# 2002 Priority Setting for New 

# Products

October 26,2001

## FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR NEW PRODUCTS The enclosed data sheets provide information on new products that are not currently 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 reductionprograms should be developed for the products listed. Any new actions taken by the Office are based on the presumption that the Lighting and Appliance StandardsProgram 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, 1000Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Bryan Berringer, EE-41, or by e-mail at 

## Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. If you have any questions,please contact Bryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371.

## Table of Contents Product Product 

## I Page 

## 1 Pa~e Commercial Refrigeration Beverage Merchandisers Ice Machines Reach-In Freezers Reach-In Refrigerators Reach-In FreezerslRefrigerators SupermarketRefrigeration Systems Vending Machines Walk-In Coolers Walk-In Freezers and Combination CooleriFreezers Walk-In Coolers,Freezers, and Combination CooleriFreezers Water Coolers Commercial Laundry Commercial Clothes Dryers,Gas CommercialClothes Washers Commercial Heating Equipment Miscellaneous Residential Equipment Ceiling Fans Compact Audio 

# Ert and RACK 

### Compact Audio, Component Stereo, and RACK Audio Dehumidifiers Set-Top Boxes Televisions Video Cassette Recorders 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 Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 1 2 3 4

, 

### 8 9 10 11 

### l2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

## . Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary StandardsConsideration StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Sum StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary StandardsConsideration StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary

21 22 23 24 25 26 Gas Duct Furnace Gas Unit Heaters Oil Unit Heaters 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 OfficeEquipment

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

Exit Signs Torchieres Traffic Signals StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary StandardsConsideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 45 46 47 49 50 5 1 52 53 54 55 56 58 Pumps
Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Pool Pumps Well Pumps 27 28 29 30 31 32 Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 59 

### 60 61 62 Commercial Cooking Broilers Fryers Griddles Ovens Ranges Steamers All Commercial Cooking Standards Consideration StandardsConsideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Standards Consideration Test Procedure Summary 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

# Standards Consideration Product: Beverage Merchandisers 

# IPotential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

# I High-Efficiency Compressor 

### +BrushlessDC Fan Motors =0.22' Action; ~umu6tive (Quads) 2008-2030


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

### I Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation): Cumulative Burden



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

Other Regulatory Actions


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


## ............................................................................ Issues Technology Payback Periodi Tech. Maturitf Peak Load Im~act High-Effcy Compressor -1 New High Brushless 

### DC Fan Motors 1.4 to 4.4 New High

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


## ....................................................................................................................................................... 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-006ae for steady-state energy use)


## ....................................................................................................................................................... California: Treated as a Glass-Door Reach-In. Importance of energy use during pulldown versus steady state. 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). 

## * Technology Maturity Description definitions - Current: Available but not widely used; New: Available bu not used in commercially available equipment;Advanced: Needs development prior to commercialization. Background Material

Energy consumption for a typical 27 cuft merchandiser. ADLIDOE

Stock Efficiency Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) Annual Shipments (millions, 1995)



## ............................................................................... Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) 0.052 3,981 0.06 to 0.12



## ............................... 0.8 7to 10

Energy Star Efficiency



### ................................ __ Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) OtherNotable Efficiency Level ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divide energyuse by installedbase.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 According to more recent communicationswith Copeland and Deifield representatives,these estimates are probably low.


## ........................................................................................................................ ADLIDOE RefrigerationStudy, 1996



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


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

NIA NIA 0.42 

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



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ASHRAE! 117 Test consumption for 27 cu.ft cabinet. Proposed CA Tier 1 Regulation.

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Beverage Merchandisers

Test Procedure Overview
FuturemotentialTest 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). CociCola has proprietary test procedures which include evaluation of energy use. 

## ...................................................................................................................................................... A test procedure could be developedwhich is more suited than ASHRAE 1 17to 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 temperatureof 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 117test procedure's lack of a component addressing the loading of warm beverages into the machine, and its moderate ambient temperature would tend to make peak load predictions of the procedure low for beverage merchandisers.

# Standards Consideration Product: Ice Machines 

# I potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

# I Combination of Energy FEMP Recommended 

# I 

# I Action; cumulative (~uads) 2008-2030 Savings Technologies Canadian Standards Best Available 

# ] 0.1, 04 0.1 1 io.215


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

# I ProductI 

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

Status of Test Procedures Technolow Payback period3 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact High-Effcy Compressor 1.8 years New High ReducedEva~ Thenn Cvc 1.2 vears 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 refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standardsofother products.



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

ASHRAE 29 

### ARI 8 10-2000: Based on ASHRAE 29 CSA C742-98: Based on ASHRAE 29 

# tOther Regulatory Actions Canadian Regulations and availability of ARI Data. 

### IEfficiencv Im~rovements 

## I Issues 

# / Significantproduct variety.

Based on "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-17, Row 12. Includes High-Efficiency Compressor and BrushlessDC EvaporatorFan Motor. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82$/kWh). See plot of Standardsvs. 

### ARI data. Nearly all units comply with the current standard. Based on 

### ARI average consumption for air-cooled ice makers with 401 to 500 lblday capacity (7.05 kW100lb)and water-cooled ice makers with 301 to 5001blday capacity (5.62kW1001b) compared with FEMP recommended and "best available" data for these ranges. 

### Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1995)


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

# I 0.102 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 7,822



### ........................................................................................................... Annual Shipments (millions, 1998) 0.296 Installed Base (millions, 1995) 1.2



### .......................................................................................................... Product Lifetime hears) 

# 1 ?to10 Minimum Efficiencv Standard 

### I NIA

. ------ .. - -, 

### .......................................................................................................... StockEfficiency 

# 1 7kWhilOOlb


## .......................................................................................................... Twical New Efficiencv 

### / 7 kWh/100 1b Best AvailableEfficiency 5.8 kW100lb


## .......................................................................................................... Enerev Star Efficiencv 

# f NIA ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ........................................................................................................................ Divide enerev use bv installedbase. Census data for 1998.


## ........................................................................................................................ ADL/DOE Refrieeration Studv. 1996 

# I

,d 

# . , 

### ........................................................................................................................ ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


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

# I Assumed same as typical new. 

## ........................................................................................................................ Average of efficiencies for 500 lbldav air-cooled units -ARI data. 

# I Best available 500 lblday air-cooled unit 

## -ARI data.


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

# I Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NIA

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Ice Machines

Test Procedure Overview



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

# 1 FuturelPotentialTest 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 Technnlnev ASHRAE Standard 29 has been adopted for performance and energy evaluation for Ice Machines. Both ARI and Canadian test procedures are based on the ASl3XAE standard. Although the ASW standard does not specify temperatures, the 

### ARI test is based on the following:

90°FAmbient Temperature 70°F SupplyWater Temperature andlor CoolingWater Temperature for water-cooled Ice Machines Ice machine runs at full capacity during test.


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

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

The ambient and water temperatures are higher than typical temperatures for ice machines in most applications. The test procedure uses higher temperaturesbecause it was initially developed to test primarily ice machine capacity. In addition, the testing of ice machines at full capacity overestimates duty cycle of machines used in many applications.



### ...................................................................................................................................................... The current test procedure involving high ambient and water temperatures and 100% duty cycle is an ideal indicator ofpeak load.

# Standards Consideration Product: Reach-In Freezers

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

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

Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures Combination of Energy California Regulations Saving Options LTier 1, Tier 2) Energv Star 

### n ?76 

### n. 

### n7 

### n7 - .- . -7 - 

## ...................................................................................................................................................... Technoloq Payback Period8 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Imoact SystemOptimization 

### 1 year Current High Rifled Tubes Var-Speed Compressor Dual Compressor Brushless DC Fan Mtr PSC Fan Motors Evap Fan Shutdown Face Frame Impr Condensate Trap Improved Insulation Thicker Walls No savings unless heat exchangers are space-constrained 1.4 years New Medium 1.5years New Low 0 to 3 years NewIAdvanced High 2 to 14yrs Current High 1 year New High 0 years New High 0.5 year Current High 2.4 years Current High 1 vear Current High The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipmenthave parent companies which own divisionswhich have been subject to energy standards of otherproducts.


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

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

# I Other Regulatory Actions 

# I Regulation of Reach-Ins by California. Tier 1 takes effect 07/01/02 and Tier 

### 2 takes effect 0710 1/04.


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

# I IEvidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Energy Star Program to be announced in early September 2001 Emciencv Imorovements 

# 1 Issues Significantproduct variety. ASHRAE 117 test issues: Repeatability issues with door-openingtests. Expense oftest means that not all products are tested, and limited spot checks are made by the 

# I manufacturer. 

# I "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-1

### 8, row 13. Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and CondenserFan Motors, 35% Energy Reduction. 

# ' Based on the assumption that a baseline 20cufi solid-door Reach-In will have 8.65kWday energy consumption(Delfield 6125s). 

## * "Application of Best Industry Practice to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators", ADL, Review Meeting with DOE, 312 1/01. All payback periods are in years based on modificationof a typical two-door solid-doorrefrigerator with top-mount condensing unit. Assumes current unit energy use of 12 kWday, %0.076/kWh.
Total Energy use (quads, 1995) 0.065 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

# I.1

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

# 1

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

# 1

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

# I Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Divide energy use by installedbase. Annual Shioments(millions. 19951 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Studv, 1996 Installed Base (millions, 1995) ADL/DOE RefrigerationStudy, 1996 Product Lifetime (vears) ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

# I Minimum Efficiency Standard StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency Average for 20 cufi freezer based on CEC data (ASHRAE 117 Energy



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

# I I -5 kwday 

# 1' Delfield freezers for 20 cuft volume. 

# I Soon to be commercially available. Rough estimate ofenergy use ofnew Best Available Efliciency Energy Star Efficiency 9.36 kWday u u.i 2: 

### src, 3121JL.\ for 20 cu.fi. freezer



### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) N/A

# Standards Consideration Product: Reach-In Refrigerators



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


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

### Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICost information): Combination of Energy California Regulations Saving Options JTier 1, Tier 2) Enerw Star 0.299,0.431°, 0.52" 0, 0.06" 0.19"


## ................................................................................................................................................... Technolorn Payback periodI3 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact System Optimization 1 year Current High Rifled Tubes No savingsunless heat exchangers are space-constrained Var-Speed Compressor 1.4years New Medium Dual Compressor 1.5 years New Low Brushless DC Fan Mtr 0 to 3 years NewIAdvanced High PSC Fan Motors 2 to 14yrs Current High Evap Fan Shutdown 1 year New High Face Frame Impr 0 year New High Condensate Trap 0.5 year Current High Improved Insulation 2.4 years Current High



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

# I ThickerWalls 1 Current High 

### Cumulative Burden The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's.



### Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements


## ............................................................................ Issues If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warmingpotential. Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipmenthave parent companies which own divisionswhich have been subject to energy standards of otherproducts.


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

ASHRAF! 117: Door-openingtest with load and ambient humidity. NSF 7: Closed-door test without load for performance test. CSA C827-98: Based on ASHRAF! 117.


## .................................................................................................................................................... Regulation of Reach-Ins by Califomia. Tier 1 takes effect 07/01/02 and Tier 2 takes effect 0710 1/04.


## .................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star Program to be announced in early September 200 1.

Significantproduct 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 

# I manufacturer. "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-19, row 10. Includes Hot Gas Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and CondenserFan 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. IncludesImproved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket,Reduced Antisweat Heater Wattage, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC EvaporatorFan Motor, PSC CondenserFan Motor, EvaporatorFan Shutdown,Refrigeration System Optimization, 67% Reduction. 

## " Ibid., Row 6. Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, Reduced Antisweat Heat Input, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC

Evaporatorand CondenserFan Motors, Variable-SpeedRefrigeration System, Hot Gas Antisweat Heating, 80% Reduction. 

# " Based on the assumption that a baseline 43.5cuft solid-door Reach-In will have 9kWdayenergy consumption (Delfield605IS). 

## '' "Application of Best Industry Practice to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators", ADL, Review Meeting with DOE, 312 1/01. All payback

periods are in years based on modificationof a typical two-door solid-door refrigeratorwith top-mount condensingunit. Assumes current unit energy use of 12 kWday, $0.076/kWh.

# Standards Consideration Product: Reach-In Refrigerators Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 0.054 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3,822 Divide energy use by installedbase. 

### .un?:.Ene:@.Con?~.m?:??nik%2 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................... Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) 0.12 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base (millions, 1995) 1.3 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product Lifetime (years) 8 to 10 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Minimum Efficiency Standard N/A


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... StockEfficiency 9 kWday Assumed same as typical new.


### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Typical New Efficiency Measured by 

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


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Soon to be commerciallyavailable. Energy measured for Delfield prototype Best Available Efficiency 

# *' kWday jointly developedwith ADL with DOE funding.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star Efficiency 6.39 kWday www.EnergyStar.gov for 43.5 cu.ft. freezer


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Estimates developed for variable-speed refrigerator Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) "2 as part ofDOE-funded project.

