Models Meet or Exceed Energy Star Performance Levels 

### Efficiency Improvements


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Issues Different sized dehumidifiers 3' Savings based on a baseline consumption of 1.35 UkWh. Energy Star level and best available efficiencies vary with size. Values given are for mid-sized units, 25 - 35Wday. 

### Background Material

Total Energy Use (quads, 1997) Average based on UEC and installed base. Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Zogg and Alberino, 1998 Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Appliance Magazine, May 2001 

# IInstalled Base (millions) 

# I 11 

# I Average based on shipments and lifetime. 

# 1

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product Lifetime (years) 

# 1 : 11 

# 1Appliance Magazine, September 2000 Minimum Efficiency Standard


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stock Efficiency 

# 1 Typical New Efficiency 

# 1 1.35 UkWh 

# I For mid-sized units (25-35 Wday) www.EnergyStar.gov 

# I

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

# t Best Available Efficiency 1.85WkWh For mid-sized units (25-35 Wday) www.EnergyStar.gov

Energy Star Efficiency 1.50UkWh For mid-sized units (25-35 Llday) www.EnergyStar.gov


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# 1 VIA 

# 1 I Other Notable Efficiency Level NIA

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Dehumidifiers



### Test Procedure Overview

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



### .. .

. . .. . 

## . ..



## . .. . . . . . . . .

## . . .

.

## .

.

## . .

. .

.. . .

. .. . . . 

## ..

. ..

. .

. . . .. . . . .. .



## . ..



## . .

. .

. . .. . . . . Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Tests are conducted in accordancewith ANSIIAHAM Standard 

### DH-1 and Canadian standard CSA-C749-94. Air entering the dehumidifiermust be at 

### 80°Fdry bulb17O0Fwet bulb (standard conditions). Energy Factor is calculated accordingto section 4.2 of CANICSA-C749-94,by dividing the mass of the condensate collectedby the energy consumption. That result is dividedby the density of water at the test temperature(1 kg/litre at standard conditions) and expressed in terms of UkWh. There are no indications of imminent changes in the test procedure. The testing procedure closely models the 

### UEC, as dehumidifiers typicaliy operate at steadystate conditions approaching similar dry-to-wet bulb temperature ratios. The test procedure correlates well with performance during peak demand periods, as a dehumidifiertypically run around the clock and under similar dry-to-wet bulb conditions.

# Standards Consideration Product: Set-Top Boxes 

# I Digital Wireless 

# 1 Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


## .................................................................... Product I

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



## .................................................................... Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures Currently only two set-top box models meet Energy Star requirements, both dig~tal boxes made by Pace Micro Technology. These two unlts became ava~lable in June, 2001 Once Tier 2 l~mits take effect on January 1,2004, analog boxes will have an ewertlme fulfill~ng Energy Star requirements, Current Energy Star (15W standby) = 0.5433 Energy Star 2004 (7 Watt standby) = 0.9533 Best Available fl Watt standbv) = 1.333 as allowable power draw levels will rise from 3 W to 7W for all categories.


### ................................................................................................................................................................ This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other Current Energy Star (15Watt standby) = 0.0534 Energy Star 2004 (7Watt standby) =0.3534 Best Available (1 Watt standby) = 0.583J

regulation.


### ................................................................................................................................................................

"ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Set-Top Boxes" 

# I "Testing Guidelines for ENERGY STAR Qualified Set-Top Boxes" 

### Other Regulatory Actions Not known. 

# 1

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

# 1

Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

1 W Standby feasibility unclear. 

# I No products meet Energy Star levels for Analog Cable TV



### ..............................................................................................................................................................

Market moving away from Analog towards Digital cable boxes (no analog boxes expected by 2008). 

# I Only two products, both for Digital Cable TV, satisfy Energy Star Criterion (Category 2); they came to market in June, 2001.

33 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 197kWNyr. 34 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 16.2 Watt standby Wide range of products covered under ENERGY STAR Program including: Cable TV (analog ant digital), digital TV, satellite TV, wireless TV, personal VCF, video game console, internet access devices, videophone, multifunction devices.



### Background Material

Total Energy Use (quads, 1999) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions, 1999) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock UEC (kWh/yr) Typical New UEC (kwh)or Efficiency Best Available UEC (kwh)or Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Other Notable Efficiency Level 0.105 95 49 10 N/A 197 197 140 15W standby NIA 7 W standby 0.02


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 140


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.3


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... N/A


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... N/A


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16.2 W standby


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8.8 W standby



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... IS W standby


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... N/A


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 W standby Average based on UEC and installed base Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Average based on installed base and lifetime. Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) wurw.EnergvStar.~ov and Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) www.EnergyStar.gov Proposed for 2003 EnergyStar (www.EnergyStar.gov)

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Set-Top Boxes 

### Test Procedure Overview Refer to "Testing Guidelines for Energy Star Qualified Set-top Boxes" In accordancewith Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% 

### THD, Ambient Temperature of 

### 22"C, and within Market-SpecificRanges for Voltage and Frequency. Test equipment is set up and the test unit connected properly. The unit is brought to standby mode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately90 minutes). Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements of the product (in Watts), are recorded within a time measurement that is long enough to measure the correct average value within a +lo% 

## - 0% error range. 

### FutureJPotential Test Procedure(s)

.

## .

. . .

. .

## .

. .

.. . .

. 

## . .. . . . 

## . .. . .

. .

. . .

## . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .

.

## . . .

..

. .



## . ..

.. .



## . . 

## .. . .

. .. .

, 

### How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumptionand potential savings? There are currently no indications of an imminent change in the testing procedure.


## . . .. . .

. ..

. ..



## . .

. . .

.. . . . .. . .



## ..

. 

## . . . ..

.. . .

. 

## . .

. .. . .

. . . .

.. . .

.

## . . .

. ..

. .

.. .

.. .



## .. .

. .

.. .

. .. .



## . . .

.. . .

. .

.. . . . . 

## .. .

..

. . . .. . . . .



## .. . .

..

. .

.. .

. . . . . .

## . . . . . .

. .. .

. .. .

. . . .. 

## . .

. The lack of activemode testing does not make a significant difference in evaluating set-top box energy consumption, as analog and digital boxes consume more than three times more energy annually 

### in standby mode than in active mode. In addition, the boxes consume little add~tional energy in active mode (relative to standby): analog boxes require an average of 1.4W (13%) more to operate in the active mode, digital boxes 0.7W (3%). 

### Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology The test procedure closely models the impact on peak load, since the standby power draw measured during testing is does not vary significantly from the activepower draw. The correlation between peak power draw and the test method will decrease if standbypower draw decreases. as many set-top boxes operate in the active mode during the peak demand periods.

# Standards Consideration Product: Televisions



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumdative (Quads) 

### 2008-2030 Potential Economic Benefitslsurdens Cumulative Burden Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits



## ............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures Other RegulatoryActions


## ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues Future Energy Star (1 Watt standby) = 0.54'" Best Available (0.1 Watt standby) = 0.6535 LCD = 4.135


### ...................................................................................................................................................... Not available.


