2002 Priority Setting 

for 

New Products 

October 26,2001 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR NEW PRODUCTS 

The enclosed data sheets provide information on new products that are not currently covered by 

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 submitted by November 20, 2001, to the U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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-In FreezersIRefrigerators 

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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Beverage Merchandisers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory High-Efficiency Compressor + Brushless DC Fan Motors = 0.22' 

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

Product I 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 

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

Status of 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-OO6ae for steady-state energy use) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Other Regulatory Actions 

' Based on "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration 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: Available bu 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 communications with 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 10.42 kWhlday I ASHRAE 117 Test consumption for 27 cu.ft cabinet 

Pro~osed CA Tier 1 Regulation. 

0.8 

7 to 10 

NI A 

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 

NI A 

Assume similar to stock. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Beverage Merchandisers 

Test Procedure Overview 

I 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 

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 addressed by the current procedure. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

The test procedure ambient temperature of 75°F is appropriate for typical temperatures for 

beverage merchandisers in 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Ice Machines 

Potential. Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product / Technology Availability (Including 

Price/Cost information): 

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

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

EMicieucy Imorovements 

Combination of Energy FEMP Recommended1 

Savings Technologies Canadian Standards Best Available 

0.12~ o4 0.11 10.21~ ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Technoloey Payback Period3 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact 

High-Effcy Compressor 1.8 years New High 

Reduced Evap Them Cyc 1.2 years New 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. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

ASHRAE 29 

ARI 810-2000: Based on ASHRAE 29 

CSA C742-98: Based on ASHRAE 29 ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Canadian Regulations and availability of ARI Data. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

FEMP Recornmendataions 

1 ~ssues 1 Significant ~roduct variety. I 

Based on "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-17, Row 12. Includes 

High-Efficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations 

(7.82GlkWh). 

See plot of Standards vs. ARI data. Nearly all units comply with the current standard. 

Based on ARI 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" data for these ranges. 

Background Material 

t Product Lifetime (years) ADUDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 

Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) 

Annual Shipments (millions, 1998) 

Installed Base (millions, 1995) 

1 Typical New Efficiency 1 7 kWh/100 1b 1 Average of effrclencles for 500 lb/day alr-cooled units - ARI data. I 

0.102 

7,822 

0.296 

1.2 

ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divide energy use by installed base. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Census data for 1998. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

Best Available Efficiency 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

5.8 kWNlOO Ib 

NI A 

NIA 

Best available 500 lblday air-cooled unit - ARI data. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

consumption and 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 - 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 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 1 year Current High 

Rifled Tubes No savings unless heat exchangers are space-constrained 

Var-Speed Compressor 1.4 years New Medium 

Dual Compressor 1.5 years New Low 

Brushless DC Fan Mtr 0 to 3 years NewlAdvanced High 

PSC Fan Motors 2 to 14 yrs Current High 

Evap Fan Shutdown 1 year 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 1 year 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. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 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-Ins by California. Tier 1 takes effect 07/01/02 and Tier 2 takes effect 

07/01/04. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star Program launched in September, 2001. 

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Significant product variety. 

ASHRAE 117 test 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. 

Refrigeration Equipment", 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 1 17 Energy Typical New Efficiency kWh/da~ Test), I 

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

' Based on the assumption that a baseline 20cuft solid-door Reach-In will have 8.65kWhlday energy consumption (Delfield 61258). 

"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 12 kWh/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 1 unww.EnerevStar.gov for 20 cu.ft freezer ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
..._...__................................................................... .............................. .................................... .................................................................................... 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 14 yrs 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 Savings Potential 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 12 kWh/day, $0.076kWh. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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.. ................... , Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency 

Best Available Efficiency 

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 of DOE-funded project, 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 +/-2F Wet 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 specified by energy 

standards are 38F average internal temperature for refrigerators, OF for freezers, and -5F for 

ice cream freezers. 

I I The complexity of 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 complexity make 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 employing the 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability (Including 

PricelCost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

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

Other Regulatory Actions 

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

Evidence of Market-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 technologies and design options noted in the data sheet are currently available. 

Technology Payback PeriodI4 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact 

Brushless DC Fan Motors 1.6 years New High 

Hot Gas Defrost 1.4 years Current High 

Antisweat Heater Control 1.6 years Current High 

Defrost Control 3 to 7 years Advanced High 

Liq-Suct. Heat Exchangers 4 to 14 years 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 Condensing Units: 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% 

I Issues Many system types 

Systems are engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed) 

I I Interaction between 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). 

I Minimum 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) 

ADLmOE Refrigeration 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 

NI A 

NIA 

NIA 

NI A 

NIA 

No suitable efficiency definitions have been established for Supermarket 

Refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems composed of many 

components. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

consumption and potential savings? 