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Reach-In Freezers and Refrigerators
Test Procedure Overview



# IFuture/PotentialTest 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 

### Precedent has been set for use ofASHRAE Standard 1

### 17 for determination ofReach-In Energy Use. This standardhas been adopted by Canada, California, and EPA Energy Star.

Ambient Conditions75+/-2F 

### I)ryBulb Temperature, 64 +I-2F Wet Bulb Temperature (55% Relative Humidity) Intemal Load consistingof containersof salt-water solution and wood filler Automatic door-opening for the first 8 hours of the test. Doors remain closed for remaining 16hours. 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 -SF for ice cream freezers. The complexity of the test procedure is a potential issue in spite of its acceptance among key manufacturers.

CEC has qualified only two test laboratories for energy testing ofReach-Ins CEC requires energy testing only for representative cabinets and allows projections of energyuse for similar cabinets. The test's complexitymake verificationof compliance very difficult. ADL is aware of two examples in which reported energy test results are definitely low or likely to be low. Experiencewith residential energy test procedures shows that repeatabilityis suspect with test procedures involving door-openingsand/or internal loads.


## ..................................................................................................................................................... Test procedures involving no internal load and no automatic door openings would be significantly easier to cany out and would have greater repeatability.


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

The ambienttemperature condition is somewhat low comparedto temperatures often seen in commercial kitchens employing the equipment. The automatic door-openings provide a reasonable representationoftypical reach-in use. 

## .................................................................................................................................................... Correlation ofpeak load impact with ASHRAE 117test procedure would be fair, since the test procedure ambienttemperature is relativelylow. Technology 

# I - 

# 1

## Standards Consideration Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Brushless DC Evaporator Other Options with less 

### Action: 

# I Fan Motors than 5-vear vavback 

### cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


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

### Technology Availability (IncludingPricelCost information):

Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions


## .............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements
Issues 0.3 1 0.2814


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Most of the technologies and design options noted in the data sheet are currently available. Technology Pavback Period14 Tech. Maturitv Peak Load Impact Brushless DC Fan Motors 1.6 years New High Hot Gas Defrost 1.4 years Current ~igh Antisweat Heater Control 1.6 years Current High Defrost Control 3 to 7 years Advanced High Liq-Suct. Heat Exchangers 4 to 14years Current High Evaporative Condensers <1 year Current High Floating Head Pressure 2.5 years Current Low Heat Reclaim 2.5 years Current Low Mechanical Subcooling 4.9 years Current High


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

The industrv dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. HFC and HFC blend replacemenis for traditionalArefrigerants R-502 and R-12 have been developed and are now generally established. There is continued concern regarding the level ofpotential emissions associated with leakage and service in supermarket refrigeration systems. Since most systems are now using non-ozone- depleting refrigerants, the environmentalconcern focuses on global warming. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, this would be a significantissue 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 standardsof other products.


## .............................................................................................................................. ...................... ____. Separate Test Procedures for display cases and compressorsandlor condensing units. Display Cases: CRS-S1-96 

### (ARI CRMD), ASHRAE 72, CSA C657-95 Compressors and CondensingUnits: Many different test standardsdepending on compressorand heat rejection type. 

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


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

Floating Head Pressure 62% Mechanical Subcooling65% Liquid-Suction Heat Exchanger 25% (MT), 50% (LT) Antisweat Heater controls 69%


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

Many system types Systems are engineeredand built on-site (not factory-completed) 

# I Interactionbetween air-conditioning and refrigeration systems 

## - "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Includes Hot Gas Defrost, Antisweat Heater Control, Defrost Control, Liquid-SuctionHeat 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 (7.82#/kWh).

To se (quads, 1995) 0.326 ADLJDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard


## .................................................................................................... StockEfficiency


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


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


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


### .................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 1,000,000 0.055 0.03

10 5 to 15

NIA NIA NIA ' NIA NIA NIA 

## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divide energy use by installedbase.


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


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


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


### ............................................................................................................................................................. Display Cases: ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No suitable efficiency definitionshave been established for Supermarket Refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems Composedof components.

# Test Procedure Summarv Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems

Test Procedure Overview



## ............................................................................. Future/PotentialTest Procedure(s)



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

ProductPeak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology No applicabletest procedures for complete supermarket refrigeration systems. Test procedures for separate componentsof 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 Standard460- 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 ~rocedure involves 95°F entering air tenmerature. Application of energy standards to supermarket refrigeration systems is extremely complicated due to the very wide range of system architecture utilized. Energy test procedures should focus on individual components, such as displaycases.


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

Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions which are more energy intensivethan 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 compressorpower.


### ....................................................................................................................................................... Correlation ofpeak load impact with typical test procedures would be good, sincetest procedures generallydo not addresspart load operation.

# Standards Consideration Product: Vending Machines

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Combination of Energy Saving Options = 0.45" Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product 1 Technology Availability Technology Payback ~eriod" Tech. Maturity Peak Load Imoact (Including PricelCost 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 industrywould possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies which own divisionswhich have been subject to energy standardsof other products.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Status of Test Procedures ASHRAE 32.1 CANICSA C804-96: 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. Efftciencv Imorovements Issues 

# I Significant product variety. 

# I

"Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-2 1,Row 11. Includes HighEfficiency Compressor and Brushless DC EvaporatorFan Motor, 28% energy use reduction. The 28% energy use reduction estimate is consistentwith 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 (7.82$/kWh). Background Material 

# I Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Unit Enerm Consumotion (kwh1 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base 

# I I Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) Inventory dividedby -1 0 year life Installed Base (millions. 19951 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

# I I Best Available Efficiency

Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency Average for 600-can beverage machine. Based on limited data received bv EPA. 

# I 7to 10

NIA 10.8 kWday 0.8 kwda~ ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996



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



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


### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Average for 600-can beverage machine. Based on limited data received hv EPA Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Other Notable Efficiency Level NIA N/A N/A 

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



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

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

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Vending Machines

- - - --- 

### Test Procedure Overview

Future/PotentialTest 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 32.1 has been adopted for performance and energy evaluation for Refrigerated VendingMachines.

Three test procedures for 

### (I) 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 associatedwith recovery. Ambient Conditions90+/-2"FDryBulb 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 procedurerequirements. 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 associatedwith steady-state and temperaturerecovery.


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

The ambient temperatures are higher than typical temperatures for refrigerated vending machines in most applications. The energytest procedure does not provide weighting of energyuse associated with steady state and recovery after loading ofproduct. 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 ofpeak load. However, an appropriateweighting consistentwith typical vending machine operation for the three test parts of ASHRAE 32.1 would improve correlation with peak load impact.

# Standards Consideration Product: Walk-In Coolers
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 Product I Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICost information): CombinationofEnergy 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 Hi&

Background Material

Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efticiency Improvements Issues



## ITotal 

# EGW Use (auads. 1995) 

## 1 0.095 

## 1 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

## I The industry dealt with the phaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. Ifthe 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.



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



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



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

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 16,200 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base 30,000 Walk-In Sales TADLDOE RefrigerationStudy, 19961Distribution l6 "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-23, row 13. Includes Floating Head Pressure,Ambient Subcooling, EvaporatorFan Shutdown, Brushless DC Evaporatorand CondenserFan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82ekWh). 

# I Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) of salesby type to installed base distributions.A larger number ofWalk-In refrigeration systems are sold for revlacement. 

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



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


## .............................................................................................................. Best AvailableEfficiency



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


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



### .............................................................................................................. OtherNotable Efficiency Level 0.54 12 to 25 8to 12 NJA ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... InsulatedBox: ADLiDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996


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



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A AppropriateEfficiency Definitionshave not been defined for Walk-In Coolers.

## Standards Consideration Product: Walk-In Freezers and CombinationCooler/Freezers

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory CombinationofEnergy Saving Options = 0.33'' Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


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

### I Technology Availability Technology Payback Period" Tech. Maturity Peak Load Imuact (IncludingPriceICost information): Floating Head Pressure 0.3 year New hw 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 Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures



### ............................................................................ Other Regulatory ~cbons



### ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements



### ............................................................................ Issues Hot Gas Defrost 1.8 years Current ~igh


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

The industrv dealt with the uhaseout of CFC's in the mid-1990's. If the ICyot; protocol were iatified, the industry would possibly have to convert to refrigerantswith reduced global warming potential. Some ofthe companies involved in manufacturing this equipmenthave parent companies which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products.



### ...................................................................................................................................................... Various Test Procedures for Compressors and Condensing Units, dependingon compressor and heat rejectiontype.


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



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

Significant product variety. Systems are often engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed) Standards for comuressorsand/or condensing units? l7 "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial RefrigerationEquipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-24, row 13. Includes External Heat Rejection, Hot Gas Defrost, EvaporatorFan Shutdown, B~shless DC Evaporator and CondenserFan Motors. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82$/kWh). Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 

# 1 0.085 

# 1ADLiDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

# 1..

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

Product Lifetime (years) Unit Energy Consumption(k'Wh) Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) Installed Base (millions, 1995) Insulated Box: ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 Refrigeration Svsterns: ADLDOE Ref. Studv. 1996 

# I t Minimum Efficiency Standard

StockEfficiency 1'400 

### Freezers 30,200 Combo 0.02 0.275 Freezers 0.065 Combo



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


## ............................................................................. Divide energy use by installedbase.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30,000 Walk-In Sales [ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 19961Distribution of sales by type proportional to installedbase distributions.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996



## .............................. NIA AppropriateEfficiency Definitionshave not been defined for Walk-In



## .............................. Freezers and CombinationFreezerICoolers.



## ........................................................................................................... Energy StarEfficiency Maximum Efficiencv (Future Technolowl 

# f NIA 

# . . -< , 

## ........................................................................................................... OtherNotable EfficiencyLevel NIA

## Test 

# Procedure Summary Product: Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and CombinationCooler/Freezers

Test Procedure Overview No applicable test procedures for completewalk-in refrigeration systems Test procedures for condensing units which would serve walk-in refrigeration generally focus on capacityat design conditions rather than energyuse. 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 condenserfan 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 ~rocedure involves 

### 95°F entering air terneralure. 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 Application of energy standards to walk-in refrigerationis complicatedby (1) the range of combinations of insulated box and condensing unit actually used in the field and 

### (2) the importanceof field installation to overall energy use. Energy test procedures should focus on individual components, such as the condensing units and/or the insulated boxes.



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

Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions more energy intensivethan average typical conditions. For example, the 

### 95°F entering air temperature for ARI Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceedsa typical average. Furthermore, the standard does not take into consideration the fact that the system is not operating at 100% capacityat all times. A condenser fan would cycle to maintain a head pressure, thus resulting in less fan power. Or, the condenser fan would run continuously, thus allowing very low condensing conditions during low ambient temperatures. This latter scenarioswould result in significantreduction in compressorpower. 

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

# Standards Consideration Product: Water Coolers


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 Combination of Energy Saving Options =0.26'' 

### Product I' 

### Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICostinformation):



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

# I Cumulative Burden 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 

### year^.'^



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

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 reficieerants with reduced global wannine ~otential. 

### of Test Procedures ASHRAE 18-1987 (R1997) 

# - Canadian Standards Association C8 15-99, based on ASHRAE 18, includes both pulldown

and standby impacts. Not known. 

# I Efficiency Improvements


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

# 1

"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. Paybackperiod in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82eIkWh). 

### Background Material
Total Energy Use (quads, 1992) 0.044 ADLiDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) Divide Energy Use by InstalledBase Annual Shi~ments (millions, 1998) Census Data (1998)

. . Installed Base (millions, 1992) ADL/DOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993 Product Lifetime (years) 

# I Minimum Efficiency Standard

StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency



### ........................................................................................................ 2.19 kWday Best Available Efficiency 

# 1 NIA Energy Star Efficiency 1.2 kWday Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Other Notable EfficiencvLevel Assume same as typical new.


## ........................................................................................................................ HotICold bottle units. Based on EPA data.



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



## ........................................................................................................................ HotICol bottle units. (www.EnergyStar.com)


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

# I

# Test 

# Procedure Summary Product: Water Coolers

Test Procedure Overview



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

# I Futnre/PotentialTest 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 associatedwith water coolinglheatingand standbyloss. This standard also uses diflerent temperatures and specifieswater inlet temperatures for water coolers connected to city 

## I water lines.

It is not very likely that alternativetest procedures will be developed. In any case, all future tert nrocedures will likelv be based on the ASHRAE ~rocedure.

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

The EPA test procedure's emphasis on just standbyenergy use probably capturesmost of the energy use associated with water coolers. 

# - The ambienttemperature 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 ofpeak load, because it includes only standby energyuse. The test's ambient temperatureof 75°F is only slightly lower than expected typical temperatures for water coolers for peak load conditions.