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


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emissionbenefits that are likely to bepossible.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TVIVCRs, TVDVDs, and TVIVCRIDVDs"; currently under revision (www.EnergyStar.gov)


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Not known.


## ......................................................................................................................................................

40% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000; Webber et al., 2000) Numerous (>SO) Models Consume 1WorLess Standby (www.energystar.gov) LCD Televisions Commercialized; 2.7% market share in Y2000 based on distributor unit sales. (Appliance Magazine, May 2001) Impact of Electronic Programming Guides and HDTV can significantly change standby and active power consumption


### ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 5 Watt standby. Used 25-lnch and 27-inch TVs for savings estimates.


### Back~round Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) 0.348 

# 1Average based on UEC and installed base. 

# 1

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

# I

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

# 1 Unit Energy Consumption 

### (km) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Installed Base (millions, 1998) Product Lifetime (years)

standby, with Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999); ADL 2001 Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) significantly lower LCD technology Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency 

# I active draw. 

# I I 150 31.4 212

9 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Appliance Magazine, May, 2001


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Appliance Magazine, September 2000 NIA 4.9 W Standby 

### 5.7 W Standby 0.1 W Standby

1 W Standby Same minimum 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNI,, 1999) - 27" screens


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... www.EnergyStar.gov


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Future Energy Star level. (www.EnergyStar.gov)


### ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Televisions 

# I Test Procedure Overview Test Procedure (for MOU Version 1.0, current through April, 2001): Detalls: Standbymode 1s when the TV 1s connected to a power source but 1s not communicating sound nor picture. In this mode the device can be switched to active with a remote control (some power is being drawn). Off mode is when the device is plugged in hut drawing no power. Typically the TV is unable to turn on with the use of a remote control. Current draw is blocked with a hard onloff switch. Plug the unit in and allow it to come to temperature and stabilize (-90 minutes). Using a calibrated (performed yearly) power meter, measure the power draw of the TV in the standbymode - turned off with remote. Measurement should account for inconstancy in current draw, i.e.. perform a time averaged measurement. Test must be performedunder the following conditions: 1)~3% total harmonic distortion (voltage) 2) Ambient Temperature= 22 deg C +I-4 deg C 3) 115 V RMS (+/- 3 V), 60

### HZ.(+/- 3 

### HZ.) FuturelPotential Test Procedure(s)


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



## .............................................................................. ProductPeak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Version 2.0 of the Energy Star MOU for Televisions and VCRs


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Neither the original nor the revised test procedures effectively model the majority of TV energy consumption or potential energy savings. The Energy Star test procedure measures only standby power, while activepower dominates 

### (89%) TV energy consumption. Consequently, the test procedures will not account for potential energy savings from approaches that decreasethe active power draw of TVs (such as LCD).


## ...................................................................................................................................................... 1)The test procedure correlates minimally with the peak load impact of TVs because the procedure measures standbypower draw but many TVs are active during peak demand periods. 2) LCD technologywould realize significantpeak load reductions because LCD TVs operate at substantiallylower activepower levels than conventional CRT devices.

# Standards Consideration Product: Video Cassette Recorders



### Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory New Energy Star Compltant Level (2Watt standby) = 0.2536 

### Action; 1Watt standby = 0.3836



### Background Material

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 ProductI Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation): Cumulative Burden Statusof Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

Total Energy Use (quads, 1998)


## ............................................................................. Unit Energy Consumption (kwh)


## ............................................................................. Annual Shipments (millions, 2000)


## ............................................................................. Installed Base (millions, 1998) 

### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Many VCRs in the market meet Energy Star standards, I.e., the Energy Star website lists 45 models by 8 different manufacturers, available as of September, 2001, that satisfy the Phase 

### I requirements.


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


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TVIVCRs, TVIDVDs, and TVIVCRlDVDs"; currently under revision (www.EnergyStar.gov)


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000; Webber et al., 2000) -5 Different Models Consume 1Wor Less Standby (www.energystar.gov)



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-Watt Standby power proposed for Y2003 Energy Star criterion (www.energystar.gov)



## ............................................................................. 

# t Product Lifetime (years)

Minimum Efficiency Standard


## ............................................................................. Stock Efficiency 36 Savings based on a baseline consumption (typical new) of 4 Watt standby. Baseline consumption extrapolated for year 2000 from Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999).



# ITypical New Efficiency 

### I Energv Star Efficiencv 

# 1..

...... .: 

### .........................:. 

### ........................................ Maximum Eff'lcicncy (Future ?'echnolo:yj 

# I Other Notable Efficiency Level Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Appliance Magazine, May, 2001 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Rosen and Meier (LBNL. 1999)



## ...................................................................................................................................................... 

# f 5.9 W Standby 

# f Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)


## ....................................................................................................................................................... 

# I 1 W Standby 

# IProposed for 2003 Energy Star (www.EnergyStar.gov)

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

# ITest Procedure Overview 

# INo testing procedures exist for VCRs as of June 

### 19,2001;the Energy Star program expects to develop a test procedure in the near future. 

# I Fnture/Potential Test Procedure(s)



## ............................................................................ How effectively do test procedure(s) and metricts) represent actual annual energy consumptionand potential savings?



### ........................................................................... Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with TestProcedure and Metric, by Future revisions of "Energy Star Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TVIVCRs, TVIDVDs, and TVIVCWDVDs" will include test procedures. While the details of the test procedure are not known, it will call for using a power meter to measure VCR power draw while the VCR is in standby mode.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Assuming that the future test procedure is similar to that used to evaluateRACK and Compact Audio equipment, i.e., to measure standby power draw, the Energy Star program would have a low correlation with VCR energy consumption; standby mode accounts for 

### -35% of VCR energy consumption.



### ........................................................................................................................................................... The degree of correlation between stand-by power and VCR peak power impact depends upon the (unknown) distribution of VCR operational mode during peak power demand periods and cannotbe readily determined.

# Standards Consideration Product: Copy Machines 

### Commercial Residential Potential Energy Savings from Copier of the future, 100% Energy Star enabled = Copier of the future = 0.08~' 

### Regulatory Action; 0.13' Conversion to Inkjet Technology = 0.1 13' 

### Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2008-2030 Conversionto InkietTechnology = 0.737 

### ProductI Technology Copier of the Future (CotF): Two companies, Canon and Ricoh, offer mid-speed range machines that fulfill 

### Availability (Including the CotF criteria. The CotF cost premium is most likely minimal because the CotF devices have replaced 

### PriceICost information): previously existing product models (based on speed performance).A cost premium is unlikely due to effort 

# I of keeping products competitive. Inkiet printer substitution:Inkjet copiers are not available commercially. 

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

# I

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

# 1 Statusof Test Procedures Energy Star test procedure document. Co~ier of the Future. 

# I Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues

37 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology. 90% of Copy machine stock Y2000 is Energy Star Compliant 34% of Copiers in stock are E* enabled 52.3% of the Copy machine Stock is Energy Star Compliant. (Webber et al. 1999) Federal governmentmandates purchase of 

### E*- compliant Copy Machines. Best in class Copiers with low power capability, Panasonic 60cpm (FP-D605), 

### 15Watts in sleep, Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) - less than 10 W in sleep (CotF award)


## ..............................................................................................................................................................................