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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

No applicable test procedures for complete supermarket refrigeration systems. 

Test procedures for separate components of supermarket refrigeration systems (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. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Application of energy standards to supermarket refrigeration systems is extremely 

com~licated due to the verv wide range - of system architecture utilized. 

Energy test procedures might focus on individual components, such as display cases. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions which are more energy 

intensive than average typical conditions. For example, the 95°F entering air temperature 

for ARI Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceeds a typical average condition. 

Furthermore, the standard does not take into consideration that the system does not operate 

at 100% capacity at all times. A condenser fan would cycle to maintain a head pressure, 

thus resulting in less fan power. Or, the condenser fan would run continuously, thus 

allowing very low condensing conditions at low ambient temperatures. This latter 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 address part load operation. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

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

Status of 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 Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-21, Row 1 1. Includes HighEfficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor, 28% energy use reduction. The 28% energy use reduction estimate is 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 divided by -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 Available Efficiency kwhlda~ EPA, I 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) I 

I Other Notable Efficiency Level NI A 

NIA 

10.8 kwhlday 

10.8 kWh1day 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Assumed same as typical new. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Average for 600-can beverage machine. Based on limited data received by 

EPA, 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Vending Machines 

Test Procedure Overview 

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

FutureRotential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metricts) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak 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 loading half 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°F for 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 Canadian energy standard is based on the ASHRAE 32.1 Steady State test. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

A test procedure based 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-state and 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 associated with 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 temperatures are 

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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 1.7 years New Medium 

Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium 

Brushless DC Fan Motors -1 year New High 

External Heat Rejection 7 years New High 

Hot Gas Defrost 1.8 years Current High 

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 

refrigerants with 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 Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-23, row 13. Includes Floating Head 

Pressure, Ambient Subcooling, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years 

based on medium energy cost locations (7.82GkWh). 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

Various Test Procedures for Compressors and Condensing Units, depending on compressor 

and heat rejection type. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known. 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Significant product variety. 

Systems are often engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed). 

Standards for compressors and/or condensing units? 

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... t Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 0.095 ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) 1 16,200 1 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30,000 Walk-In Sales TADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 19961 Distribution 

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 NI A 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 Efficiency Level I N/A I 

- 

of sales by 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 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Walk-In Freezers and Combination Cooler/Freezers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 

Product 1 Technology Availability (Including 

Price/Cost information): 

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

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

Combination of Energy Saving Options = 0.3317 

Technology Payback PeriodI7 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact 

Floating Head Pressure 0.3 year New Low 

Ambient Subcooling 1.7 years New Medium 

Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium 

Brushless DC Fan Motors -1 year New High 

External Heat Rejection 7 years New High 

Hot Gas Defrost 1.8 years Current High ....................................................................................................................................................... The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-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 I Not 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 compressors andlor condensing units? 

I7"Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", 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) 

I Product Lifetime (years) 1 .: ........................................................................... 

'Vllnirnum El'fic~cncv Standard 1"" ............................ : ........................................... Stock Efficiency 

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

Typical New Efficiency 

Best Available Efficiencv I.."" .."" "" ....................... ...................................... Energy Star Efficiency 

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

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Other Notable Efficiencv Level 

1 0.085 1 ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 ....................................................................................................................................................... 

I 2 1,400 Freezers Divide energy use by installed base. 30.200 Combo ....................................................................................................................................................... j ' 0.02 1 30,000 Walk-In Sales [ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 19961 Distribution 

of sales by type proportional to installed base distributions. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

I 0.275 Freezers I ADWDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 0.065 Combo ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 to 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and Combination CoolerlFreezers 

I Test Procedure Overview I No applicable test procedures for complete walk-in refrigeration systems 

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

focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use. 

An example of a test standard for a refrigeration system component is ARI Standard 460- 

2000, "Remote Mechanical-Draft Air-Cooled Refrigerant Condensers". Reporting for this 

FuturelPotential Test 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. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Application of energy standards to walk-in refrigeration is complicated by (1) the range of 

combinations of insulated box and condensing unit actually used in the field and (2) the 

importance of field installation to overall energy use. 

Energy test procedures should focus on individual components, such as the condensing 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

thus allowing very 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 

average typical 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 address part load operation. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Water Coolers 

I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

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

Cun~ulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

IJroduct / Technology Availability (Including 1 PricelCost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Combination of 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 

refrigerants with reduced global w~ng potential. 

I Status of Test Procedures 1 ASHRAE 18-1987 (R1997) 

Canadian Standards Association C815-99, based on ASHRAE 18, includes both 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) 

"Characterization of 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 Ellicleky Standard 

I Stock Efficiency 

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

Typical New Efficiency 

Best Available Efficiencv ....................................... ....................................... Energv Star Efficiencv 

I Maximum Efficiency (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 ......................................................................................................................................................... 