## Standards Consideration Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas


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


## .............................................................................. Potential Economic BenefitsJBurdens


## .............................................................................. Potential Environmentalor Energy Security Benefits Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions


## .............................................................................. Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Humidity Sensor = 0.40 Modulating =0.8 1 Not available.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... Specificestimates ofemission reductions have not been developedhowever, estimated energy savingsindicated above are indicativeof the comparativeemission benefits that are likely ti be possible.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... Energy Factor (EF) measure accordingto CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. 

### B App D



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


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

There is no Energy Star program for clothes dryers. Due to lack of standards,market-driven efficiency gains occur when coincidentwith convenience and aualitv imrovements (ex.. shorter cvcle time resulting fiom modulation). 

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

### Background Material

Energy StarEfficiency N/A No Energy Star program



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

# 1 1.43 

# 1Modulation burner (ADL, 2001) with performance normalized to "typcial new" per BTS (2000)


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Total Energy Use (quads, 1990) Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best AvailableEfficiency 

## ..........+.................................................................................................
Other Notable EfficiencvLevel 

## I N/A 

## I 0.122

72 0.113

1.7 15 N/A Unknown 1 

### .O Unknown * ADLDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


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


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLiDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLiDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLiDOE Commercial Appliance Study, 1993



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



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



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



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Small efficiency differences expected for commercial gas clothesdryers.


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

# Standards Consideration Product: Commercial Clothes Washers 

# I Family Sized 

# 1 Industrial Sized Potential Energy Savings 

# I Energy Star (MEF=1.26) = 0.2719 

# 1 Soil Sensor = InsufficientData2'



# I I are no DOE testing requirements. (CEE,1988)



### from ~e~ulatoh ~ction; Cumulative (Quads) 2008- 2030 Product / 

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation): Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues

l9 Data is based on commercial family sized units only. Savings based on baseline MEF = 

### I .O. 20 Soil sensor effectiveness under all conditions is unclear (Meier, 1998). Horz. Axis, MEF=2.0 = 0.4619 Soil Sensor = Insufficient



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Horizontal-axisfamily-sized washers have come to market. Five (5) family-sized commercial washer models have an MEF >=2.0; more than 25 have an MEF>1.80.


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ozone = 0.26 Many large-capacitycommercial clothes washers are horizontal axis machines, as the high utilization makes the first-cost premium affordable.

Unit Energy Consumption 

### (kwh) 245 1 Unknown ADLIDOE 1993



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Annual Shi~ments (millions) 

# 1 0.265 

# 1 Unknown 

# 1CEE (1998) 

# I 

# I ( Family 

# I Indust. 

# I Family Sized

Installed Base (millions) Product Lifetime hears) CEE (1998) No standard exists for large capacitycommercial clothes washers. The residential clothes dryer has seen no regulations,however, residential clothes washers are on an efficiencyimprovement plan with miIestones in '04 and '07. Residential dishwashersin the process of starting a standardsreview. The effective date of implementation is expected to be 2005. Residential refrigeration standardswere set in 1990,1993, and in 2001. In March 2001, a broad cross-section of consumer advocacy organizationspetitioned DOE to reconsider its new energy conservation standards for clothes washers.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Factor (EF) test changedto 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



### Industrial Sized 

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


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



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

Total Enerev Use (auads. 1990) 

# 1 0.035 

# 1 0.019 

## 1ADLIDoE Commercial Avvliance Study, 1993

(~est Available Efficiency No Energy Star Program or Federal Minimum.

Typical New Efficiency El 0 1 ]Vertical Axis; FEMP (2000)



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

# 1 MEF-2.0 

# / Unknown 

# 1HorizontalAxis; FEMP (2000) 

# 1 Little room for improvement over horz. axis machine exvected 

# I - No federal standards exist. Energy Star program applied to family-sized commercial units only.

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

# - Few reliable sources of information on energy and water consumptionof commercial washers sincethere

HorizontalAxis (performance normalized to "typical new"); BTS (2000) Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) MEF=1.26 MEF=2.0 NIA 3.2 www.EnergyStar.gov



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Horizontal Axis; FEMP (2000) Ozone washers (performance normalized to "typical new"); ADLIDOE 

### (I993)

## Test 

## Procedure 

# Summary Product: 

### Commercial Clothes Washers
Test Procedure Overview

Future/PotentialTest 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 ModifiedEnergy FactorMEF = Capacity

### ffty / (Machine Electrical Energy Consumption (weighted per cycle) FW-hr] 

### + Water Energy Consumption (weighted per cycle) FW-hr] 

### + Energy Consumption for removal ofRemainingMoisture ContentRMC @er cycle) FW-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 (extrahot, 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 10 Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. J1 will be used for determiningcompliance with standards set beginning 1/1/2004. For Family-Sized washers only, on July 27,2000, all manufacturers of clothes washers sold in the United States joined several energy conservation advocacy organizationsand utilities in submittingto DOE a Joint StakeholdersComment (Joint Comment), endorsing new standards for clothes washers. These standardswould require a 22 percent increase in efficiency by 2004 and a 35 percent increase by 2007 above the standards currently in effect. The Joint Comment also endorsed substantial tax credits for manufacturers of energy efficient clothes washers and refrigerators.


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

App. J1 is more realistic since it incorporates test procedures to include differentwater temperatures. There are many factors in 

### the calculations and derived results fkom test measurements that are estimated for means ofproduct comparison. Estimatesmay 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 identifydesign impact on peak demand, only total energy consumption; furthermore,water heating energy consumptionoften occurs off-peak andlor via non-electricwater heatingmeans (oil, gas) which do not impact peak electricdemand. The MEF metric ofthe test procedure takes into account additional moisture extracted by the washers that reduces the energy consumed by the dryer. Presumably, this also reduces the peak demand impact of the dryer.

# Standards Consideration Product: Gas Duct Furnace

21 El is steady-state thermal efficiency as defined by ANSI 283.9 test procedure. Savingsbased on baseline typical efficiency(El)of 80%.



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

### Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICost information): Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary EfficiencyImprovements Issues

Background Material -- a Power Vent (El = 82%) = 0.02"

Pulse Combustion (El = 90%) = 0.10'' Condensing (El = 93%) = 0.132'


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The installed cost ofduct furnaces varies by the type ofunit and by capacity. The smallest units (15OMBtu) 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 $7.75/MBtu, installed.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Manufacturersof gas duct &maces have not been exposedto much government regulation in the past, aside from possible exposure oftheir commercial roof-top air-conditioningproducts.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Efficiencyis primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9). Any referencesto seasonal efficienciesuse AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAE Standard 103).



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


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Power vented units account for a significant fraction of unit sales.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Gas Duct Furnaces currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1-1999. Actual energy savings will be larger for units that have good seasonal efficiencies. Codes and Standards could have more impact if minimum efficiencywas stated in terms of AFUE.



### -...

Stock Efficiency 80% ADL, 2001 (Commercial HVAC vol. 1)


### ......................... ____ 

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

# 1 80% ADL, 2001 (Commercial HVAC vo1.l)


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Best Available Efficiency 93% Condensing



### ................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................. Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu)


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



### ........................................................................................................ Installed Base (millions, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard 0.122 72 0.113 

### -.

1.7 15 74% 178% 

### *
Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) OtherNotable EfficiencyLevel GRI-9710 100



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



## ..................................................................................................................................................................... GRI-9710 100



### ........................................................................................................................ Average based on shipments and lifetime.



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GIU-9710100; estimated average accounting for geographical variations and capacity



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Steady-statethermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASHRAE 90.1- 1999,



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

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

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

## Test Procedure Summary Product: Gas Duct Furnace
Test Procedure Overview



# I FuturelPotentialTest 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-stateoperation of the heater. Inlet and outlet air temperatures are measured. Flue gas temperature, carbon dioxide concentration,and condensate rate are also measured. These measurements are used, along with the measured heating value in the fuel, to calculate the percentage of energy that is lost (in the form of water vapor, unburned fuel, and warm air) through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). The thermal efficiency ofthe duct furnace, then, is equal to 100%

## - %flue loss. For duct furnaces, energy lost through the body of the heater (jacket losses) are calculated using measured temperatures of the outermost surface of the furnace and the temperatureofthe surroundingambient air.


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


### ..................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure accuratelymeasures 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 efficiencyand does not indicate how well the heater performs during '%arm-up" and "cooldown" operation nor during part-load operation (when the airflow through the furnace is reduced). Secondly, thejacket loss calculations are based on empirical correlations, not measured directly, and may be slightly inaccurate.Lastly, duct furnacesare primarily used to heat air in an occupied spaceto temperatures that are comfortable,but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively the heater distributes its warm air to keep the space comfortable. Since gas demand is greatest in cold months, gas duct furnaces (primarily used to heat buildings during cold months) contribute to the seasonal peak demand of gas. Reducing energy consumption of gas duct furnaceswill, therefore, also reduce the seasonal nature of gas demand.

# Standards Consideration Product: Gas Unit Heaters

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Power Vent (E, = 82%) = 0.2522 Pulse Combustion 

### (E, =90%) = 0.6922 Condensing (E, = 93%) = 0.73" Product 

### I Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICost information):



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

# I Status of Teat Procedures



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


## .............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements The installed cost ofunit heaters variesby the type of unit and by capacity. The smallest units (25MBtu) cost approximately four times more (USD per MBtu) than the largest units (500MBtu). Standard (Typical) units are widely available in sizesbetween 25MBtu and SOOMBtu, with an installed cost of $7.75/MBtu 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 $10.00IMBtu for the best-selling size range (250-375MBtu). Pulse-combustion units are available in sizes between 25MBtu and SOOMBtu, with and installed cost of $18.00iMBtu for the best-selling size range (250-375MBtu). Condensing units are manufacturedby one major manufacturer and are available in three sizes (225MBtb 300MBtu,and 400MBtu).While available

### in the U.S. since 1999, condensing units are primarilymarketed in Europe. The list price of the 3OOMBtu unit is currently $5,479 ($18.25/MBtu). Estimating the installation cost as 25% of list price gives a total installed cost estimateof $22.80IMBtu.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... Manufacturers of gas unit heaters have not been exposedto much government regulation in



## ....................................................................................................................................................... the past, aside &om possible exposure of their co&ercial roof-top air-conditionTngproducts. Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9). Any references to seasonal effic~enc~es ue AFCE (see ANSIlASI1RAE Standard 103).



### ...... 

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

# : 1 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) Issues Gas Unit Heaters currentlyfall under ASHRAE 90.1

# - 1999.Actual energy savings will be larger for units that have good seasonal efficiencies. Codes and Standards could have more im~act if minimum efficiencvwas stated in terms of AFUE. 22 E, is steady-state thermal efficiency as defined by ANSI 283.9 test procedure. Savingsbased on baseline typical efficiency (E,) of 80%. Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) Installed Base (millions. 1995)
Stock Efficiency ADL, 2001 (Commercial HVAC vol. 1) Tvoical New Efficiencv 

### ADL. 200 1 (Commercial WACvol. 1') 

# I Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard 

# t Best AvailableEfficiency 93% Condensing

Energy Star Efficiency 

# I 0.5 154 0.14 3.2

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NIA


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other Notable Efficiency Level 82% Power vented, improved heat transfer. 

### * As of 29 October, 2001, ASHRAE 90.1-1999 indicates a minimum combustion efficiency (i.e., 100%minusflue losses) of 80%. GRI-9710100 and ADL (2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divided total energyuse by installedbase.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GRI-9710100


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GRI-9710 100 21.5 75% / 78% 

## * GRI-9710 100; estimated average accounting for geographical variations and capacity.


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

### 1999,

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Gas Unit Heaters



### Test Procedure Overview

FutureIPotential 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 Inlet and outlet air temperatures are measured. Flue gas temperature, carbon dioxide I concentration,and condensate rate are also measured. These measurements are used, along I with the measured heating value in the fuel, to calculate the percentage of energy that is lost

(in the form of water vapor, unburned fuel, and warm air) through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). The thermal efficiency of the unit heater, then, is equal to 100%

## - %flue loss. For unit heaters installed indoors, energy lost through the body of the heater (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 gas unit heaters.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure accurately measuresthermal (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 electricitybut 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" operationnor 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 

# 1 the heater distributes its 

### warm air to keep the space comfortable.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation Since gas demand is greatest in cold months, gas unit heaters (primarilyused to heat buildings 

### with Test Procedure and Metric, by during cold months) contribute to the seasonal peak demand of gas. Reducing energy 

### Technology consumption of gas heaters will, therefore, also reduce the seasonal nature of gas demand.

## Standards Consideration Product: Oil Unit Heaters



## I Cumulative Burden 

## I Manufacturers of oil unit heaters have not been exposedto much government regulation in 

## I

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product / Technology Availability (Including PriceiCost information):



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

# I 

# I the past, aside &ompossible exposure of their commercial roof-top air-conditioningproducts. Status of Test Procedures Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see 

### UL Standard 73 1). Any references to seasonal efficienciesuse AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAE Standard 1031.