## '' Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100% Energy Star enabled. 52% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 34% of Copiers in stock are Energy Star enabled Best in class Copiers with low power capability, Panasonic 60cpm (FP-D605), 15 Watts in sleep, Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) 

## - less than 10W in sleep (Copier of the Future award)



### Background Material Energy savings depend on the technical abilities to lower sleep power Energy Star enablementis the key to limiting electricity use. Energy Star, although prevalent in new copier sales, is not at activated in the majority of machines. 1Watt sleep is not possible, however lower requirement than that defined by CotF may he possible.


# I I Comm 

# I Resid 

# I Commercial 

# I Residential 

# 1 Total Energy Use (quads, 2000) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) (ADL, 2001) Stock (millions, 2000) (ADL, 200 1 ) (ADL, 2001) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kwhlyear) TypicalNew UEC (kwhlyear) Best Available UEC (kwhlyear) Energy Star UEC (kwhlyear) Minimum UEC (kwhlyear) Future Technolorrv 6 1000 602 546 602 216 6 3 15 

### 165 I9O 165 27 (ADL, 2001)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34% Energy Star enabled, (ADL, 2001)



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100%Energy Star enabled ,(ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copier of the future, 100% Energy Star, (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100%Energy Star enabled, (DL, 2001)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Conversion to Inkjet processes, (ADL, 2001) Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) Current low level machine, (ADL, 2001), 

### Kawamoto et al (LBNL,2001) 100% Energy Star enabled 

### ,(ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001) Copier of the future requirements 

### , (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001), Nordarn (LBNL, 1998) 100% Energy Star enabled, (ADL, 2001), Kawarnoto et al (LBNL, 2001) Conversion to Inkjet processes, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001)

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Copy Machines

Line Impedance<0.25 ohm Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3%



### FuturePotential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energyconsumptionand potential savings?

ProductPeak Load Impact and Correlationwith Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Ambient Temperature= 21 deg C +/- 3 C Relative Humidity = 40-60% 

# - Minimum distance of 2 feet from a wall VoltagelFrequency= 115VRMS +/- 5V, 60 Hz. +/-3Hz. 2) Prior to Off-mode and Low-power testing the devices must be plugged in, then turned off, and allowed to stabilize for at least 12 hours. 3) All copier speed bands are subjected to Off-mode testing Turn on copier and let it warm up. wait exactly the amount of time specified (based on copier speed) for the copier to switch into Off mode. Begin recording energy consumption. Continue for one hour and compute the time averagepower draw. 4) For the mid and high copier speed range, the copier is subjected to sleep-mode testing Turn on the copier and make on copy. Let the machine sit for exactly 15minutes. Record energy consumption for one hour. Compute the time-average power draw. 5) Testing details: All watt meters must be calibrated,at least every year and have aresolution of 0.1 

### W. The measurements recorded must be accurate within +/-0.5 W.


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotentialtest procedures identified. CotFprocedure is more strict.



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The testing metrics do not correlate closely with the UEC and potential energy savings because the "standby" mode, not the "sleep" mode measured by the test procedure, accounts for the majority of device UEC. Improvements in the Energy Starenabled rate will increzse the amount of time in and percentage of device UEC accounted for by the "sleep" and "off" modes, increasing the relevance of test procedure to copier energy consumption.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copiers can have a substantialpeak load impact, as higher-end devices can draw up to a few kilowatts while copying.In addition, most cornmercial copiers spend most of the peak demand period in "standby" mode. As a result, copiers infrequently enter the "sleep" mode power draw measured by the test procedure, resulting in a low correlation between the test method and copier peak load impact. The Copier of the Future criteria would decrease peak loads somewhat by decreasing the "standby" power draw and the amount of time spent in "standby" mode during peak demand periods. Conversion to inkjet copiers would certainly reduce the peak loads in both the sleep (regulated by test procedure) and active modes. The test procedure does not capture a significant portion of the possible energy savings.A 100% Energy Star-enabled rate would realize about a 60% reduction in energy consumption. The current Energy Star-enabled rate (68%) limits the magnitude of the potential gains. Presumably, most residential copiers reside in home offices.The "standby" mode power draw has the greatest impact upon peak period power draw; thus a weak correlation exists between actual operating patterns and the "sleep" mode considered in the current test procedure. The CotF criteria would reduce the "standby" energy consumption duration and limit any peak load impact. Conversion to inkjet technologywill reduce the peak loads in both the Off (coveredby test procedure) and active modes.

# Standards Consideration Product: 

### Desktop Computers 

# I 

# I Commerciat 

# I Residential 

# I I -. - I 

### Potential Energy Savingsfrom 

# 1 100% Energy Star, 50% Enabled = 

### .44j9 

# I 100% Energy Star enabled,PentiumI11 = 

### 0.0839



### ..................................................... Product 

### I Technology 

## -- - Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030
Availability (Including PricefCostinformation):



# ICumulative Burden 

### 100% Energ; Star enabled,Pentium 111 

### = 1.94~~ 1 

### WattSleep (CurrentEnergy Star rate) with a PentiumI11 = 

### 0. 1639 Laptop Computer =

### 3.8339 Low-Power Design (featuresuse ofTransmeta processor) = 

### 3.5539


## ................................................................................................................................................................................ Desktop PCs with a 1 

### watt sleep levels are not yet available;the SCENIC - 

### 1000MHz. Pentium 111 

### draws the leastpower ofany Energy Star-compliantdesktop PC, drawing 2.3 Watts in sleep. Thefeasibilityofa 1 

### WattSleep (CurrentEnergy Star rate) with 

### a Pentium 111 = 

### 0.1139 

### Laptop Computer = 

### 0.35j9

1 

### Wattsleep mode is not clear and requiresfurther examination. Many ofthe low-powerstrategies used in commercially-available laptop computers technology (lowpower microprocessors, spinning the hard drive down, sleep modes, etc.)oftencommand aprice premium. A low-power orpower aware dekstop computer is not commerciallyavailablehut it is technically feasible to design and build. This model takes advantage ofthe lowpower elements (suchas the low-power Transmetaprocessor architecture)and components found in 

### a laptop but avoids the high costs oftight packaging and exotic (Liquid-crystal)displays. Other advantages to this technology are more efficient means ofexecuting operations due to the enhanced procedures integral to the Transmeta architecture.A 

### hurdle, in addition to the lack ofimplemented low-power desktop designs, is the cost premium ofthese chips.A Transmetachip costs $50 more than a comparablePentium 800 MHz. processor. (informat~on from ADL and The ChipMerchant, 9/26/01)


## ............................................................................................................................................................................... This and related products have not been regulatedfor energy efficiency; insufficientdatafor other regulation. (statusof Test Procedures 

# 1Energy Star testprocedure document. 

# I Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### 90% of Desktop Computerssold in Y2000 were Energy Star Compliant (Webber) 25% of Desktops in stock are 