......................................................................................................................................................... NI A 

2.19 kWNday Assume same as typical new. 

I Other Notable Efficiency Level 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 maintain water 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, includes both energy 

associated with water coolinglheating and standby loss. This standard also uses different 

temperatures and specifies water inlet temperatures for water coolers connected to city 

water lines. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

It is not very likely that alternative test procedures will be developed. In any case, all future 

test procedures will likely be based on the ASHRAE procedure. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

The EPA test procedure's emphasis on just standby energy use probably captures most of 

the energy use associated with water coolers. 

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

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

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

Value is Low. 

The EPA Energy Star test procedure is not a good indicator of peak load, because it 

includes only standby energy use. The test's ambient temperature of 75°F is only slightly 

lower than expected typical temperatures for water coolers for peak load conditions. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 ............................................................................. 

Potential Economic BenefitsBurdens 

Potential Environmental or Energy Security 

Benefits 

Status of Test Procedures 

Hum~dlty Sensor = 0.40 

Modulating = 0.81 

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

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

savings indicated above are indicative of the comparative emission benefits that are likely to 

be possible. ........................................................................................................................................................ 

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

Other Reeulatorv Actions 

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 NI A 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 Commercial Appliance 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 accuracy of the annual energy consumption is dependant on the accuracy of 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 unrealistic to 

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 

amount of 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Commercial Clothes Washers 

Product / Technology 

Availability (Including 

Price/Cost information): 

Potential Energy Savings from 

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 = Insufficient Datai9"' 

Horizontal-axis family-sized washers have come to 

market. 

Five (5) family-sized commercial washer models 

have an MEF >=2.0; more than 25 have an 

MEF>I 30. 

Status of 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 Regulatory Actions ..................................................... 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

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

Issues 

No mlnlmum energy 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 

efftclency Improvement 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 standards review (effective date of 

~mplementatlon -2005), Res~dentlal refrlgeratlon standards were set In 1990,1993, and In 2001 

In March 2001, a broad cross-sectlon of 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 minimum MEF=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 commercial family sized units only. Savings based on baseline MEF = 1.0. 

20 Soil sensor effectiveness under all conditions is unclear (Meier, 1998). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Commercial Clothes Washers 

Test Procedure Overview 

FutureRotential Test Procedure(s) 

Modified Energy Factor MEF = Capacity [ft3] /(Machine Electrical Energy Consumption 

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

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

A test load is determined based on the capacity of the test unit 

Modified Energy Factor accounts for remaining moisture content (RMC) 

Energy test cloth is used for no more than 25 cycles. 

Measurements are made over full arrange of operation temperatures (extra hot, hot, warm, 

and cold) and fill levels (maximum, average, and minimum fill). 

Temperature Use Factors (TUF) and Load Use Factors account for various water 

temperatures and fill levels as well as manual and adaptive fill control systems. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

CFR LO Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. J1 will be used for determining compliance with standards 

set beginning 1/1/2004. 

For Family-Sized residential washers only, on July 27, 2000, all manufacturers of 

residential clothes washers sold in the United States joined several energy conservation 

advocacy organizations and utilities in submitting to DOE a Joint Stakeholders Comment 

(Joint Comment), endorsing new standards for 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 effectively do test procedure(s) and App. J1 is more realistic since it incorporates test procedures to include different water 

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 results from test measurements that 

are estimated for means of product comparison. Estimates may effect annual usage figures. 

For Family-Sized washers only, DOE accepts waivers for systems that cannot be tested 

appropriately under the J1 guidelines. The manufacturer must supply an acceptable test 

procedure for that clothes washer. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

Test procedure does not identify design impact on peak demand, only total energy 

consumption; furthermore, water heating energy consumption often occurs off-peak andlor 

via non-electric water heating means (oil, gas) which do not impact peak electric demand. 

The MEF metric of the test procedure takes into account additional moisture extracted by 

the washers that reduces the energy consumed by the dryer, also reducing the peak demand 

impact of electric dryers. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

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

Status of 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-state thermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9). Any 

references to seasonal efficiencies use AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAE Standard 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-state thermal efficiency as defined by 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 1 GRI-9710100; estimated average accounting for geographical variations Product Lifetime (years) 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... and cavacitv I 

1 . - 

Steady-state thermal 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 (Commercial HVAC vol.1) I 

I Best Available Efficiency 93% 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

I Other Notable Efficiency Level 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%. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 of the 

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 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. 