Power Vent (E, = 84%) = 0.00223.24 Pulse Combustion 

### (E, = 90%) = 0.00823324 Condensing (E, = 93%) = 0.010". 24 

## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Oil unit heaters cost between 8-1O$USMl3tu depending on capacity. 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.


## 1 Other RegulatorvActions 

## INot known. 

## I 

# IEvidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Market share ofpower vented, pulse combustion, and condensing units is virtually zero. Eflliciencv Im~rovements 

# I From 1991 to 1995, total shipments of oil-fired unit heaters steadilyfell from 2,650 

# ". unitslyearto 1,250unitslye& (about 17% annually). Issues Oil Unit heaters currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1 

## - 1999. Actual energy savings will be 

# I Ilarger for units that have good seasonal efficiencies. Codes and Standards could have more im~act if minimum efficiencvwas stated in terms of

### AFUE. 

# I

23 E, is steady-state thermal efficiency. Savings based on baselinetypical efficiency 

### (E,) of 82%. 24 Without existing oil-fired unit heaters in these categories, the thermal efficiencyvalues for potential improvements are estimated to be the same as for gas-fired unit heaters. Backround Material Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) GRI-9710100 and ADL (2001) Unit Enerw Consum~tion (MMBtu1 Divided total enerwuse bv installed base. 

# I Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) GRI-9710100 Installed Base (millions. 1995) GRI-9710100 

# t Product Lifetime (years) 13.7 GRI-9710100; estimated average accounting for capacityvariations. Steady-statethermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASHRAE 90.1- Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Same as typical new efficiency. Tvoical New Efficiencv Average of six availablemodels (Modine and Renor) 

# I Best Available Efficiency


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84% 

# 1Modne model POR-100 Enerw Star Efficiency 

# 1 NIA 

# I Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NIA


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other Notable Efficiency Level NIA 

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

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Oil Unit Heaters



### Test Procedure Overview 

# ' All measurements are taken during standardized,full-load, steady-stateoperation of the heater. Inlet and outlet air temperatures 

### are measured. Flue gas temperature,carbon dioxide concentration, and condensate rate are also measured. These measurementsare used, along with the measured heating value in the fuel, to calculate the percentage of energy that is lost (in the form of water vapor, unburned fuel, and wann air) through the flue to the outdoor air (called "%flue loss"). The thermal efficiency of the unit heater, then, is equal to 100%

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

## I Future/PotentialTest Procedure(s) 

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

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



## ......................................................... * 

## ................, Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology The test procedure accuratelymeasures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters operatingunder full-load and steady-state conditions.However, thermal efficiency measured under these conditions does not fully indicate the actual annual energy consumption ofunit heaters. Firstly, unit heaters have fans (or some other type of air-mover) built in to the unit that consume electricitybut 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 heaterperforms 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 primarilyused 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.



### . .



## .. .

. . .

. . . .. . . . . .



## . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. 

## . ..

. 

## . . .. . . 

# . . . . .

. . 

## . .

. . .



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



## ..



## . .

. .. . .

..



# . . . . . . . . . 

## . . . .



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

## . . . .



## . . 

## . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

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

. Oil unit heaters do not use electricity (except for small amounts to power any fans, blowers, or pumps), so do not contributeto electric demandpeaks.

## Standards Consideration Product: Exit Signs 

# IPotential Energy Savings from Regulatory 14 Watt Maximum = 0.06" 1Watt Maximum =0.41" 

### Action: 

# I 5 Watt Maximum (Energy Star) =0.3 1"



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

# I 3.5 Watt Maximum =0.3~~' 

### Product / 

### Technology Availability LED exit signs are readily available

# - Energy Star has more than twenty certified 

### (Including ~ricel~ost information):

Cumulative Burden

Status of Test Procedures



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



### ......................................................................... Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efftciency Improvements 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 incandescentsign. FEMP provides a table of exit sign lighting options, these include: LED signs: $22 initial purchase, $5 annual operating ~ncandescent: $6 initial purchase, $42 annual operating


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

California may implement a standard that specifiesa 5W per face maximum. The proposed efficiency standards will be reissued on November 6,2001. The adoption hearing will take place in January of2002. Some statesbanned incandescent lamps from exit signs in the 1990's. Although not energy related, exit sign manufacturers must comply with strict performance and safety standards for this product contained in building codes administered from the 

# I

......................................................................................................................................................... state to the local level. 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 ~ublished bv the International Conferenceof Building Officials. 