### E* enabled (ADL, 2001) 85% Energy Star Market Penetration targetfor Y2000 (Webber et a]., 2000) 

# I E*, althoughprevalent in new computer sales, is oftendisabled by user;increasingE* enabled rate may require software modification,e.g..permanent enabling of power-down features 

# 1 25% of Desktop Computersin stock are E* enabled 85% Energy Star Market Penetration targetfor Y2000 (Webberet al.) -17% ofthepersonal computer stock in Y2000 is ofLaptop design ederai government mandatespurchase of E*- 17% ofthe Personal Computer stock are computers oflaptop design Currentbest marketperformer: SCENIC L.i815, 2.3W in sleep


### .............................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I I 1 

### Wattsleep may not be technicallyfeasible.Discussions with manufactureswill verifythe possibility. 

# I compliant computers Currentbest market performer: SCENIC L.i815, draws 2.3W in sleep

Low-power microprocessors may encounter resistance in non-portable machines due to the necessity of manufacturer re-design and demand for faster and bigger machines. Energy savings depend in largepart upon increasing Energy Star enabled rate, asoftware option

39 

### Savings based on abaseline consumption that corresponds to typical new Pentium 111 

### technology (25% Energy Star enabled).

# Standards Consideration Product: Desktop Computers 

### Background Material



## ................... ............................................... Annual Shipments (millions, 2000)


## .............................. Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years)


## ... Current UEC (kwhlyear) Typical New UEC (kwhlyear) Best Available UEC (kwhlyear)



## ............................................................................ Energy Star UEC (kWh1year) Minimum UEC (kwhlyear)Future Technology


## ...................... _._l Other Notable UEC (kwhlyear) Additional Notable UEC (kwhlyear) 43.9 (ADL, 2001)
....................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25% Energy Star enabled,using Pentium 111 (ADL, 2001), Intel 2001


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Laptop Technology, (ADL, 2001)



### ........................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy Star enabled, Pentium 111, (ADL, 2001)


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Laptop Technology, (ADL, 2001)



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... Low-power design, Current Energy Star, (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1Watt Sleep Pentium 111, Current Energy Star, (ADL, 2001) 59 3 297 325 35 17' 

### 35 56 313 (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) Pentium 111, 25% power enabled, Kawamoto et al. (LBNL,2001), (ADL, 2001), (Intel ,2001) Pentium I11,25% power enabled, Kawarnoto et al. (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001), (Intel ,2001) Laptop Technology, Kawamoto et al. (LBNL,2001), (ADL, 2001) 100% Energy Star enabled, Kawarnoto et al. (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001) Power aware design with Energy Star PC with 1Watt sleep 5 1 3 56 56 27
15 47

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Desktop Computers



### Test Procedure Overview

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

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

### I1Models (manufactured after July 1, 2000)- only considering guideline A System must adhere to energy star sleep mode levels which are measured in the following manner: The system must go into sleep mode after a period of inactivity, default time set to less than 30 minutes. Any systemthat consumes less than 15

### W in the active mode is not required to have a sleep mode. Detailed Energy Star Test Conditions (from the Computer MOU Version 3.0, EPA - Attachment C) Power source must be 115VAC RMS 

### (+I- 5 V RMS) Measure the True power consumptionusing a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter with resolution to 0.1 Watts. Test conditions: line impedance ~0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency= 60 

### Hz (+I-3 

### Hz.),and an ambient temperatureof 25 degrees C. Under the above conditions the power level in the sleep mode is then measured. * Product meets Energy Star criteria if 95% or more of the products sold are able to meet the criteria.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotentialtest procedures identified.



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Energy Star test procedure does not correlate closely with actual energy consumption and potential savings because it only measures sleep-modepower draw and, due to the low Energy Star-enabled rate 

### (25%)of actual computers, the "active" mode energy consumption dominatesthe UEC. If the Energy Starenabled rate increases appreciably (to loo%), the sleep mode energy consumption would account for a majority of the UEC and strengthen the correlation between the Energy Star test procedure and UEC.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The computer activemode dominates the peak power impact of desktop computers, because many computers are active during the work day. The Energy Star test procedure does not address active power draw. However, increasing the Energy Star-enabledrate, which the test procedure directly addresses, would reduce the aggregate peak demand of desktopPCs by increasing the number of PCs that power down during peak demand periods A PC of laptop or low-power design directly reduces peak power draw by about 80%. Reducing the sleep mode Energy Star power level will achieve a small reduction in peak electrical power draw. The Energy Star test procedure is not capturing the majority of energy savings because of the low Energy Star-enabled rate and the measurement of only the sleep power draw. In the current PC model (25% Energy Star enabled) the active energy consumption dominates the total energy consumption. Even if the Energy Star-enabled rate is raised to 100% the activemode will dominate the UEC. Most likely, desktop PCs do not have a substantial peak power impact, as residential computeruse is more common at night than during the day. Research shows that the majority PCs and monitors not "active" are in the "off' mode instead of "sleep". Thus during the peak-load sensitive times of the day, PC's and monitors draw minimal power, in modes not measured under the test procedure.

# Standards Consideration Product: Fax Machines 

# I I Commercial 

# I Residential Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative(Quads) 2008-2030 Product/ 

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation):


## ...................................................... Cumulative Burden


### ...................................................... Status of Test Procedures


## ...................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Enhanced Laser Technology (SURF) = 0. Inkjet I Watt Sleep (Current Energy Star rate) = 0.2440 Inkjet facsimile machines account for a plurality (but not a majority) of new product sales. An existing laserjet device consumes 2 Watts in the standby mode. Inkjet 1 Watt Sleep = 0.0740 Enhanced Laser Technology (SURF) =0.04"



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



### .............................................................................................................................................................................. Energy Star test procedure document.


## .............................................................................................................................................................................

95% Energy Star Market Penetration Target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 38% of Faxes sold in Y2000 are of Inkjet technology (30% are laser; ADL, 2001) Federal government mandates purchase of E*-compliant fax machines 1 Watt Stby Mandate is nearly possible. Best currently marketed device is the FAX5000L at 2W sleep. This is a LaserJet, Comparable Inkjet levels are possible. The Savin F3615, 

### an inkjet device, also

40 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new inkjet technology. 

### Issues

Background Material consumes 2W in sleep mode (www.energystar.gov)


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Design changes must occur to achieve 1W sleep levels. A significant amount of faxes are laser technology

Total Energy Use (quads, 2000) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWh/year) Typical New UEC (kWh/year) Best Available UEC (kWh/year) Energy Star UEC (kwhlyear) Minimum UEC (kWh/year) Future Technology Other Notable UEC (kWNyear) Energy savings are largest with implementation of 1 Watt sleep mode with an inkjet facsimile machine; 1 Watt sleep devices currently do not exist.