Calculate jacket losses, the energy lost through the body of the heater, using measured 

temperatures of the outermost furnace surface and the temperature of the ambient air. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

There are no known new test procedures being developed for gas duct furnaces. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

The test procedure accurately measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for duct furnaces 

operating under full-load and steady-state conditions. However, thermal efficiency measured 

under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption of duct 

furnaces. Firstly, the test procedure only measures a duct furnace's full-load steady-state 

efficiency and does not indicate how well the heater performs during "warm-up" and "cooldown" operation nor during part-load operation (when the aifflow through the furnace is 

reduced). Secondly, the jacket loss calculations are based on empirical correlations, not 

measured directly, and may be slightly inaccurate. Lastly, duct furnaces 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. 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

Negligible (natural gas energy dominates gas duct furnace annual energy consumption, and 

the furnaces almost never operate during periods of peak electricity demand). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of 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 varies by 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 available in sizes between 25MBtu and SOOMBtu, with an 

installed cost of -$lOIMBtu for the best-selling size range (250-375MBtu). 

Pulse-combustion units 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-state thermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9). Any 

references to seasonal efficiencies use 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 savings will 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-state thermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASI-TRAE 90.1- Minimum Efficiency Standard 75% 1 78% * 

, 999, 

-- E, is steady-state thermal efficiency as defined by ANSI 283.9 test procedure. Savings bascd on baseline typical efficiency (E,) of 80%. 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... t .? - - 

Stock Efficiency 78% 1 ADL, 2001 (Commercial HVAC vol. 1) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Tvoical New Efficiencv 1 78% ADL, 2001 (Commercial HVAC vol. 1) 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 

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

NIA 

N/A 

82% 

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Gas Unit Heaters 

Test Procedure Overview 

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

FuturePotential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

All measurements are taken during standardized, full-load, steady-state operation of the 

heater. 

Measure inlet and outlet air temperatures. 

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

Based on the above measurements and the measured heating value in the fuel, calculate 

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

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

Calculate the thermal efficiency of the duct furnace, equal to 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. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

The test procedure accurately measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters 

operating under full-load and steady-state conditions. However, thermal efficiency measured 

under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption of unit 

heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type of air-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). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 cost between 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. 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of 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 

cornrnercial roof-top air-conditioning products, which have minimum energy efficiency levels. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see UL Standard 731). Any 

references to seasonal efficiencies use AFUE (see ANSIfASHRAE Standard 103). 

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

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Not known. ........................................................................................................................................................ Market share of power vented, pulse combustion, and condensing units approaches 0%. 

Issues Oil Unit heaters currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Actual energy savings will 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-state thermal efficiency. Savings based 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) 

I"..'.""""." ........................................................... 1". " ............ 82% """"' 1 ...... ...:.. .."" """ ................................................................................................ 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 Available Efficiency 1 4 1 Modine model POR-100 

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

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

0.03 

13.7 

81% / 81% * 

I Other Notable Efficiency Level 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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 efficiency measured 

under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption of unit 

heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type of air-mover) built in to the unit 

that consume electricity 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Exit Signs 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 ............................................................................. 

Product 1 Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

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

Cumulative Burden 

14 Watt Maximum = O.O6'* 1 Watt 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 $65 compared 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 implement a standard that specifies a 5W per face maximum. 

The proposed efficiency standards will be reissued on November 6,2001. 

The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. 

Some states banned 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. ____. 

Status of 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 published by 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 of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

", ,-, 

ACEEE, 2001. Calculated for 2000 using 1994 data, assuming 2% 

~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 successful market transformation (ACEEE report, 1998). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Codes from all types of jurisdictions 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 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 15 Watts where 75% of installed based are 15 Watt exit signs. 

Product Lifetime (years) I Incandescents: 2-20 years. Fluorescents: 1-2 years. LEDs: 25 years 

Various vroduct saecifications sheets. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Minimum Efficiencv Standard t 5 w per face in CA 1 CEC, 20bl ( effeciive July, 2002). ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 16.4W 1 Weighted 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 .- 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) <lW Electroluminescent and some LED panels already use 1 W or less. 

Photoluminescent materials require zero electrical energy input. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Surnrnarv 

Product: Exit Signs 

Test Procedure Overview Energy Star and the proposed California Energy Commission Amendments 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 characteristics of the sign shall be measured at three voltages: 

Rated input voltage which represents normal operation, 

Voltage corresponding to the minimum voltage provided either by the internal battery 

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. 

FutureJPotential Test 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 installed base 

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 system to 

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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Torchieres 

I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Wattage Limit set at 190 W = 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 $30 to $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 promulgated by 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 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 300 Watts. Savings estimates based on installed base remaining constant (i.e., no growth in 

sales). Greater savings will be realized if sales increase. 

kotal Energy 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 I Halogen, 9000; Incandescent: 4500; CFL: 650. Annual Shipments (millions) Calwell and Granda, 1999. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 Star requires testing using the methods in Table 1 for performance 

characteristics including input power and light output. 