# ....,

~~~ ..... Not known.

The ENERGY STAR program has 22 certified manufacturers. FEMP recommends the ENERGY STAR guideline. Exit signs are identified as one ofthe top 3 highest potential energyefficiency technologies for market transformation, including energy savings potential, cost savings, and likelihood of successful market transformation(ACEEE reDort. 1998).


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

# I 

# t -, 

### Issues Codes from all types of jurisdictions require regular exit sign inspection,despite predicted lamn life. 25 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 15Watts where 75% of installed based are 15 Watt exit signs.

Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency



### ................................................................................................................................. Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 0.05



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 143.5


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.35



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29.5


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25



## ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 

### W per face in CA



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16.4 W



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

## - 40



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9 

## - 3.5 

### W 5 

### W or less per face


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... <1W ADL Draft US Lighting Report 

## - Phase I Inventory, 2001. Based on stock efficiency. ACEEE, 2001. Calculated for 2000 using 1994 data, assuming 2% growth. ADL Draft US Lighting Report 

# - Phase I Inventory, 2001. Incandescents: 2-20 years. Fluorescents: 1-2 years. LEDs: 25 years Various product specifications sheets. CEC, 2001 ( effective July, 2002). Weighted average of installedbase. ADL Draft US Lighting Report 

## - Phase 

### I Inventory, 2001. Incandescentand CFL from Hubbell,Lithonia, Noralighting, and Chloride product specificationsheets. LED exit signs from Hubbell and Chloride Specification sheets.



### .................................................... EPA, 2001. Electroluminescent and some LED panels alreadyuse 1 W or less. Photoluminescent materials reauire zero electricalenerw invut.

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Exit Signs



### Test Procedure Overview

Futureffotential Test Procedure(s) Energy Star and the proposed CaliforniaEnergy Conunission Amendments to Title20 Energy Eficiency 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. Inputpower shall be measured with an appropriateTrue RMS Watt Meter. Each of the photometric characteristicsofthe sign shall be measured at three voltages:

Rated input voltage which representsnormal operation, Voltage correspondingto the minimum voltage provided either by the internal battery or a remote emergency power source, and Voltage correspondingto the minimum voltage providedby the internal batter after the marked rated operating time or at 

### 87.5% ofthe rated emergency input voltage. Luminance measurementpositions "Measurement ofExit Sign Luminance," NFPA 101,Life Safety Code. "Directional IndicatorLuminance Measurement Points," ANSIAJL 924, Standard for Safety: Emergency Lighting andPower Equipment, May 9, 1995.



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

### 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 An exit sign must be operated for 100 hours before testing, enabling the power systemto stabilize. Lumen output may be higher at testing time than at the average life of the light source,which will occur after at least 3000 hours of operation. Exit signs operate 24 hours per day; so duty cycle and the per-fixture installed savings potential can be accurately determined. There is some uncertaintyaround the installedbase in the U.S.. which affects the Ouad 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.

## Standards Consideration Product: Torchieres 

# IPotential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 

# I

........................................................................... Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product 1 Technolopy Availabilitv 

# - (IncludingPriceICost information):



### ............................................................................ Cumulative Burden Wattage Limit set at 190W = 0.8326 Wattage Limit set at 70 W = 1.7326



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

# - Product is primarily directedtoward the residential sector. 

# - Readily available at retail outlets for homewares such as Home Depot or Walmart.

Utilitieshave sponsoredturn-in and rebate programs for halogen torchieres. Most halogen or incandescenttorchieres retail for less than $20, while non-subsidized CFL torchieres typically cost in the range of $30 to $50 (CWEB, 2000).



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

Californiamay implement state-wide maximum wattage of 190W on fixtures. The proposed efficiency standardswill be reissued on November 6,2001. The adoption hearing will take place in January of2002. Although not mandated, many manufacturers are respondingto the combination of safety concerns and high energy consumption, by installing safety measures such as lower wattage bulbs and protectivecaaes to avoid materials coming into contact with the bulb. Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions


## ............................................................................. EvidenceofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

Issues No test procedure for efficiency, although applicablemeasurement standards on efficacy, lamp life, color rendering, etc. do exist (EPA, 2001). These testing standards are promulgated by the IESNA, ANSI and IEEE. EPA has developed ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures.


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


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

DOE worked with LBNL to develo~ aCFL-based torchiere lamu (BTS. 2000) Many universities (Brown, ~arvard, Stanford & Yale) have ba&ed halbgen tbrchieres 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 (ex., not excluding residential)as this


### . 

# - is &marily a residential sectorproduct 

# - While not an energy efficiency regulation issue, regulations could lead to lower wattage lamps and may reduce fire risk. 26 Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 300 Watts. Savings estimates based on installed base remaining constant (i.e., no growth in sales). Greater savings will be realized if sales increase.

nit Energy Consumption (kWh) 

# Ihual Shipments (millions) 

# 1 l4 

# 1 Halogen, 9000; Incandescent: 4500; CFL: 650. Calwell and Granda, 1999. CEC, 200 1 ( effectiveJuly, 2002). 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 50 Installedbase assumes all halogen.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sales of halogen torchiereshave been decreasingfollowing fires. Move to lower wattage incandescent (< 190W) or CFL (< 70W).



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... BTS, 2000. One of seven CFL substitute lamps developed due to DOE initiative. " 67 "40 EPA 2001. Calculatedusing 60 lmlW Energy Star specification (for fixture 24 inches and 30 watts) and 4,000 lumen output (typical 300W Halogen).


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Assume efficacywill improve to highest linear florescent tube (100 lm/W)and 4000 lumen demand.

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Torchieres



### Test Procedure Overview



## ............................................................................. Future/PotentialTest 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 Energy Star requires testing using the methods in Table 1 for performance characteristics including input power and light output. CEC urouosed standardsdo not suecifv a test method for torchiere fixtures. Energy Star states that there will potentiallybe revisions for durability testing that may include on-off cycling, voltage variations and current variations among other factors.


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

The test procedures cover the two key energy efficiency metrics that represent energy consumptionand the potential savings

## - inputpower and light output.



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

# 1Test procedure and metric of energy input correlatehighly with the peak load impact. 

# 1 Technology 

### Table 1:

### Residential Indoor and Outdoor Lights: Energy Star Program Reference Standards Light 

### output IESNA LM-9; LM-66 

### Input power IESNA LM-9; LM-66; 

### ANSI


# I Temperature

Lamp 

### ~tatt time Lamp 

### Life Lamp Color Rendering Lamp 

### Correlated Color ANSI (282.1 1-5.2 IESNA LM-40; LM-65 IESNA LM-58; LM-16
, 

### IESNA LM-58; LM-16 Dimming Warranty 

### Safety -

### Portable Fixtures Safety -

### Hardwired Fixtures Safety -

### Ballasts

## and 

## Use manufacturer protocol 

## Use manufacturer protocol ANSI/UL 153 

### UL 1598 ANSI/UL 935; UL 1993 "~l&rescent Adapters" Ballast Frequency Transient Protection IESNA LM-28 EEEC 62.41

# Standards Consideration Product: Traffic Signals
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; 

# I Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


## ............................................................................... Product / Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICost information):



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



## .............................................................................. Status of Test Procedures All Red Signalsto LED = 0.30'' All traffic signals to LED = 0.6OZ7 Red and Green Simals to LED = 0.4927 Red and Green peYdestrian to LED =0.5927


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

Prices vary, but the first cost of a 12-inch red LED signal is approximately$125. Amber LED 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 electricity prices, unit costs, and possible financial incentivesoffered by utility or government organizations (Bullough et al., 2000). Since LED signals first hit the market, prices have declined considerably and manufacturers believe this trend will continue. Energy Star currently has 4 certifiedmanufacturers.


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

Californiamay implement a standardof 8-22 W, correspondingto signaltype (e.g. red ball, green arrow, etc.).

The proposed efficiency standardswill be reissued on November 6,2001. The adoption hearing will take place in January of2002. California, Minnesota,Texas, Ohio, and Oregon have standardspertinent to performance, visibility and use requirements of LED traffic signals (Bullough et al., 2000). Although not related to energyconsumption, traffic signals are subject to performance, visibility, electrical, and quality assurancerequirements set forth by the Institute of TransportationEngineers.


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

Institute of Transport Engineers (ITE) has specifications for LED traffic signalswhich include chromaticity, luminous intensity, compatibilitywith load switches, QA, etc. EPA has ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Traffic Signals EPA is working with the ITE to develop the visibilitvreauirements for LED vellow sipnals. 

## I Other Re~ulatorv Actions 

## I Not known. 

## I

Issues 27 Savings based on a baseline of 99% incandescentand 1%LED.

EvidenceofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Emciency Improvements 

# ITotal Energy Use (quads, 1997) ADL Draft US Lighting Report 

# - Phase I Inventory, 2001. Unit Energv Consumtion (kwh) Per intersection,using installed base data. ENERGY STAR program is less than one year old and has 4 certifiedmanufacturers. 

# - Consortium for Energy Efficiency launched a similarprogram in January 2000 with 22

partner utilities around the U.S. Philadelphiawas 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 installationmakes clear economic sense, especially in cases where utilities sponsor rebate programs.


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

# IAnnual Shipments (millions) Suozzo (ACEEE), 1998. Assumed annual replacementsof lflifetimeplus 2% aowth. Installed Base (millions) 9.6 ADL Draft US Lighting Report 

# - Phase I Inventory, 2001.


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Incand.: 0.7 Product Lifetime (years) 

# 1 5-7

# 1CEE, EPA Energy Star, & Dialight product spec sheets.



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

# I -- - 

# I 1 There are specifications regarding safety (luminousintensity), power factor, Minimum Efficiency Standard voltage and circuitry, but not efficiency. StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency LET): 10-22W

........ 

# I - Best availableLED signals today are 7W red, 9W yellow & 1 1 W green Best AvailableEfficiency (LedTronics, 2001). 

# I Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# - l5 3-7W When the ITE approves yellow LED'S, EPA Energy Starwill develop a criteria for yellow signals (EPA, 2001).


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... LED efficacy expected to double over the next five years (Petrow, 200 1)

## Test Procedure 

# Summary Product: Traffic Signals



### Test Procedure Overview

FuhrreIPotentialTest Procedure(s)



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

# 1 How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s)represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? There is currently no test procedure that evaluates energy consumptionof traffic signals; focus of test procedures has been product performance and safety. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is one of the authoritiesworking directly with the US Department ofTransportation in the regulation oftransport-related technologies. The ITE has establisheda 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 complywith 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. Energy Star products must meet the minimum performance requirementsofthe relevant ITE specificationand be tested under the conditions presented in Section 6.4.2 of the VTCSH Part 2.



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

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



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

The test procedures do not coverpower input, only power factor and other electrical characteristics. Installedbase and duty cycle for traffic signals is fairlywell known, so the corresponding energy savingspotential is reasonably accurate.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation The peak power draw of traffic signals correlates directly with their impactupon peak. 

### with Test Procedure and Metric, by The test procedures do not cover energy input; therefore,they do not correlatewith the 

### Technology metric that indicatespeak load impact.

## Standards Consideration Product: Ceiling Fans


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

### I Technology Availability (IncludingPrice/Costinformation): Cumulative Burden Energy Star compliant (75 CFM/Watt) = 0.26" Best Available Aerodynamic (130 CFMIWatt) = 0.5828 Aerodynamic and Permanent Magnet Motor (260 CFiWWatt) =0.88" Energy Star compliant lighting (pin-based CFL) =2.4



### ..................................................................................................................................................... According to preliminary data suppliedby Energy Star in which 26 fan models from 9 differentmanufacturers were tested by the Hunter Method, 8 ofthe models (3 1%)met Energy Star guidelines for airflowefficiency. Currently Home Depot stores sell the highest efficiencyfan on the market, the Hampton Bay "Gossamer Wind" series.


## ..................................................................................................................................................... Most manufacturers of ceiling fans are not impacted by other product regulations.



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

# I "Solid State Test Method" described in "Energy Star Program Requirements for Residential Ceiling Fans." 

### Other RezulatorvActions Not known. 

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

# " Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 62 CFMJWatt. 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 feasibilityof employinga permanent magnet/brushless DC motor is not clear (due to different rotationalrates). 

### BackeroundMaterial

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

### Fan 0.076

50 

### Lighting



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



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Fan Sanchez (LBNL, 1997) Average based on total energy and installedbase 16.5 (-75% with lighting)


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



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


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



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

### Lighting Calwell, Chris and Noah Horowitz. 2001. Home Energy, JanuaryFebruary 2001, pp 24-29. Appliance Magazine, May 2001 Sanchez (LBNL, 1997)



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

# I Appliance Magazine, September 2000

87 CFMIWatt
170 CFMIWatt
115 CFiWWatt
340 CFWatt Average ofhigh and lowspeed efficiencies. (Parker, 1999) Average ofhigh and lowspeed efficiencies. (Aerodynamic blades 

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

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



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



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



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

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Ceiling Fans

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? Energy Star recently adopted the Hunter Method for testing ceiling fans. Fan is hung in a temperatureand humidity controlled room above a tunnel or large diameter tube, that is slightlylarger than the outer diameter of the fan blades. 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 the recorded velocities is used in airflow calculations. Throughout operation,power consumptionis monitored. Fans 

### are rated for efficiencvon a CFMWattbasis. As the Hunter Method was proposed very recently (December 15,2000) there are currently no details on futuremodification of testing procedures.


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

The Hunter Method will vrovide an effective analysis of air flow efficiency. Tier I Enerm 

# -- Star requirements, set to take effect on January 1,2002, also govern controls, lighting, warrantv. and orovided consumer information 

### . Tier I1 

### levels take effect on October 1, 

### 2003, &d 

### inckde amendments for most of the above categories and additionalnoise 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 

# I 'BT,"nd air flow, lighting associatedwith many fans represents another energy-saving opportunity;lighting &ically consumes more energy than the fan motors. 

# I

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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Despite the list of qualifications necessary for Energy Starcompliance, the amount ofair moved per watt, as quantified by the Hunter Method test, correlateswell with the impact of ceiling fans on peak energy loads because the majority of ceiling fans will operate during 

# I I peak load times.

## Standards Consideration Product: CompactAudio 

# IPotential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action;



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

### I Technology Availability 

### I finelmdinePriceICost information): CurrentEnergy Star (2 Watt standby) = 0.4729 Energy Star Year 2003 (1 Watt standby) = 0.5329 Best Available (0.25 Watt standby) = 0.5729


## .................................................................................................................................................... Presently, about 50 compact audio models draw 1 W or less in standbymode. Cumulative Burden 

# I This and related products have not been regulated. 

## I 1Status of Test Procedures 

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

## I Other RegulatorvActions 

# I ~ot known. 

## I Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary 54% Energy Star Market PenetrationTarget (Y2000) Efficiency Improvements 

# I -50 Different Models Consume 1 W or Less Standby



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

# I

'9 Savings based on a baseline consumptionof 10Watt standby. Background Material

Unit Energy Consumption 

### (kwh) Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Annual Shivments(millions. 2000) Avvliance Magazine, Mav 2001 

# I Installed Base (millions, 1998) Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Product Lifetime (vears) Auvliance Mawine, September 2000 

# ! Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiencv Typical New Efficiency Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) Best Available Efficiency 

# I Energy Star Efficiency Phase 

### I (2002) 

## - www.EnergyStar.gov Maximum Efficiencv Future Technolorn) 

### ".


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... OtherNotable Efficiency Level 1 W Standby Phase 