0.03 

# 1 0.01 7.4 (ADL, 2001)


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Laser, 100% Energy Star, (ADL, 2001)



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inkjet, 100% Energy Star, (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inkjet, 100% Energy Star, (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inkjet, 100% Energy Star, (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inkjet, with 1 Watt Sleep, (ADL, 2001)



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Enhanced Laser (SURF) Technology (Canon, 2001) 23.2

5 132 57 57 57 9 33 Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) Laser Technology, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001) Inkjet Technology, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001) Inkjet Technology, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) All new equipment satisfy Energy Star criteria, Webber et 

### a1 (LBNL, 2000) Inkjet, with 1Watt Sleep Enhanced Laser (SURF) Technology (Canon, 2001) 11.6 

### 5 77.5 33.6 33.6 N/A 5.4 

### 19'4

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Fax Machines

Test conditions: Power source must be 115 VACRMS (+/-

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



### FutureRotentialTest Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energyconsumptionand potential savings? ProductPeak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology Line impedance 

### <0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion 

### <5%, Input AC frequency = 

### 60

### Hz (+/- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of 

### 25 degrees C. Test procedure: Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the steep mode. Record the energy consumed for one hour and divide by one. This ensures that variations in current draw are accounted for. This method is recommended in order to gain accurate results but is not essential for equipment that draws constant power.


### ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ No futuretpotentiat test procedures identified.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Testing procedures and metrics accurately capture the essence of energy consumption and savings tactics for this device, because standby energy consumption represents the vast majority of the UEC.



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

# Standards Consideration Product: Laser Printers


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Commercial Copier of the Future Criterea = 0.24'343 Conversion to Inkjet Technology = 0.S4' 

### Residential Inkjet Printer = 0.04' 

### Cu&lative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product/ 

### Technology For Commercial only, Copier of the Future (CofF) criteria exist and could be applied to laser printers. 

### Availability (Including PriceICost information): 

# , ........................................ Cumulative Burden 

# IStatusof Test Procedures Meeting power draw levels of the sleep-mode for higher-speed laser printers (e.g.,Large Office band) may be difficult. However, commercially-available laser printers that fulfill the Copier of the Future criteria do not exist. Laser printer manufacturers continue to investigate high-throughput inkjet technology heavily. In general, inkjet printers could more readily displace low-end laser printers, at a lower first cost (assuming print quality concerns can be overcome).


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


## ..............................................................................................................................................................................

Energy Star test procedure document. 

### Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements



### ...................................................................................... Energy Savings are largest with a transition to inkjet printers. Because of the small size (low rate) these devices, inkjet technology is a sensible alternative. However, improvement of inkjet performance equality is necessary. 

## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99% of the Laser Prlnter stock tn Y2000 are Energy Star Compltant (CCAP-offtce2 XIS) 54% of Lasers tn stock are E* enabled 99% of Prtnter stock 1s energy star compliant (Webber 1999) Federal government mandates purchase of 

### E*-compliant laser prtnters. 1 watt sleep implementation 1s unllkely Best marketed product currently draws 3 5 Watts In low power 

### Issues 

# 1 I technology superiority. 

# 1 

# 1 4' Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100%Energy Star enabled. mode. Xerox Laserjet Docucolor 2060 (60 ppm).


### .............................................................................................................................................. Energy savings depend in large part upon increasing Energy Star enabled rate. 

### E* enabled rate is less than 99% for Y2000 stock. Change to inkjet technology might not be consumer acceptable due to beliefs of laser

43 Copier of the Future technology scenario is defined as requirement of printers to meet the Target 1 copier requirements. It specifies a maximum of 10Watts in sleep mode. 

### Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 2000) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000)


## .......................................................... Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWNyear) Typical New UEC (kwhlyear) Best Available UEC (kwhlyear) Energy Star UEC (kWNyear) Minimum UEC (kwhlyear) Future Technology Other Notable UEC (kWNyear) 0.05 

## ] 0.003 4.4 6.8 (ADL, 2001)


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ............................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Average of all Equipment, 54% Energy Star Enabled Rate, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy StarEnabled Rate, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy StarEnabled Rate, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy StarEnabled Rate, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Conversion to Inkjei Technology, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copier of the Future Requirements, Current Energy Star, Nordman (LBNL, 1998), (ADL, 2001) 4 670 483 483 483 

### 163 372 Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 200 1 ) 100% Energy Star enabled, (ADL, 2001), Kawarnoto et al (LBNL, 2001) Conversion to inkjet printer, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) 100% Energy Star enabled, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) Conversion to inkjet printer, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001) 

## ............................ 4 33 30 28 30 28

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Laser Printers



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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric,by Technology Power source must be 115 VAC RMS (+/- 5 V RMS) Measure the true power consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter. Line impedance ~0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency = 60

### Hz (+/- 

### 3 

### Hz.), and an ambient temperatureof 25 degrees C. Test procedure: Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the sleep mode. Record the energy consumed for one hour and divide by one. This ensures that variations in current draw are accounted for. This method is recommended in order to gain accurate results but is not essential for equipment that draws constant power. 

## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotentialtest procedures identified.



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


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The test procedures do not correspond closely with the peak load impact of laser printers, as laser printers operate in "active" and "standby" modes during much of the peak period portion of the day. The test procedure only measures "sleep" mode power draw. CotF criteria would reduce the peak load impact by decreasing the standby draw and increasing the amount of time in "sleep" mode (I.e.,by reducing the "warm-up" period for the printer). Displacing laser printers with inkjet printers would dramatically reduce peak loads due to much lower "active" and "standby" power draw levels. The Energy Star test procedures correlate weakly with actual energy consumption energy savings, as it measures only the low (or sleep) power draw. The standby (ready-to-print) mode accounts for a majority of energy consumption.

Peak load is not an important issue for these devices because residential laser printers are estimated to spend >95% of their time in the Off mode.

# Standards Consideration Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial



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

### 2008-2030 

# I Statusof Test Pmcedures Energy Star/ Power Management (PM) = 0. 1944,45 Low-power Server (15 W on, 7 W sleep), No PM = 0.8844,46 Low-power Server with 1 W sleep and PM scheme = 0.9244 

### Product / 

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information): Cumulative Burden 

# I No test standards known. Gubier & Peters have data upon which PM time schemes can be based Low-power and power-management capable servers came to market In 2001; unknown cost premlum.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Thls and related products have not been regulated for energy efftclency; lnsufficlent data for other repulatlon.
computer design


## ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................................................................. Issues Integration of PM schemes could impact server performance. 

### Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

44 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 0% Energy Star enabled. LOW-power1PM servers have just entered the market (0% market share). Implementat~on of power management schemes IS posslble (Gubler & Peters; RLX) RLX Technologies and Amphus products are examples of energy efficient low-end server

45 Based on the low power level similarity of Desktop computers and server usage from Gubler & Peters (2000) 46 RLX Technologies uses a transmetta chip and a PM scheme 

### Backmound Material Total Energy Use (quads, 2000)


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.049 

# i(ADL, 2001) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 

# 1 1.6 (ADL, 200 1 ) 

# I Stock (millions, 2000) 

# I 4.1 Product Lifetime (years) 3


## ............................................................................................................ Current UEC (kWNyear) 

# 1 1095


## ............................................................................................................ Typical New UEC (kWNyear) 1095 Best Available UEC (kwhlyear) 107


## ............................................................................................................ Energv Star UEC (kWNveari 

# 1 NIA "< 

# - 

# ., ........................................................................................................... Minimum UEC (kwhlvear)Future Technology 

# 1. 87 (ADL, 2001)


## ........................................................................................................................ Same as a PC. (ADL. 2001) <, 

## ........................................................................................................................ Tvoical Server, (ADL, 2001) Typical Server, (ADL, 2001) Low-power server (w/PM), e.g., RLX (Hipp, 2001)


### ........................................................................................................................ No EnergyStar program 

## ........................................................................................................................ Low-power server, 1 Watt sleep and Power management, (ADL, 2001) Other Notable UEC (kwhlyear) 131 Low-power server without Power Management, (ADL, 2001)


## ............................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................................... Additional Notable UEC (kwhlyear) 869 Current design with Power Management

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

# I Test Procedure Overview 

# I Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) HOW effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumvtionand votential savings? No test procedure exists.


## .................................................................................................................................................................. None are available.


## .................................................................................................................................................................. Not applicable. 

### Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Not applicable.

# Standards Consideration Product: Monitors


### Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulativt (Quads) 2008-2030 Product/ 

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

Cumulative Burden


## ..................................................... Statusof Test Procedures Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues 

## ....................................................................................... Energy savings depend in large part upon increasingEnergy Star enabled rate, a software option 

### E*, although prevalent in new monitor sales, is often disabledby user; increasingE* enabled rate may require software modification,e.g., permanent enabling of power-down features LCD technology is expensive (ADL, 2001) 

### Commercial 100%Energy Star enabled, 17"CRT = 2.647 1 Watt sleep, CurrentEnergy Star rate, 17" CRT = 0.4447 17"LCD, Current Energy Star rate = 3.647


## .............................................................................................................................................................................

power = 0.82W 

### Residential 100% Energy Star enabled = 0. 14' 1 Watt sleep, Current Energy Star rate = 0.32~~ LCD, Current Energy Star rate = 0.8448

High LCD cost premium impedesLCD market penetration,with higher barriers expected in the residential market than the commercial market. Strict enforcementof energy star configuration will save energy Electronics efficiency optimization (for 1-Watt sleep) can save much energy at little additional cost to consumer and no interruption of 

# I I I performance 97 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new 17" CRT technology, 60% Energy Star enabled. LCD 

## - commercially available, costs are dropping. An LCD monitor has a cost premium of 85% (relative to CRT). In recent history cost premiums of up to 300% were commonplace. The payback period for commercialuse for a 15-inch LCD is I1 years as compared to a 17-inchCRT monitor. The payback perioc for residential use for a 15" LCD is 33 years. (In practice, a 15-inch LCD effectively replaces a 17-inch CRT due to the LCD's more efficientuse of screen space for viewing and higher display resolution.) OrganicLED technology is under developmentbut not commercially available in monitors. The 1 Watt sleep appears to be technically feasible.



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


## ............................................................................................................................................................................. Energy Star test procedure document: Primary sleep mode of 15 Watts Deep sleep mode of 

### 8 Watts

Savingsbased on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 60% Energy Star enabled. Energy Star categoryis defined as having a low power level of 8 Watts. 

### ....................................................................................... 95% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al.) 60% of monitors in stock are E* enabled (ADL, 2001) 3% of monitors sold in Y2000 were LCD (ADL, 2001) Federal Government Mandatinguse of 1Wlsleep power draw (8/31/01). Currentlybest available monitor: NEC MultiSync 70 (17" CRT), Sleep power = 0.82 

### W 

## -..................................................................................... 59% of monitors in stock are 

### E* enabled (ADL, 2001) 95% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al.) 3% of residential monitors sold in Y2000 were LCD (ADL, 2001) Federal government mandates purchase of 

### E*- compliant monitors Federal Government Mandating use of 1Wlsleep power draw (8/31/01). Currentlybest available monitor: NEC MultiSync 70 (17" CRT), Sleep

# Standards Consideration Product: Monitors 

### Background Material

Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWyear)



### ................... ____ Typical New UEC (kWNyear) Best Available UEC (kwhlyear) Energy Star UEC (kWWyear) Minimum UEC (kWNyear)Future Technology



### .................................................................................................... Other Notable UEC (kWNyear) Additional Notable UEC (kWh/year) 3 60 3 to 4 333 333 71 142.9 

### 4.5 16.5 300.6 

### ............................................ (ADL, 2001) 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17" CRT, 60% Energy Star Enabled Rate, (ADL, 2001)


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17" CRT, 60% Energy Star Enabled Rate, (ADL, 2001)


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Liquid Crystal Display, 17", Current Energy Star (ADL, 2001), Dandridge (1994) 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, loo% 

### Energy 2001) 17" 

### CRT'



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cholesteric Technology (Kent State, 2001) 100% Energy Star

_.__ OLE' at loo% 

### Energy Rate (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17" CRT with 1 Watt sleep, Current Energy Star Rate (ADL, 2001) 8 

### 5 1

3 to 4



### 92 92 19 s3

64 

### ................ (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) 17" CRT, Kawarnoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) 17" CRT, Kawarnoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) Liquid Crystal Display, 60% Enabled rate, Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001) 17"CRT, Energy Star Enabled, Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001) Cholesteric LCD Technology, 17" panel, Current Energy Star, (Kent State, 2001), (ADL, 2001)


### ................................................................................................................................ 17"CRT with 1 Watt sleep and Current Energy Star, Kawamoto et 

### a1 (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001)

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Monitors



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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric,by Technology stages instead of only one sleep level. Systemmust adhere to Energy Star sleep mode levels which are measured in the following manner: The system must go into sleep mode after a period of inactivity. Detailed Energy Star Test Conditions (from the ComputerMOU Version 3.0, EPA 

## - Attachment C) Power source must be 115VAC RMS (+I- 5 V RMS) Measure the True power consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter with resolution to 0.1 Watts. Test conditions: line impedance40.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency = 60 

### Hz (+I- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperatureof 25 degrees C. Under the above conditions the power level in the sleep mode is then measured. Product meets Energy Star criteria if 95% or more of the products sold are able to meet the criteria.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotentialtest procedures identified.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Energy Star test procedure does not capture much of the energy savings because of the actual (fieldmeasured)Energy Star-enabled rate. Depending on the Energy Star-enabled rate, the influence of the active and standby energy consumption, relative to total UEC, changes. Currently, CRT monitors realize a 60% Energy Star-enabled rate and active energy consumption dominates energy consumption. This suggests that effort into active power draw reduction (which is not measured by the test procedure) would realize higher energy savings than decreasingthe sleep power draw. As the Energy Star-enabled rate approaches 100%,the sleep mode energy consumption becomes more significant but the active energy use still accounts for a majority of energy consumption.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The "active" power draw and Energy Star-enabled rate dominate the peak load impact of commercial monitors. The test procedure effectively captures the ability of monitors to power down during peak periods, but does not capture the peak power draw of "active" monitors during peak periods. Residential monitors probably do no impact peak loads because residential computers and monitors operate more frequently at night than during the day. In addition, the majority PCs and monitors not "active" are in the "off' mode rather than "standby" mode. Thus, during the peak-load sensitivetimes of the day, PC's and monitors likely draw power in modes that do not fall under the test procedure.