CEC Dro~osed standards do not s~ecifv atest 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 Outdoor Lights: 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 

Input power 

Power factor 

Lamp current crest factor 

Lamp start time 

 lam^ Life 

Reference standard for 

method of measurement 

IESNA LM-9; LM-66 

IESNA LM-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 EEE C 62.41 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

PriceICost information): signals cost about $170 and green signals are about $250. Payback periods of 1 to 1.5 yrs 

(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)r LEI) 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-Driven or 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) 

I Typical New Efficiency 

1 Minimum Efficiency Standard NI A 

Stock Efficiency 150 W 

Incand: 125,150 W I LED: 10-22 W I ITE, 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 

Energy Star Efficiency I - 

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 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). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 procedures has been product performance and safety. 

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is one of the authorities working directly 

with the US Department of Transportation in the regulation of transport-related 

technologies. 

The ITE has established a test procedure to regulate safety and performance standards for 

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 specification and 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 

specification and 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Ceiling Fans 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

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

Product / Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

Energy Star compliant (75 CFMmatt) = 0.2628 

Best Available Aerodynamic (130 CFWWatt) = 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 State Test Method" described in "Energy Star Program Requirements for Residential 

Ceiling Fans." 

I Other 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) I Calwell, 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 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NI A ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NIA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 

87 CFMtWatt 

170 CFMNatt 

1 15 CFMlWatt 

340 CFWWatt 

Appliance Magazine, May 2001 

Sanchez (LBNL, 1997) I 

Appliance Magazine, September 2000 

180 W 

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

180 W 

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

60 W 

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

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) 

* ................................................... 

60 W incandescent three light 

fixture 

60 W incandescent three light 

fixture 

Pin-based CFL 

(www.EnergStar.gov) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

measurements taken 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/Watt basis. 

As the Hunter Method was proposed very recently (December 15, 2000) there are currently no 

details on future modification of 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 Gossamer Wind 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 qualifications necessary for Energy Star compliance, the amount of air 

moved per watt, as quantified by 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Compact Audio 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 ............................................................................. 

Product I 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 Status of Test Procedures 1 -ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Consumer Audio and DVD Products" ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I 

1 Issues I 1 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements ................................. _. 

29 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 10 Watt standby. 

Not known. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54% Energy Stat' Market Penetration Target (Y2000) 

-50 Different Models Consume 1W or 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 Star Efficiency 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Component Stereo and RACK Audio 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

I Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

I Product / Technology Availability (Including 

Current Energy Star (2 Watt 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 1 This and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for I 

Status of 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 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 6 Watt standby. 

3' Only for receiver; 1.1W was 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 1 www.EnergyStar.gov ............... : ............................................................. 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... I 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

Tvvical New Efficiencv 

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

Maximum Efficiency (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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 accordance with 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 (approximately 90 

minutes). 

Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements of the product 

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

correct average value within a +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 standby mode. 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

The current test procedure likely fails to evaluate peak load conditions, as the test procedure 

only considers standby power draw but many units operate during peak load times. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Dehumidifiers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

EnergyStar Level (1.5 UkWh) = 0.193' 

Best Available (1.85 UkWh) = 0.533' 

I Product / Technology Availability (Including 

PriceJCost information): 

As of August 30,2001,2 high-capacity dehumidifiers (364lday<57) and 10 standard 

capacity dehumidifiers (up to 35 Wday) meet Energy Star requirements. 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of 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 12 Models 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 - 35 Wday. 

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 

I Installed Base (millions) I 11 I Average based on shipments and lifetime. 1 

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

Product Lifetime (years) 1 : 11 1 Appliance 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 1.85 WkWh For mid-sized units (25-35 Wday) www.EnergyStar.gov 

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

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 1 VIA 1 

I Other Notable Efficiency Level NI A 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Dehumidifiers 

Test Procedure Overview 

FuturePotentiaI Test 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 accordance with ANSIIAHAM Standard DH-1 and Canadian 

standard CSA-C749-94. 

Air entering the dehumidifier must be at 80°F dry bulb17O0F wet bulb (standard conditions). 

Energy Factor is calculated according to section 4.2 of CANICSA-C749-94, by dividing the 

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

density of water at the test temperature (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 

dehumidifier typically run around the clock and under similar dry-to-wet bulb conditions. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Set-Top Boxes 

I Digital Wireless 1 

Potential Energy Savings from 

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 ewer tlme 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 (15 Watt standby) = 0.0534 

Energy Star 2004 (7 Watt 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-Driven or 

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 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 197 kWNyr. 

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 

15 W standby 

NI A 

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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Set-Top Boxes 

Test Procedure Overview Refer to "Testing Guidelines for Energy Star Qualified Set-top Boxes" 

In accordance with Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: 

Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% 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 (approximately 90 

minutes). 

Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements of the product 

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

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

FutureJPotential Test Procedure(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

There are currently no indications of an imminent change in the testing procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The lack of active mode testing does not make a significant difference in evaluating set-top 

box energy consumption, as analog and digital boxes consume more than three times more 

energy annually in standby mode than in active mode. In addition, the boxes consume little 

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 active power draw. The 

correlation between peak power draw and the test method will decrease if standby power draw 

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Televisions 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumdative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Potential Economic Benefitslsurdens 

Cumulative Burden 

Potential Environmental or Energy Security 

Benefits 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

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

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 emission benefits that are likely to 

be possible. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

"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 1W or Less Standby (www.energystar.gov) 

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

sales. (Appliance Magazine, May 2001) 

Impact of Electronic Programming Guides and HDTV can significantly change standby and 

active power consumption ...................................................................................................................................................... 

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 1 Average 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) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Televisions 

I Test Procedure Overview Test Procedure (for MOU Version 1.0, current through April, 2001): 

Detalls: Standby mode 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 standby mode - turned off with remote. Measurement should account for inconstancy 

in current draw, i.e.. perform a time averaged measurement. 

Test must be performed under the following conditions: 

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? 

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

Product Peak 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 active power dominates (89%) TV energy consumption. 

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

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

1) The test procedure correlates minimally with the peak load impact of TVs because the 

procedure measures standby power draw but many TVs are active during peak demand 

periods. 

2) LCD technology would realize significant peak load reductions because LCD TVs operate 

at substantially lower active power levels than conventional CRT devices. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory New Energy Star Compltant Level (2 Watt standby) = 0.2536 

Action; 1 Watt standby = 0.3836 

Background Material 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of 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 1W or 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). 

I Typical 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 I Proposed for 2003 Energy Star (www.EnergyStar.gov) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

I Test Procedure Overview I No testing procedures exist for VCRs as of June 19,2001; the Energy Star program expects to 

develop a test procedure in the near future. I 

Fnture/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

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

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metricts) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure 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 evaluate RACK and Compact 

Audio equipment, i.e., to measure standby power draw, the Energy Star program would have 

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

energy consumption. 

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

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

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

cannot be readily determined. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 Conversion to Inkiet Technology = 0.737 

Product I 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 and related products have not been regulated for energy efficiency; insufficient data for other regulation. I ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Status of Test Procedures Energy Star test procedure document. 

Co~ier of the Future. I 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

37 Savings based 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 government mandates purchase of E*- 

compliant Copy Machines. 

Best in class Copiers with low power capability, 

Panasonic 60 cpm (FP-D605), 15 Watts in sleep, 

Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) - less than 

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 60 cpm (FP-D605), 15 Watts in sleep, 

Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) - less than 

10 W in sleep (Copier of the Future award) 

Background Material 

Energy savings depend on the technical abilities to lower sleep power 

Energy Star enablement is the key to limiting electricity use. 

Energy Star, although prevalent in new copier sales, is not at activated in the majority of machines. 

1 Watt 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) 

Typical New 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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

energy consumption and 

potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with 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 = 115 VRMS +/- 5V, 60 Hz. +/-3Hz. 

2) Prior to Off-mode and Low-power testing the devices must be plugged in, then turned off, and allowed to 

stabilize for at least 12 hours. 

3) All copier speed bands are subjected to Off-mode testing 

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 average power 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 15 minutes. 

Record energy consumption for one hour. 

Compute the time-average power draw. 

5) Testing details: All watt meters must be calibrated,at least every year and have a resolution of 0.1 W. The 

measurements recorded must be accurate within +/-0.5 W. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotential test procedures identified. CotF procedure is more strict. 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The testing metrics do not correlate closely with the 

UEC and potential energy savings because the 

"standby" mode, not the "sleep" mode measured by 

the test procedure, accounts for the majority of 

device UEC. Improvements in the 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 substantial peak 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 technology will reduce the 

peak loads in both the Off (covered by test 

procedure) and active modes. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Desktop Computers 

I I Commerciat I Residential I I -. - I 

Potential Energy Savings from 1 100% Energy Star, 50% Enabled = .44j9 I 100% Energy Star enabled, Pentium I11 = 0.0839 

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

Product I Technology 

-- - Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Availability (Including 

PricefCost information): 

I Cumulative Burden 

100% Energ; Star enabled, Pentium 111 = 1.94~~ 

1 Watt Sleep (Current Energy Star rate) with a 

Pentium I11 = 0. 1639 

Laptop Computer = 3.8339 

Low-Power Design (features use of Transmeta 

processor) = 3.5539 ................................................................................................................................................................................ Desktop PCs with a 1 watt sleep levels are not yet available; the SCENIC - 1000 MHz. Pentium 111 draws 

the least power of any Energy Star-compliant desktop PC, drawing 2.3 Watts in sleep. The feasibility of a 

1 Watt Sleep (Current Energy Star rate) with a 

Pentium 111 = 0.1 1 39 

Laptop Computer = 0.35j9 

1 Watt sleep mode is not clear and requires further examination. 

Many of the low-power strategies used in commercially-available laptop computers technology (lowpower microprocessors, spinning the hard drive down, sleep modes, etc.) often command a price premium. 