### I1 (2003)

# - www.EnergyStar.gov

# Standards Consideration Product: 

### Component Stereo and RACK Audio

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

### I TechnologyAvailability (IncludingPriceICost information):

............................................................................ Cumulative Burden



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


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


## ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary EWciencv Imnrovements 

### Current Energy Star (2 Watt standby) = 

### 0. lo3' Energy Star Year 2003 (1 Watt standby) = 

### 0.203' Best Available (0.26 Watt standby) =

### 0.273"3'


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Presently, more than 25 RACWComponent audio models draw 1W 

### or less in standbymode. This and related products have not been regulated.



### ...................................................................................................................................................... "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 1 W standby Issues 

# I
30 

### Savingsbased on a baseline consumption of 6 Watt standby. 3' 

### Only for receiver; 1.1 W 

### was the lowest standby Rack system power draw measured by Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999). Background Material 

### Total Energy Use (quads, 1998) 0.122


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

# 1 129


## ........................................................................................................... Annual Shipments (millions)



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

# t 74 

### Product Lifetime (years) 7



### .......................................................................................................... Minimum Efficiency Standard 

# 1 N/A Stock Efficiencv 

### I 3 W Standbv
- .-- - 

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

# 1 3

# standby

.......................................................................................................... Best Available Efficiency 0.26 W Standby


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

# 1 2Wi;;dby


## .......................................................................................................... Maximum Efficiencv (FutureTechnolow) Averagebased on UEC and installed base.


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

# I Average based on installedbase and lifetime. (Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999) estimate shipments of -5 million in 1998.)



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


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

# I Auuliance Maeazine. Se~tember 2000 

### I



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

# 1

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


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

# I

"# " 

## ........................................................................................................................ Phase I (2002) 

## - www.EnergyStar.gov


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

# I ( OtherNotable Efficiency Level 

# I 1 

### W Standby 

### ( Phase 11 

### (2003) 

# - www.EnergyStar.gov 

# I

## Test Procedure 

# Summan Product: Compact Audio, Component Stereo, and RACK Audio

.-- - -- 

### Test Procedure Overview

Futuremotential Test Procedure(s)



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



### ............................................................................ Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Terhnnlnw In accordancewith Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage)<3% THD, Ambient Temperature of 22'C, and within Market-Specific Ranges for Voltage and Frequency. Test equipment is set up and the test unit connected properly. The unit is brought to standbymode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately 90 minutes). Test conditionsand test data, defined as the true standbypower requirements ofthe 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 implementation of Energy Star Phase 

### I1 requirements on January 1,2003.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure correlatesmildly with the energy consumptionof compact audio devices, as standby energy consumption currently accounts for about 50% of compact audio energy consumption. On the other hand, standbypower is a poor proxy for RACWComponent audio energy consumption; only about 10% of RACWComponent audio energyconsumption occurs in the standbymode.



### ...................................................................................................................................................... The current test procedure likely fails to evaluatepeak load conditions, as the test procedure only considers standby power draw but many units operate during peak load times.

## Standards Consideration Product:Dehumidifiers



### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory EnergyStar Level (1.5 LkWh) = 0.1932 

# 1 Best Available (1.85 LkWh) = 0.5332 

### Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product/ 

### Technology Availability As of August 30,2001,2 high-capacity dehumidifiers(36<Llday<57) and 10 standard 

# I (IncludingPrice/Cost information): capacitydehumidifiers (up to 35 Llday) meet Energy Star requirements. 

### Cumulative Burden The major manufacturers of dehumidifiers also make other household appliances which have been regulated, 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 rermlated in the ~ast).

32 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 1.35LIkWh. Energy Star level and best available efficienciesvary with size. Values given are for mid-sized units, 25 

## - 35 Llday. 

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

Background Material "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers" ANSVAHAM DH-, for Test Methodology. CANICSA-C749-94 (Section4.2), for Energy Factor Calculation



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



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Models Meet or Exceed Energy Star PerformanceLevels



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Different sized dehumidifiers

Total Energy Use (quads, 1997) 

## & UEC &id installedbase. Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) Zogg and Alberino, 1998 Annual Shi~ments (millions. 2000) A~~liance Magazine. Mav 2001

............. InstalledBase (millions) Average based on shipmentsand lifetime. Product Lifetime hears) A~vliance Magazine. Se~tember 2000 

# I Minimum EEciency Standard Stock Efficiencv 

# I Typical Efficiency For mid-sized units (25-35 Llday) www.EnergyStar.gov Best Available Efficiencv 

# I Energy Star Efficiency For mid-sized units (25-35 Llday) www.EnergyStar.gov Maximum Efficiencv (Future Technologv) 

# I IOtherNotable EEciency Level NIA

## Test Procedure Summary Product: Dehumidifiers


### Test Procedure Overview

FutureEotentialTest Procedure(s)


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


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

### Technology Tests are conducted in accordancewith ANSYAHAM StandardDH-1 and Canadian standardCSA-C749-94. Air entering the dehumidifier must be at 80°Fdry bulb/70eFwet bulb (standard conditions). Energy Factor is calculated according to section4.2 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 kgllitre at standard conditions) and expressed in terms of LkWh.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... There 

### are no indicationsof imminent changes in the test procedure.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... The testing procedure closely models the UEC, as dehumidifierstypically operate at steadystate conditions approaching similar dry-to-wet bulb temperatureratios.



## ...................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure correlateswell with performance during peak demand periods, as a dehumidifier typically run around the clock and under similar dry-to-wet bulb conditions.

## Standards Consideration Product: Set-Top Boxes 

# I 

# 1 Digital 

# I Wireless 

# I

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

## I Cumulative Burden 

## IThis and related products have not been regulated. 

### Product I 

### Technology Availability (IncludingPriceICost information): Current Energy Star (15W standby) =0.5433 Energy Star 2004 

### (7 Watt standby) = 0.95~~ Best Available (1 Watt standbv) = 1.333 Currently only two set-top box models meet Energy Star requirements, both digital boxes made by Pace Micro Technology. These two units became availablein June, 2001. Once Tier 2 limits take effect on January 1,2004, analog boxes will have an easier time fulfillingEnergy Star requirements, as allowablevower draw levels will rise from 

### 3 W to 7W for all categories.



### Issues Current Energy Star (15 Watt standby) =0.05~~ Energy Star 2004 (7 Watt standby) =0.35j4 Best Available (1 Watt standby) = 0.58j4



### Status of Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Wide range ofproducts covered under ENERGY STAR Program including: Cable TV (analog and digital), digital TV, satellite TV, wireless TV, personal VCF, video game console, internet access devices, videophone, multifunction devices. 1 W Standby feasibility unclear. Market moving away from Analog towards Digital cable boxes (no analog boxes expected by 7008) "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Set-Top Boxes" "Testing Guidelines for ENERGY STAR Qualified Set-Top Boxes"



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



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No products meet Energy Star levels for Analog Only two products, both for Digital Cable TV, Cable 

### TV 

# I satisfyEnergy Star Criterion (Category 2); they came to market in June, 200 1.

33 Savingsbased on a baseline consumptionof 197 kWh/yr. 34 Savingsbased on a baseline consumptionof 16.2 Watt standby. 

### Background Material
Total Energy Use (quads, 1999) Unit Energy Consumption (kM) Annual Shipments (millions) Installed Base (millions, 1999) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiency Standard StockUEC (kWh/yr) Typical New UEC (kwh) or Efficiency Best AvailableUEC (kwh) or Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Other Notable Efficiency Level 

### Digital 0.105

95 49 10 N/A 197 197 140 15 W standby N/A 7 W standby 

### Wireless 0.02



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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15W standby


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


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 W standby 

### Digital Wireless Average based on UEC and installed base Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) Average based on installedbase 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) V~:VU .EnernvSrar.?~o~ and Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) m.EnergyStar.gov Proposed for 2003 EnergyStar(m.EnergyStar.gov)

## Test 

# Procedure 

# Summary Product: Set-Top Boxes



### Test Procedure Overview

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 Refer to "Testing Guidelines for Energy Star Qualified Set-top Boxes" In accordancewith Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% TIID, Ambient Temperature of 22"C, and within Market-Specific Ranges for Voltage and Frequency. Test equipment is set up and the test unit connectedproperly. The unit is brought to standbymode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize(approximately 90 minutes). Test conditions and test data, defined as the true standby power requirements ofthe product (in Watts), are recorded within a time measurement that is long enough to measure the correct average value within a +lo% 

## - 0% emor range.


### ...................................................................................................................................................... There are currently no indications of an imminent change in the testing procedure.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... The lack of active mode testing does not make a significant difference in evaluatingset-top box energyconsumption, as analog and digital boxes consume more than three times more energy annually in standbymode than in active mode. In addition, the boxes consume little additional 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%).



### ...................................................................................................................................................... The test procedure closely models the impact on peak load, since the standbypower draw measured during testing is does not vary significantlyfrom the active power draw. The correlationbetween 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 

# I I periods. 

# I

# Standards Consideration Product: Televisions
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Potential Economic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Test Procedures



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



### ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Future Energy Star (1 Watt standby, no active carryover) = 0.5435 Best Available (0.1 Watt standby, no active carryover) = 0.6S3' LCD=4.13'


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


## ........................................................................................................................................................ Specificestimates of emission reductions have not been developedhowever, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicativeofthe comparativeemission benefits that are likely to be


## ........................................................................................................................................................ "ENERGY STAR Promam Reauirements for TVs. VCRs. TVNCRs. TVDVDs, and 

# I TVNCR/DVDs"; cu&ntly unier revision (wrvw.~ner~*tar.~ov) '



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



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

40% Energy Star Market PenetrationTarget (Y2000; Webber et al., 2000) Numerous (>SO) Models Consume 1 W or Less Standby (m.energystar.gov) LCD Televisions Commercialized; 2.7% market share in Y2000 based on distributor unit sales. (ApplianceMagazine, May 2001) Impact of ElectronicProgramming Guides and HDTV can significantlychange standby and active vower consumvtion 

# 1 ~ssues 

# 1 -- 35 Savings based on a baseline consumptionof 5 Watt standby. Used 25-inch and 27-inch 73's for savingsestimates.
BackoundMaterial
0.348 150 Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999)



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



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


## I I Same minimum 

## I Minimum Efficiency Standard StockEfficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency


## ............................................................................................................. Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) N/A 4.9 

### W Standby 5.7 

### W Standby 0.1 W Standby

1 W Standby 

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


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



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


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


## ........................................................................................................................ Standby'with lower Rosen and Meier (LBNL, 1999);ADL 2001 LCD technology

## Standards Consideration Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

# IPotential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory New Energy Star Compliant Level (2 Watt standby) = 0.2536 

### Action; 1Watt standby =0.38j6



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 Product I Technolow Availabilitv 

# 1 Many VCRs in the market meet Energy Star standards,I.e., the Energy Starwebsite lists 45 

# I 

# I (Including ~ricelcgt information): 

# Imodels by 8 different manufacturers,%ailable as of September, 2003, that satisfy the Phase 

### I reauirements.

......... 

### Cumulative Burden No related products have encounteredenergy efficiency regulation. 

### Status of Test Procedures "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TVNCRs, TVlDVDs, and TVNCRIDVDs"; currently under revision (www.EnergyStar.gov)

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

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

Background Material Not known.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55% Energy StarMarket PenetrationTarget (Y2000;Webber et al., 2000) -5 Different Models Consume 1 W or Less Standby (w.energystar.gov)



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

Energy Star Efficiency


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

# 1 2 Wi;dby 

# 1wuwEnergyStar.gov Maximum Efficiencv (Future Technolom~ 

# I IOtherNotable Efficiency Level 

### ( 1 

### W Standby Proposed for 2003 Energy Star (www.EnergyStar.gov) 

# I

# Test Procedure 

# Summary Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

# / Test Procedure Overview 

# INo testing procedures exist for VCRs as of June 19,2001; 

### the Energy Star program expects to develou a test urocedure in the near future. 

# 1 FuturemotentialTest Procedure(s)



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

### Star Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TVNCRs, TV/DVDs, and TVNCRrDVDs" 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 standbymode.


## ...................................................................................................................................................... Assuming that the future test procedure is similar to that used to evaluateRACK 

### and Compact Audio equipment,i.e., to measure standbypower draw, the Energy Star program would have a low correlation with VCR energy consumption; standbymode accounts for -35% 

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

### Technology 

## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The degree of correlationbetween stand-by power and VCR peak power impact depends upon the (unknown) distribution ofVCR operationalmode during peak power demand periods and cannot be readily determined.

# Standards Consideration Product: Copy Machines


### Commercial Residential Potential Energy Savings from Copier ofthe 

### future, 100% Energy Star enabled = Copier ofthe future = 0.08~' 

### RegulatoryAction; 0.1" Conversion to Inkjet Technology= 0.1 1 38 

### ~u&ulati;e (Quads) 2008-2030 Conversion to Inkjet Technology= 0.737


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

### Technology 

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

### Availabdity (Including fulfill the CotF criteria. The CotF cost premium is most likelyminimal because the CotF deviceshave 

### PriceICost information): replaced previously existing product models (based on speed performance). A cost premium is unlikely due to effort ofkeeping products competitive. Inkjet printer substitution:Inkjet copiers are not available commercially.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Cumulative Burden This industry has never been regulated.



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Status of Test Procedures Energy Star test procedure document; dependanton print speed. Low and Offpower requirements. Timeto-Power-Down requirementsalso. Copier ofthe Future, More aggressive than E*, two targets. Target 1 (best) 60 cpm at 10W low power and



### ...................................................... Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements



## 1Issues ragid power-up. No specificationfor Off power dri



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

90% of Copy machine stock Y2000 is Energy Star Compliant 34% of Copiers in stock are 

### E* enabled 52.3% of the Copy machine Stock is Energy Star Compliant. (Webber et al. 1999) Federal governmentmandates purchase of E*- compliant Copy Machines. Best in class Copiers with low power capability, Panasonic 60 cpm (FP-D605), 15 Watts in sleep, Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) 

## - less than 10W in sleep (CotF award)



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

Energy savings depend on the technical abilities to 

### ...................................................................................... 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 Wans in sleep, Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm)

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

bwer sleeppower Energy Star enablementis the key to limiting electricityuse. Energy Star, although prevalent in new copier sales, is not at activated in the majority ofmachines. 1Wan sleep is not possible, however lower requirement than that definedby CotF may be possible. 37 Savings based on a baseline consumption that correspondsto typical new technology. 38 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100%Energy Star enabled. 