# Standards Consideration Product: Pool Pumps

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action: Cumulative (Ouads)2008-2030



### ............................................................................ l'roduct / Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information):


## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden Statusof Test Procedures Best available (best pump and best motor) = 0.09 Optimum technology (best pump and best motor technology) = 0.21


## ......................................................................................................................................................

Brushless DC motors available.



## ....................................................................................................................................................... Manufacturersof motors of zlHPhave been regulated for energy efficiency (EPACT). The same manufacturersmake lower horse~ower motors for use in oool Dumps. No pool pump spec~fic test procedure IS available. Motor Test Procedure: Rotatlng Electrical Machlnes - Methods for DetermmningLosses and Effic~ency of Rotatlng Electr~cal Machinery from Tests. Th~s IS a general procedure - not Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

# I / Southern California Edison lists efficient pool pumps and gives rebates for purchasing such equipment. The efficiency of this equipment was not included in the analysis due to inconsistenciesin the data. Some equipmentis marketed for its energy efficiency (e.g., Pentair, Speck, and Sta-rite). GE ECM motors are available.


## ......................................................................................................................................................

solely aimed at pump motors. 

# I

Background Material



## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Totd Energy Use (quads, 2000) 0.04 (ADL, 1998) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000)


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stock (millions. 2000) 

# 1 "f 

# 1(ADL, 1998) Product Lifetime (years) 10 

# 1 (ADL, 2001) 

# 1

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

# 1

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

# I Current UEC (kWyear) (ADL, 1998) Typical New UEC (kWh1year) (ADL, 1998) Best Available UEC (kWNyear) (ADL, 2001)



## ............................................................................. Energy Star UEC (kWhlyear) Minimum UEC IkWWvear)Future Technoloev 

## ...................................................................................................................................................... NIA 

### 517 

# f IADL. 20011 

# I

\ 

# ., 1"""

.................................................................................. "

## ....................... "..'."" 

## ......................................................................................................... Other Notable UEC (kWh/vear-1 "' N/A 

# 1 ' ' 

# I Additional Notable UEC (kWNyear) 

# I N/A

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Pool Pumps



### Test Procedure Overview


## .............................................................................. FutureRotentialTest Proeedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and No product specifictest procedures.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... National Pool and Spa Institute may be trying to implement a test procedure for pool pump manufacturers, says David Nibbler of Waterpik TechnologieslJandy Pool Products. Detailed information was not known.


### ....................................................................................................................................................... Not applicable. 

### metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric,by Technologv 

## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... These devices operate several hours per day. This period may or may not coincide with peak load sensitive times. Pool pumps can operate at any time as long as the National Sanitation Foundation reauirement of one water change everv 

### 8 hours 

### is met.

# Standards Consideration Product: Well Pumps 

# I Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory



## ............................................................................ Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product / 

### Technology Availability (Including Best available (best pump and best motor) = 0.17 

# I

. 

# .- Optimum technology (bestpump and best motor technology) 

### = 0.24


## ........................................................................................................................................................

# I

Brushless DC motors are available. 

# I

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... PriceICost information): Cumulative Burden 

# 1 Manufacturers of motors >1HP have been regulated for energy efficiency (EPACT).It is 

# 1

.......................................................................... Status of Test Procedures Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements unknown if pump industry has ever been regulated for other applications and also unknown if companies who manufacturepumps have been subject to regulations for other equipmentthey manufacture.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

No specificwater well pump test procedure. Motor Test Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines - Methods for Determining Losses and Efficiency of Rotating Electrical Machinery from Tests.


## ........................................................................................................................................................

High efficiencypumps are commercially available; however, they donot appear to be marketed as such (inferred from viewing product literature) BrushlessDC motors are available (e.g., from GE) but are not marketed as motors for well vumvs.

TotalEnergy Use (quads, 2000)


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.03 

# 1(ADL. 1998) and (ADL, 2001) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 

# 1 NIA 

# I Issues Lifetime and durability are important factors for this equipment. Submersiblepump motors have unique geometry

## - narrow design and must fit into a well hole. Technical challenges may exist in applying energy efficient motor designs to this application.



## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I Best AvailableUEC (kwhlyear) (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998) Energy Star UEC (kWNyear)


### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... MinimumUEC (kWh/vear)Future Technoloev

# IEI (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998) 

### Background Material

Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWNyear) Typical New UEC (kWhlvear) 14.3 17.5 173 173
Other Notable UEC (kwhlyear) AdditionalNotable UEC (kwhlyear) (ADL, 1998) and (RECS, 1997)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GWP (2001, personal communication)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998)

NIA


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NIA

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Well Pumps 

# ITest Procedure Overview 

# I No product specific test procedures. 

# I FuturelPotential Test Pmcedure(s) 

# I Nothing under development. A submersible pump test (not specifically for well water pumps) will be available at the end of 2001, says the Hydraulic Institute. 

# I 

# I How effectively do test procedure(s) and Not applicable. 

### metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

# I consumptionand potential savings?



### .. .. . . . . . 

## . .. . . .. . .

..



## . . .. . . ..

..

. . .



## . .. .

. .. . .

.. . .



## ..

. .

.. . .



## . . .

..



## . . . .. . .

. .



## . .. . . . .. . . . 

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

### . . . .. . . . . .. . 

## . . .

.. .

. . . . . .. 

## . ..

. 

## . . .. . . .. .



## . . .. . . . .

. ..

.

## . . .

. .

..

. . .. . . 

## ..

. .

. . . ..



## . . .

.. .

. .. .



## . .. .

. .

. . .

.. . .



## . . .

. .

. . ..

. . . .. 

## . . .. .

.. .

. ..

. . . 

## .. .

. . . .

. . . .. 

## ..

. . .. .

.

## .

. . . .



## . . . . This product most likely has a limited affect on peak load. Equipment is most heavily used in the morning and operates for a minimal amount of time each day (19 minutes/household-day).