A low-power or power aware dekstop computer is not commercially available hut it is technically feasible 

to design and build. This model takes advantage of the low power elements (such as the low-power 

Transmeta processor architecture) and components found in a laptop but avoids the high costs of tight 

packaging and exotic (Liquid-crystal) displays. Other advantages to this technology are more efficient 

means of executing operations due to the enhanced procedures integral to the Transmeta architecture. A 

hurdle, in addition to the lack of implemented low-power desktop designs, is the cost premium of these 

chips. A Transmeta chip costs $50 more than a comparable Pentium 800 MHz. processor. (informat~on 

from ADL and The Chip Merchant, 9/26/01) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

(status of Test Procedures 1 Energy Star test procedure document. I 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

90% of Desktop Computers sold in Y2000 were 

Energy Star Compliant (Webber) 

25% of Desktops in stock are E* enabled (ADL, 

2001) 

85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Y2000 (Webber et a]., 2000) 

I E*, although prevalent in new computer sales, is often disabled by user; increasing E* enabled rate may 

require software modification, e.g.. permanent enabling of power-down features 1 

25% of Desktop Computers in stock are E* enabled 

85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Y2000 (Webber et al.) 

-17% of the personal computer stock in Y2000 is 

of Laptop design 

ederai government mandates purchase of E*- 

17% of the Personal Computer stock are computers 

of laptop design 

Current best market performer: SCENIC L.i815, 

2.3W in sleep .............................................................................................................................................................................. 

I I 1 Watt sleep may not be technically feasible. Discussions with manufactures will verify the possibility. I 

compliant computers 

Current best 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 large part upon increasing Energy Star enabled rate, a software option 

39 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new Pentium 111 technology (25% Energy Star enabled). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 ) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Watt 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 1 Watt sleep 

5 1 

3 

56 

56 

27 

15 

47 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Desktop Computers 

Test Procedure Overview 

FuturdPotential Test 

Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test 

procedure(s) and metric(s) 

represent actual annual 

energy consumption and 

potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with Test 

Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

For Tier I1 Models (manufactured after July 1, 2000) - only considering guideline A 

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

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

Any system that consumes less than 15 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 115 VAC 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 impedance ~0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency = 60 

Hz (+I- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of 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 futurelpotential test procedures identified. 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Energy Star test procedure does not correlate 

closely with actual energy consumption and potential 

savings because it only measures sleep-mode power 

draw and, due to the low Energy Star-enabled rate 

(25%) of actual computers, the "active" mode energy 

consumption dominates the 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 active mode 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-enabled rate, which the test procedure 

directly addresses, would reduce the aggregate 

peak demand of desktop PCs 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 active mode will dominate the 

UEC. 

Most likely, desktop PCs do not have a substantial 

peak power impact, as residential computer use 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Fax Machines 

I I Commercial I Residential 

Potential Energy Savings from 

Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product / Technology 

Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): ...................................................... 

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 Savings based 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 1 W 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 1 Watt Sleep 

Enhanced Laser (SURF) Technology 

(Canon, 2001) 

11.6 

5 

77.5 

33.6 

33.6 

N/A 

5.4 

19'4 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Fax Machines 

Test conditions: 

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

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

FutureRotential 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 

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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 I Status of 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-Driven or 

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 10 Watts 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 Star Enabled Rate, (ADL, 

2001) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy Star Enabled Rate, (ADL, 

2001) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy Star Enabled 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 temperature of 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 futurelpotential test 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

I Status of 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 

consumvtion and 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Monitors 

Potential Energy Savings from 

Regulatory Action; Cumulativt 

(Quads) 2008-2030 

Product / Technology 

Availability (Including 

Price/Cost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues ....................................................................................... Energy savings depend in large part upon 

increasing Energy Star enabled rate, a software 

option 

E*, although prevalent in new monitor sales, is 

often disabled by user; increasing E* 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, Current Energy Star rate, 17" CRT = 

0.4447 

17" LCD, Current Energy Star rate = 3.647 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 

power = 0.82 W 

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 impedes LCD market 

penetration,with higher barriers expected in the 

residential market than the commercial market. 

Strict enforcement of 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 Savings based 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 

commercial use for a 15-inch LCD is I1 years as compared to a 17-inch CRT 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 efficient use of screen space for viewing and higher display resolution.) 