### Background Material

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Copy Machines



### Test Procedure Overview

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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Commercial Residential From the Energy Star Copier MOU 

## - Version 2.0 1) The test conditions for all copiers are:

Line Impedance ~0.25 ohm Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage)<3% Ambient Temperature= 2 1 deg C +I- 3 C Relative Humidity =40-60% Minimum distance of 2 feet fiom a wall Voltage/Frequency= 115 VRMS ti-5V, 60 Hz. +I-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 oftime specified (based on copier speed) for the copier to switch into Offmode. 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 15minutes. Record energy consumption for one hour. Compute the time-average power draw. 5) Testing details: All watt meters must be calibrated,at least every year and have a resolution of 0.1 W. The measurements recorded must be accurate within +I-0.5 W.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No future/potentialtest proceduresidentified. CotFprocedure is more strict.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The testing metrics do not correlate closely with the UEC and potential energy savings because the "standby" mode, not the "sleep" mode measured by the test procedure, accounts for the majority of device UEC. Improvementsin the Energy Starenabled rate will increase the amount of time in and percentage of device UEC accounted for by the "sleep" and 

### ''OF modes, increasing the relevance of test procedure to copier energy consumption.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copiers can have a substantialpeak load impact, as higher-end devices can draw up to a few kilowatts while copying. in addition, most commercial copiers spend most ofthe peak demand period in "standby" mode. As a result, the "sleep" mode power draw measured by the test procedure shows little correlation with copier peak load impact. The Copier ofthe 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 ofthe 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, revealing little correlation between actual operation and the "sleep" mode considered in the current test procedure. The CotF criteria would drasticallyreduce the "standby" energy consumption duration and limit any peak load impact. Conversion to inkjet technology will certainly reduce the peak loads in both the Off (covered by test procedure) and activemodes.

# Standards Consideration Product: Desktop Computers 

# I 

# I Commercial 

# I Residential 

# 1



# I

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

# I

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

# 1

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

### Issues Energy savings depend in largepart upon increasingEnergy Star enabled rate, a software option 

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

Product 1

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation):

Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements

E*, althoughprevalent in new computer sales, is often disabled by user; increasingE* enabled rate may require software modification,e.g., permanent enabling of power-down features 1 Watt sleep may not be technicallyfeasible. Discussions with manufactures will verifjr the possibility. Low-power microprocessorsmay encounter resistance in non-portable machines due to the necessity of manufacturerre-design and demand for faster and bigger machines.
j9 Savings based on a baseline consumptionthat corresponds to typical new Pentium 111technology (25% Energy Star enabled). 100%Energy Star, 50% Enabled = 100% Energy Star enabled,Pentium 111 = 1.94j9 1 Watt Sleep (CurrentEnergy Star rate) with a Pentium I11 = 0. 1639 Laptop Computer = 3.8339 Low-Power Design (features use of Transmeta processor) = 3.5539



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100% Energy Star enabled, Pentium I11 =0.0839 1Watt Sleep (Current Energy Star rate) with a Pentium 111 = 0.1 1 39 Laptop Computer = 0.35j9 Desktop PCs with a 1watt sleep levels are not yet available; the SCENIC

## - 1000MHz. Pentium I11 draws the least power of any Energy Star-compliant desktop PC, drawing 2.3 Watts in sleep. The feasibility of a 1 Watt sleep mode is not clear and requires fiuther examination. Many ofthe low-power strategiesused in commercially-available laptop computerstechnoIogy (lowpower microprocessors, spinning the hard drive down, sleep modes, etc.) often command a price premium. A low-power or power aware computer is not commercially availablebut it is technicallyfeasible to design and build. This model takes advantageof the low power elements (such as the low-power Transmeta processor architecture)and components found in a laptop but avoids the high costs oftight packaging and exotic (Liquid-crystal) displays. Other advantages to this technology are more efficient means 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. (information from ADL and The Chip Merchant, 9/26/01)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This industry has never been regulated.



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star test procedure document; Low-power is approximately 10% ofthe rated power supplywattage



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90% ofDesktop Computers sold in Y2000 were Energy Star Compliant (Webber) 25% ofDesktops in stock are E* enabled (ADL) 85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 17% ofthe Personal Computer stock are computers of laptop design Current best market performer: SCENICL.i815, 2.3W in sleep 25% of Desktop Computersin stock are E* enabled 85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al.) -17% ofthe personal computer stock in Y2000 is ofLaptop design ederal governmentmandates purchase ofE*- compliant computers Currentbest market performer: SCENICL.iS1.5,

# Standards Consideration Product: Desktop Computers 

### Background Material

Current UEC (kmyear) Kawarnoto et al. (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, Typical New UEC (kWyear)
Energy Star UEC (kmyear) Power aware design with Energy Star PC with 1 Watt sleep

## Test 

# Procedure Summary Product: Desktop Computers



### Test Procedure Overview

FuturenZotential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s)and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumptionand potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlationwith Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology

- - 

### Commercial Residential For Tier

### II Models (manufacturedafterJuly 1,2000) 

## - only considering guidelineA

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

# - 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 15W in the activemode is not required to have a sleep mode. Detailed Energy Star Test Conditions (from the ComputerMOU Version 3.0, EPA 

## - Attachment 

### C) Power sourcemust be 115 VAC RMS (+I- 5 V RMS) Measure the Truepower consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter with resolution to 0.1 Watts. Test conditions: line impedance C0.25 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 ofthe products sold are able to meet the criteria.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotentialtest proceduresidentified.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Energy Star test procedure does not correlate closelywith actual energy consumptionand 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 consumptionwould 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 ofthe 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-enabledrate 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 monitorsnot "active" are in the "off" mode instead of "sleep". Thus during the peak-load sensitivetimes of the day, PC's and monitors draw minimal power, in modes not measured under the test procedure.

# Standards Consideration Product: Fax Machines



### ProductI Technology Availability (Including PriceICostinformation): Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative IOuads) 2008-2030 

# 1 Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures


## ...................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Commercial Enhanced Laser Technology (SURF) = 0. lZ4O Inkjet 1 Watt Sleep (CurrentEnergy Star rate) = 0.244"



### ...................................................... Issues Residentiat Inkjet 1Watt Sleep = 0.0740 Enhanced Laser Technology (SURF) = 0.04~' Inkjet facsimile machines account for 

### a plurality (but not a majority)ofnew product sales. 

### An existing laserjetdevice consumes 2 Watts in the standbymode.

40 Savings based on a baseline consumptionthat corresponds to typical new inbet technology. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................. This industry has never been regulated.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................. Energy Star test procedure document; Low-power draw must be less than 10-15 Watts. (based on print rate)



## ............................................................................................................................................................................. 95% Energy Star Market Penetration Target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 38% ofFaxes sold in Y2000 are of Inkjet technology (30% are laser; ADL, 2001) Federal governmentmandates purchase ofE*-compliant fax machines I Watt Stby Mandate is nearlypossible. Best currentlymarketed device is the FAX5000L at 2W sleep. This is a LaserJet, ComparableInkjet levels are possible. The Savin F3615, 

### an inkjet device, also consumes 2W in sleep mode (www.energystar.gov)



### Background Material 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................ Design changes must occur to achieve 1 W sleep levels. A significant amount of faxes are laser technology Energy savingsare largest with implementation of 1 Watt sleep mode with an inkjet facsimile machine; 1 Watt sleep devices currently do not exist.



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

Best Available UEC (kWyear) Energy Star UEC (kWyear) Minimum UEC (kWyear) Future Technology Other Notable UEC (kWyear) 

### 57 9 33 NJA 5.4 19'4 

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



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inkjet, with 1 Watt Sleep, (ADL, 2001)



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (canon, 2001) Enhanced Laser (SURF) Technology A11 new equipment satisfyEnergy Star criteria, et CLBNL,2000) Inkjet, with 1Watt Sleep Enhanced Laser (SURF) Technology (Canon, 2001)

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Fax Machines



### Test Procedure Overview

Future/PotentialTest Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s)and metric(s) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlationwith Test Procedure and Metric, by 

### Technology Commercial Residential From the Printer, Fax,Printer/Fax, and mailing machineMOU, version 3.0

Power measurement of devices in the sleep mode. Test conditions: Power source must be 1

### 15 VAC RMS (4- 

### 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 (+I- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperalureof

### 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 constantpower.


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futureipotentialtest procedures identified.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Testingprocedures and metrics accurately capture the essence of energy consumptionand savings tactics for this device, because standby energy consumption represents the vast majority ofthe UEC.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Because facsimile machines operate in active mode infrequently, the standbypower draw measured by the test procedure correlates closely to the peak impact (and reduction potential) of facsimile machines.

# Standards Consideration Product: Laser Printers


### Potential Energy Savings from RegulatorvAction; 

# I -. 

### ~ukulatiie (~uads) 2008-2030


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

# :

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

# 1

..................................................................................... Product I Technology For Commercial only, Copierofthe Future (CofF) criteria exist and could be applied to laser printers. 

### Commercial Copier of the Future Criterea = 0.242.43 Conversion to Inkiet Technology = 0.542 

### Availability (~ncludiog PricelCostinformation): Residential Inkjet Printer = 0.042



### Cumulative Burden


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

# I Meetingpower 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 hlfill the Copier of the Future criteria do



## .................................................... Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements not exist. Laser printer manufacturers continue to investigate high-throughputinkjet technologyheavily. 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 industry has never been regulated.



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

Energy Star test procedure document; Sleepmode power and time to power-down depend on the print rate (pages per minute). Power range of 10to 75 Watts. Time to power-down range of 5 to 60 minutes. Standards comparableto that of the Copier of the Future technology. 10Watt maximum and fast warm up time are a few ofthe requirements of this standard.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................... 99% ofthe Laser Printer stock in Y2000 are Energy Star Compliant (CCAP-office2.xls) 54% of Lasers in stock are E* enabled 99% of Printer stock is energy star compliant (Webber 1999) Federal government mandates purchase ofE*-compliant laser printers. 1 watt sleep implementation is unlikely. Best marketed product currently draws 3.5 Watts in lowpower mode. Xerox Laseriet Docucolor 2060 160DD~). ..~-~

~ 

### Issues Energy savings depend in large part upon increasing Energy Star enabledrate. E* enabled rate is not 99%, even for Y2000 stock. Change to idqet technologymight not be consumer acceptable due to beliefs of laser technolow sunerioritv. Energy Savings are largest with a transition to inkjet printers. Because of the small size (low rate) these devices,inkjet technology is a sensiblealternative. However, improvement of inkjetperformance equalityis necessary. 42 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100% Energy Star enabled. 43 Copier of the Future technology scenariois defined as requirementofprinters to meet the Target 1 copier requirements. It specifiesa maximum of 10Watts in sleep mode. 

### Backround Material
Total Energy Use (quads, 2000) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWyear) Typical New UEC (kWyear) Best Available UEC (kWyear) Energy Star UEC (kWyear) Minimum UEC (kWyear) Future Technology OtherNotable UEC (kWyear) 

### Commercial (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 Inkjet Technology, (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Copier of the Future Requirements, Current Energy Star, Nordman (LBNL, 1998), (ADL, 200 1) 

### Residential Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) (ADL, 200 1) (ADL, 200 1) (ADL, 2001) (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 a1 (LBNL, 2001) 100% Energy Star enabled, (ADL, 2001), ~awamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) Conversion to inkjet printer, (ADL, 2001), Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) 

### Corn

# I Resid

0.05 0.003 4.4 6.8 4 670 483 483 483 163 372 4 33 30 28 

### 30 28

## Test 

## Procedure 

## Summary Product: Laser Printers



### Test Procedure Overview

FuturelPotentialTest Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric($) representactual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Commercial Residential From the Printer, Fax, Printer/Fax,and mailing machine

### MOU, version 

### 3.0

Power measurement of devices in the sleep mode. Test conditions: Power sourcemust be 115 VAC 

### RMS (ti- 5 V RMS) Measure the true power consumption using a traceably calibratedNBS true RMS Watt-meter. 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. Test procedure: Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the sleep mode. Record the energyconsumed 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 constantpower.


### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futureipotentialtest procedures identified.



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Test procedures do not correlate well with energy consumptionand 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 Starenabled rate would increase the relevance ofthe 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 oftime in "sleep" mode (Le., 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 

### Startest procedures correlate weakly with actual energy consumptionenergy 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 importantissue for these devices because residential laser printers are estimated to spend >95% of their time in the 

### Offmode.

# Standards Consideration Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial

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



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

### I Technolow Availability (Including ~ricel~oyt informatioh): Energy Star/ Power Management =0.19",45 Low-power Server (15 W on, 7 W sleep), No PM = 0.88" 46 Low-power Serverwith 1 W sleep and PM scheme = 0.92"


## ....................................................................................................................................................... RLX Technologiesmanufactures low-power and power-management capable servers, using Transmeta processors;unknown cost premium. Amohus offers a similarlow-~ower servertechnolom. 

## I Cumulative Burden 

## IHas never been regulated. 

## I Status of Test Procedures



## ............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements No documentation for Energy Star Standards Gubler & Peters have data upon which PM time schemescan be based



## ........................................................................................................................................................ 0% of servers sold are of the RLX (low power) design. Just coming to market. Implementation ofpower management schemes is possible (Gubler & Peters; RLX) RLX Technologiesis an examule of enerm efficient low-end server comouterdesim


# " Savings based on a baseline consumption that correspondsto typical new technology, 0% Energy Star enabled. Issues

45 Based on the low power level similarityof Desktop computers and server usage from Gubler & Peters (2000). Energy savings depend in largepartupon a movement to energyefficient processor designs E*is non-existent for server computers PM schemes may interrupt and interferewith Ecommerce, WWW use, and web performance that users are accustomedto.

46 IUX Technologies uses a transmettachip and a PM scheme. Bacbround Material
Total Energy Use (quads, 2000) (ADL, 2001) Annual Shioments(millions, 2000) (ADL, 200 1 ) Stock (millions, 2000) 4.1 (ADL, 2001)


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

### 3 Same as a PC, (ADL, 2001)



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Current UEC (kWyear) 1095 Typical Server, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Typical New UEC (kWyear) 1095 Typical Server, (ADL, 2001)



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Best Available UEC (kWyear) 107 Low-power server (WPM),e.g., 

### RLX (Hipp, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star UEC (kWyear) NIA No EnergyStarprogram 

### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Minimum UEC (kWyear) Future Technology 87 Low-power server, 1Watt sleep and Power management, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Other Notable UEC (kWyear) 131 Low-power server without Power Management, (ADL, 2001)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Additional Notable UEC (kWvear1 869 Current desim with Power Management

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial 

## I Test Procedure Overview



## ............................................................................ Futuremotential Test Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

## Imetric(s) represent actual annual energy



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

# I consumptiohand potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

# 1 Technology No test procedure exists.


## ....................................................................................................................................................... None 

### are available. Not applicable. Not applicable.

## Standards Consideration Product: Monitors

47 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new 17" CRT technology,60% Energy Star enabled.



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

### Technology Availability (Including PriceICost information):

Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary EBciency Improvements

Issues

48 Savings based on a baseline consumptionthat correspondsto typical new technology, 60% Energy Star enabled. Energy Star category is defined as having a low power level of 