# Standards Consideration Product: Broilers



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

### 2008-2030


## ............................................................................. Product/Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information):


## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden



## .............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures


### .............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiencv Imrovements 

## ................................................................................................................................................... Most commercial cooking eauioment manufacturers do not make other eauioment that has 

## . . seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation.


## ................................................................................................................................................... All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



### ................................................................................................................................................... Issues 50 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" 

### gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

### Background Material Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# I 6,500 gas Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 2,250 elec FE&S (1997)



### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base (million. 1995) 

# 1 0.157 

# 1NAFEM (ADL, 1995) 

# 1Product Lifetime (years) 

# 1 15 - 20 

# 1 ADL Estimate 

# I 

# t Minimum Efficiency Standard 20 

## - 40% gas

Stock Efficiency "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 40 - 60% elec 

# ITypical New Efficiency 30% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building 60% elec 

# IAvoliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# I

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

## .......... .................. 

## .............................................................................. 

# t 1" .."" "" " "" : : Best Available Efficiency 

## / Energy Star Efficiency 

# I

Maximum Efficiency (FutureTechnology) Comments 

### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 91% gas 19%electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

# Standards Consideration Product: Fryers

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2008-2030 Product / Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information): Cumulative Burden Statusof Test Procedures

Background Material 0.2T5'



## .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Most commercialcoolung equipment manufacturersdo not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... All equipmenttypes have ASTM Test Standards.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvenlents Issues

Total Energy Use (quads) 

# I 0.060 

# 1..

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



# / Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 

# 1 a 51 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficienciesthan gas devices.

Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 117,000 Installed Base (million, 1995) Product Lifetime (years)



### ........................................................................................................... MinimumEfficiency Standard 

# I NIA 40 

## - 50% gas Stock Efficiency 55 - 65% elec 

# ITypical New Efficiency 

# IBest AvailableEfficiency 80% gas 

# I 98% elec


## ........ ".""" .......................................................................................... Enern Star Efficiency 

# 1 N/A



## ........................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Comments 

# I .. 

# .. ....................................................................................................................... "Opportu~iities and Conipet~tion In the Food Scrv~c~. Iicluipment Industry" (ADL, 1995)


## ....................................................................................................................... Appliance (May 2000) About 70% gas/30% elec. FE&S (1997)


## ....................................................................................................................... NAFEM & Food Management (c. 1990)


## ....................................................................................................................... ADL Estimate


## ....................................................................................................................... "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)


## ....................................................................................................................... Large increase in fryer-liquid heat exchange surface area (ADL, 2001)



## ....................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 58% gas 142%electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

# Standards Consideration Product: Griddles 

# I Cumulative Burden

Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action; Cumulative(Quads) 

### 2008-2030 Product 1

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information): 

# IMost commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation. 0.14'"



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

# I Status of Test Procedures 

# I All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards. 

# I 

# I Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Efficiency Improvements Issues 

# 1

52 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" 

### gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

### Background Material
"Characterization of Commercial Building A~~liances" (ADL. 1993) 

# I Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 

# 1 34,455 

# 1 FE&S (1997) 

# I 

# t Installed Base (million, 1995) 0.312 NAFEM (ADL, 1995)

Product Lifetime (years) ADL Estimate Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency Energy StarEfficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Comments 35 

## - 45% gas 50 - 65% elec

55% gas 65% elec "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)



## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) N/A


## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 50% gas / 50% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

# Standards Consideration Product: Ovens



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

### ............................................................................ Product/ 

### Technology Availability (Including I'rice/Cost information):



### ............................................................................ Cumulative Burden



## ............................................................................. Status of Test Procedures


### ............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efliciencv Imwrovements 

## ........................................................................................................................................................ Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturersdo not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation.


## ........................................................................................................................................................ All equipmenttypes have ASTM Test Standards.



### .......................................................................................................................................................

53 All 

### calculations based upon differencebetween "Best Available" and "Typlcal New" 

### gas equipment. Thls wlll tend to overstate savlngsof electnc devtces, whlch typically have slgn~ficantly hlgher efficlenc~es than gas devlces. 

### Background Material 

# t Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterizationof Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)

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

# I Annual Shipments (millions. 1997) 89'000 

### gas 

# I Appliance May, ZOO0 

# I 67.000 elec Installed Base (million, 1995) 0.85 NAFEM (ADL, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) ADL Estimate MinimumEfficiency Standard 

# 1 StockEfficiency 

# I 3:i2:!Y 

# I "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL. 1993)



### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# I I Installed Base is 55% gas / 45% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; Comments c. 1990) 

# 1 Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency


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

## ........ * 45% gas 65% elec



### N/

A ADL Estimate



## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

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



## ........................................................................................................................

# Standards Consideration Product: Ranges Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action: Cumulative (Ouads)

### 2008-2030



### ............................................................................. I'roduct 

### I l'echnology ,lvailability (Including Price/Cost information):


## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures


### ............................................................................. 

# IEvidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements 

# I ...................................................................................................................................................... Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen prior energy efficiency regulation; insufficient data for other regulation.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



### ....................................................................................................................................................... 

# 1 Issues 

# I
54 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. Background Material 

# I Total Energy Use (quads) 

# 1 0.090 

# 1 "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# 1

............................................................................. Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) Annual Shiuments (millions. 1997) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 8 1.300 FE&S (1997) 

# I
\, 

## ........ .."""."

## ........: 

## ........... 

## ........................................... ." "

## .... "

## ............. ""."

## ............................................................................................................. Installed Base (million. 1995) 

# 1.. 0165 

# 1NAFEM (ADL, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) 15

## - 20 ADL Estimate


### ............................................................................. 

# 1

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

# 1

........................................................................................................................ Minimum Efficiency Standard N/A 40

## - 50% gas Stock Efficiency "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 65

## - 75% elec Typical New Efficiency Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building Best Available Efficiency Appliances" (ADL, 1993) Energy Star Efficiency NI

### A


## ............................................................................. 

# 1

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

# 1

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

# I Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Comments 

### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 91% gas 19%electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

# Standards Consideration Product: Steamers



### Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory Action: Cumulative(Ouads)

### 2008-2030

. 

## - ............................................................................. l'roduct / 

### I'echnulogy Availability (Including Price/Cost information):


## ............................................................................. Cumulative Burden



## ............................................................................. Statusof Test Procedures


### ............................................................................. Evidence 

### of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiencv Im~rovements Most commercial coolung equipment manufacturers do not make other equtpment that has seen urior energv efficiency regulatton: insufftctent data for other repulatton. All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



### ........................................................................................................................................................ 

# 1 ~ssues 

# I 55 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" 

### gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

### Background Material Total Energy Use (quads) 

# 1 0.056 Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) 329


### ............................................................................................................ Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 9,800


## ............................................................................................................ Installed Base (million, 1995) 

# 1 0.7 Product Lifetime (years) 

# I 10-15 M~nimurn l:ft~c~ency Standard NIA



### ............................................................................................................ Stock Efficiency 40 - 60% gas 

# 1 60 - 70% elec Typical New Efficiency


### .............................................................................. 

# 1

.............................. Best Available Efficiency 70% gas 

# 1 90% elec


## ............................................................................................................ Enerm Star Efficiency 

# 1 NIA Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# I Comments "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)


## ........................................................................................................................ "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)


### ......................................................................................................................... FE&S (1997)


## ........................................................................................................................ NAFEM (ADL, 1995) ADL Estimate 

# I "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# I Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)


## ........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................ Installed Base is 33% gas / 67% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 1990)

# Test Procedure Summary Product: All Commercial Cooking 

# IAll equipment types have ASTM Test Standards. 

# I IFutureRotentialTest Procedure(s) 

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



### .

## .

. 

## ..

.. . . . 

## ..

..

.. . .

. . . . .. 

# . . .

## .

. . .



## . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .

. . . .

,

## .

. .

.. . .



## . .. .

.. . .

.. . .



# .. . .

. 

## . Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Unknown; only electric appliances contribute to peak loads, and they account for only -19% of all ske energy consumption (ADL, 

### 1993).