Organic LED technology is under development but 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 

Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 60% Energy Star enabled. Energy Star category is 

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 Mandating use of 1 Wlsleep 

power draw (8/31/01). Currently best 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 1 Wlsleep 

power draw (8/31/01). Currently best available 

monitor: NEC MultiSync 70 (17" CRT), Sleep 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Monitors 

Future/Potential Test 

Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test 

procedure(s) and metric(s) 

represent actual annual 

energy consumption and 

potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with Test 

Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

stages instead of only one sleep level. System must adhere to Energy Star sleep mode levels which are 

measured in the following manner: 

The system must go into sleep mode after a period of inactivity. 

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

Power source must be 115 VAC 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 impedance 40.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency = 60 

Hz (+I- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of 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 futurelpotential test 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 

decreasing the 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 sensitive times of 

the day, PC's and monitors likely draw power in 

modes that do not fall under the test procedure. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Pool Pumps 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action: Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 ............................................................................ 

l'roduct / Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): ............................................................................. 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of 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. 

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

Manufacturers of motors of zlHP have been regulated for energy efficiency (EPACT). The 

same manufacturers make 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 Determmning Losses 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 

inconsistencies in the data. 

Some equipment is 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 517f IADL. 20011 I 1""" .................................................................................. " ....................... "..'."" ......................................................................................................... Other Notable UEC (kWh/vear-1 

"' 

N/A 1 ' ' 

I Additional Notable UEC (kWNyear) I N/ A 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Pool Pumps 

Test Procedure Overview 

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

FutureRotential Test Proeedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

No product specific test procedures. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

National Pool and Spa Institute may be trying to implement a test procedure for pool pump 

manufacturers, says David Nibbler 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Well Pumps 

I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

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

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product / Technology Availability (Including 

Best available (best . .- pump and best motor) = 0.17 I 

Optimum technology (best pump 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 manufacture pumps have been subject to regulations for other equipment they 

manufacture. 

........................................................................................................................................................ No specific water well pump test procedure. 

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

Efficiency of Rotating Electrical Machinery from Tests. ........................................................................................................................................................ High efficiency pumps are commercially available; however, they do not appear to be 

marketed as such (inferred from viewing product literature) 

Brushless DC motors are available (e.g., from GE) but are not marketed as motors for well 

vumvs. 

Total Energy 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. 

Submersible pump motors have unique geometry - narrow design and must fit into a well 

hole. Technical challenges may exist in applying energy efficient motor designs to this 

application. 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I Best Available UEC (kwhlyear) (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998) 

Energy Star UEC (kWNyear) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Minimum UEC (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) 

Additional Notable UEC (kwhlyear) 

(ADL, 1998) and (RECS, 1997) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GWP (2001, personal communication) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998) 

NIA ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NI A 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Well Pumps 

I Test 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 

consumption and 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). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Broilers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

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

Product /Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): ............................................................................. 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of 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 1 NAFEM (ADL, 1995) 

1 Product 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 I Typical New Efficiency 30% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building 

60% elec I Avoliances" (ADL, 1993) I ........ ..................................................................... .......................... .......... .................. .............................................................................. t 1" .."" "" " "" : : 

Best Available Efficiency 

/ Energy Star Efficiency I 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Comments 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 91% gas 19% electric (NAFEM & Food Management; c. 

1990) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Fryers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product / Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Background Material 

0.2T5' 

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

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Most commercial coolung 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. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................... 

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 efficiencies than gas devices. 

Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 1 17,000 

Installed Base (million, 1995) 

Product Lifetime (years) 

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

Minimum Efficiency Standard I NIA 

40 - 50% gas Stock Efficiency 55 - 65% elec I Typical New Efficiency 

I Best Available Efficiency 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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Griddles 

I Cumulative Burden 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product 1 Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

I Most 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 Star Efficiency 

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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
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 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. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

53 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typlcal New" gas equipment. Thls wlll tend to overstate savlngs of 

electnc devtces, whlch typically have slgn~ficantly hlgher efficlenc~es than gas devlces. 

Background Material 

t Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of 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 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

1 Stock Efficiency 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 

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

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Ranges 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action: Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 ............................................................................. 

I'roduct I l'echnology ,lvailability (Including 

Price/Cost information): ............................................................................. 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures ............................................................................. 

I Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 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 1 NAFEM (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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Standards Consideration 

Product: Steamers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action: Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 . - ............................................................................. 

l'roduct / I'echnulogy Availability (Including 

Price/Cost information): ............................................................................. 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of 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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: All Commercial Cooking 

I All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards. I 

I FutureRotential Test Procedure(s) I I 

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 

Unknown; only electric appliances contribute to peak loads, and they account for only -19% 

of all ske energy consumption (ADL, 1993). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02EE