### 8 Watts. 

### Commercial 100% Energy Star enabled, 17" CRT = 2.647 I Watt sleep, Current Energy Star rate, 17" CRT = 17"LCD, Current Energy Star rate = 3.647



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Residential 100%Energy Star enabled = 0.148 1 Watt sleep, CurrentEnergy Star rate = 0.3248 LCD, Current Energy Star rate = 0.8448 LCD 

## - commercially available, costs are dropping.An LCD monitor has a cost premium of 85%. In recent history cost premiums ofup to 300% were commonplace. The payback period for commercial use for a 15-inch LCD is 1 1 years as compared to a 17-inch CRT monitor. The payback period for residentialuse for a 15" LCD is 33 years. (In practice, a 15-inch LCD effectively replaces a 17-inch CRT due to the LCD's more efficientuse of screen space for viewing and higher display resolution.) Organic LED technology is under development but not commercially available in monitors. The I Watt sleep is technically feasible.



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This industry has never been regulated. However, for governmental purchases Energy Star qualified equipment must be purchased.


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star test procedure document: Primary sleep mode of 15Watts Deep sleep mode of 8 Watts



### ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95% Energy Star Market Penetration target for Y2000 (Webber et al.) 60% of monitors in stock are E* enabled (ADL, 2001) 3% of monitors sold in Y2000 were LCD (ADL, 2001) Federal Government Mandatinguse of 1 Wlsleep power draw (8131101). Currentlybest available monitor: NEC MultiSync 70 (17" CRT), Sleep power = 0.82 W



### .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy savings depend in large part upon increasingEnergy Star enabled rate, a sohare option E*, although prevalent in new monitor sales, is often disabledby user; increasing E* enabled rate may require software modification,e.g., permanent enabling ofpower-down features LCD technology is expensive (ADL, 2001) 59% ofmonitors 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 govemment mandates purchase of E*- compliant monitors Federal Government Mandating use of 1Wtsleep power draw (8131101). Currentlybest available monitor: NEC MultiSync 70 (17" CRT), Sleep power =0.82 W High LCD cost premium impedes LCD market penetration,withhigher barriers expected in the residential market than the commercial market. Smct enforcementof energy star configuration will save energy Electronics efficiency optimization(for 1-Watt sleep) can save much energy at little additional cost to consumer and no interruption of verformance

# Standards Consideration Product: Monitors 

### BackgroundMaterial

Total Energy Use (quads, 2000)


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

## ___.f...__ Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWyear) Typical New UEC (kWyear) Best Available UEC @%%/year) Energy Star UEC (kWyear) Minimum UEC (kWyear)Future Technology OtherNotable UEC (kWyear) Additional Notable UEC (kwyear) 

### Comm 0.22 

### Resid 0.05 

### Commercial (ADL,2001)


## .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 3to4 333 333 71 142.9 

### 4.5 16.5 300.6 

### Residential Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) (ADL, 200 1)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (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)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... loo% Energy CRT, (ADL, 2001)



### ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CholestericTechnology (Kent State, 2001) 100% Energy Star



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... OLE' at loo% Star Rate (ADL, 2001)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17" CRT with 1 Watt sleep, Current Energy Star Rate (ADL, 2001) 38 51 3to4



### 92 92 19 

### 83

64 (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 2001) (ADL, 200 

### 1) 17" CRT, Kawamoto et a1 (LBNL, 2001) 17"CRT, Kawamoto et al GBNL, 2001) Liquid Crystal Display, 60% Enabled rate, Kawamoto et al (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001) 17" CRT, Energy Star Enabled, Kawmoto et al (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001) CholestericLCD Technology, 17" panel, Current Energy Star, (Kent State, 200I), (ADL, 200 1) 17" CRT with 1Watt sleep and Current Energy Star, Kawmoto et al (LBNL, 2001), (ADL, 2001)

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Monitors



### Test Procedure Overview

Future/PotentialTest Procedure(s) How effectively do test procedure(s) and metric(s) representactual annual energy consumption and potential savings?

ProductPeak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Technology Commercial Residential For TierI1models 

## - (test standard for equipment shipped after July 1,2000)

Monitor into 1st sleep mode within 30 

### min of inactivity, deep sleep after 60 min 

# - controlledby computer Testing procedure is the same for that of the computer except power is measured at the two mentioned stages instead of only one sleep level. System must adhere to Energy Star sleep mode levels which are measured in the followingmanner: The system must go into sleepmode after a period of inactivity. Detailed Energy Star Test Conditions (from the ComputerMOU Version 3.0, EPA 

## - Attachment C) Power sourcemust be 115 VAC RMS (+- 5 V RMS) Measure the True power consumption using a traceably calibrated NBS true RMS Watt-meter with resolutionto 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 ofthe products sold are able to meet the criteria.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futureipotentialtest procedures identified.



### ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Energy Star test procedure does not capture much of the energy savingsbecause of the actual (fieldmeasured)Energy Star-enabled rate. Depending on the Energy Star-enabled rate, the influenceof the active and standbyenergy 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 sleeppower draw. As the Energy Star-enabled rate approaches loo%, the sleep mode energy consumptionbecomes 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 computersand monitors operate more frequently at night than during the day. In addition, the majorityPCs 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.

# Standards Consideration Product: Pool Pumps
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


## .......................................................................... ProductI Technology Availability (Includine PriceICost information): Best available (best pump and best motor) = 0.09 

# I Optimum technology (best pump and best motor technology) = 0.2 1


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

GE ECM motors are available. 

# I High efficiency induction motor availability? 

# I 

# ( Cu~nulative Burden



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



### .............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Manufacturersofmotors of greater horsepowerhave been regulated. The same manufacturers make lower horsepower motors for use in pool pumps.


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

# - No pool pump specific test procedure is available.

Motor Test Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines

# - Methods for DeterminingLosses and Efficiency of Rotating Electrical Machinery from Tests. This is a general procedure 

## - not solelv aimed at DumD motors. SCE 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 it's energy efficiency. (Pentair, Speck, and Sta-rite are some examules) 

## [ ~ssues 

# I 

# I
Background Material Total Energy Use (quads, 2000) Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) Stock (millions, 2000) Product Lifetime (years) Current UEC (kWyear) Typical New UEC (kWyear) Best Available UEC (kWyear) Energy Star UEC (kWyear) Minimum UEC (kWhJyear)Future Technology Other Notable UEC (kWyear) Additional Notable UEC (kWyear) 0.04 NIA 5.5 10 725 725 635 N/A 517 NIA NIA (ADL, 1998)


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

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 1998)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 1998)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 1998)


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)



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



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (ADL, 2001)



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



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

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Pool Pumps No product specific test procedures.



### FuturePotentialTestProcedure(s) NPSI may be trying to implement a test procedure for pool pump manufacturers, says David Nibbler ofWaterpik Technologies/Jandy Pool Products. Detailed information was not 

### known. 

# IHow effectivelydo test procedure(s) and Not applicable. 

### metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

# 1

.. - -.



## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation These devices operate several hours per day. This period may or may not coincide with peak 

### with Test Procedure and Metric, by load sensitivetimes. Pool pumps can operate at any time as long as the NSF requirement 

### of Technnln~v one water change even, 

### 8 hours is met.

## Standards Consideration Product: Well Pumps

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


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

### I Technology Availability nncludine PricelCost informationk Best available (best pump and best motor) = 0.17 

# - Optimum technology (best pump and best motor technology) = 0.24


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

GE ECM motors are available. High efficiency induction motor availabilitv? Cumulative Burden
Status of Test Procedures



### ............................................................................. Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Manufacturersof motors which are of greater rated power than typical well pump applicationshave been regulated. It is unknown if pump industry has ever been regulated for other applications and also unknown if companies who manufacture pumps have been subject to regulations for other equipment they manufacture.


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

No specificwater well pump test procedure. Motor Test Procedure: Rotating Electrical Machines

# - Methods for Determining Losses and Efficiency of Rotating Elccrrical Machinery fTom Tests.

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

High efficiency pumps are commercially available; however, they do not appear to be m&keted as such. $is is inferred fromkiewing product literature

## - they may not operate at high enough speeds, which was not taken into account. ECM motors are availablebut are not marketed as motors for well DumDs. Lifetime and durability are important factors for this equipment. Submersiblepump motors have unique geometry 

## - narrow design and must be capable of fitting into a well hole. Technical challenges exist in applying energy saving technology to this a~~lication. Background Material 

## I Total Enerw Use (auads. 20001 

# r 0.03 

# I (ADL. 19981and (ADL. 2001)

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



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

# 1 N'A 14.3 

# f (ADL. 1998)and (RECS. 1997) 

# I

...... Product Lifetime (years) GWP (2001, personal communication) Current UEC CkWvear1 173 (ADL. 2001) and (ADL. 1998)

............... Typical New UEC (kWyear) (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998) Best Available UEC (kWvearl (ADL. 2001) and (ADL. 1998) 

# I

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

## ........................................................................................................................ ~ne&~Star UEC

__._ (kWyear)


## ........................ Minimum UEC (kWyear) Future Technology

# 1 N'A 60.2 

# 1 (ADL, 2001) and (ADL, 1998)



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

# I Other Notable UEC (kWyear) N/A


## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Additional Notable UZC (kWyear) N/A

# Test Procedure Summary Product: Well Pumps No product specifictest procedures.

FutureIPotential Test Procedure(s) Nothing under development. A submersible pump test (not specifically for well water pumps) will be available at the end of 2001. saysthe Hydraulic Institute. 

# I Technology 

# 1 How effectively do test procedure(s)and metric@) represent actual annual energy consumption and potential savings? Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation with Test Procedure and Metric, by Not applicable.



## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This product most likely has a limited affect on peak load. Equipment is most heavily used in the morning and operates for a minimal amount oftime each day (1 

### 9 minutes/household-day).

## Standards Consideration Product: Broilers
Potential Energy Savingsfrom Regulatory 0.044'O Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030


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

### I Technology Availability nneludine PriceICost information): 

# 1

I Issues 

# I

Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements


## ..............................................................................
50 All calculationsbased upon differencebetween "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices,which typicallyhave significantly higher efficienciesthan 

### gas devices. Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen regulation in the past.


## ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



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

,. 

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

Backmound Material 

# I Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 

### 6'500 

### gas 

# I (FE&S, 1997) 

# 1 2.250 elec InstalledBase (million, 1995) NAFEM (ADL, 1995) Product Lifetime Ivears) Estimated 

# I Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA


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

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

# 1

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

# 1 

# 1 

# I Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best Available Efficiency 20

# - 40% gas 40 

# - 60% elec

30% gas 60% elec

Comments "Characterization of Commercial BuildingAppliances" (ADL, 1993)



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Year 2000 estimatesbased on "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)



## ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Installed Base 

### is 9 1%gas I 9% electric.NAFEM & Food Management (c. 1990)

## Standards Consideration Product: Fryers


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


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

### I Technology Availability (Including PricerCostinformation):



### ........................................................................... Cumulative Burden Status of Test Procedures


## ............................................................................ Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efilciency Improvements


## ............................................................................ Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen regulation in the past.


## .................................................................................................................................................... All eaui~ment weshave ASTM Test Standards.

51 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" 

### gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of electric devices, which typicallyhave significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

### Background Material 

# I Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial BuildingAppliances" (ADL, 1993) "Opportunities and Competition in the Food Service Equipment Industry" Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) (ADL. 1995) 

# I Stock Efficiency Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) InstalledBase (million, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Minimum Efficiencv Standard 40

# - 50% 

### gas 

# 1 "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# 1 55 

## - 65% elec 

## . , 

### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117,000 Appliance (May 2000) About 70% gas/30% elec. FE&S (1997)


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NAFEM & Food Management (c. 1990)



### ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7-10 Estimated


## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NIA 0.17 

# / I Typical New Efficiency 

# I Year 2000 estimatesbased on "Characterization of Commercial Building 

# I 

# 50q;E:rAppliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# 1 Best Available Efficiency 80% gas 

# I 98% elec 

# I Large increase in fryer-liquid heat exchange surface area (Patti, 2001) 

# I Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technolom) 

# I

.- -- , 

## .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 58% gas 142% electric.NAFEM & Food Management Comments (c. 1990)

# Standards Consideration Product: Griddles


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action: Cumulative(Ouads) 2008-2030 

# 1 0.14s2


## I Status of Test Procedures 

# I All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards. 

# I ProductI Technology Availability (IncludingPricelCost information): Cumulative Burden Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiencv Im~rovements 

# I ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen remlation in the vast. 

## [ ~ssues 

# I 

# I
52 All calculationsbased upon differencebetween "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 0.039 

# 1 "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# ] 

# I..

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) Annual Shi~ments (millions. 1997) 34.455 FE&S (1997) 

# I Installed Base (million, 1995) NAFEM (ADL, 1995) Product Lifetime (years) Estimated 

# I Minimum Efficiency Standard Stock Efficiency Typical New Efficiency Best AvailableEfficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Comments N/A 35 

## - 45% gas 50 

# - 65% elec

55% gas 65% elec

NIA 

## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)



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

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Year 2000 estimatesbased on "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)



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



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

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 50% gas / 50% electric.NAFEM & Food Management (c. 1990)

## Standards Consideration Product: Ovens


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

### Product 1 

### Technology Availability (Includine PriceICost information):

53 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. 

### Cumulative Burden Statusof Test Procedures Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements rssues

Background Material Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has seen regulation in the past.


## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... All equipmenttypes have ASTM Test Standards.



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

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

# t Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)

Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial BuildingAppliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# I 1 Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 89'000 

### gas 

# 1 Appliance May, 2000 

# 1 67.000 elec InstalledBase (million, 1995) NAFEM (ADL, 1995) Product Lifetime hears) Estimated 

# I 

# t Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA 35 

# - 45% gas StockEfficiency 65% elec "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) Typical New Efficiency 

# / "* gas 

# I (patti, 2000) 65% elec


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Best Available Efficiency Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Comments NIA



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



## ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 55% gas / 45% electric. NAFEM & Food Management 

### (c. 1990)

## Standards Consideration Product: Ranges



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

### Product I Technology Availability nncludine PriceICost information): 

# I Cumulative Burden 

# I Most commercial cooking equipmentmanufacturers do not make other equipment that has 

## I 

# t seen regulation in the past.



### Status of Test Procedures All equipmenttypes have ASTM Test Standards. 

# I Evidence of Market-Drivenor Voluntary Efficiency Improvements


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

# 1 

# 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 efficienciesthan gas devices. 

### Background Material 

# I Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) Unit Enerev Consumtion IMMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial BuildingAvvliances" (ADL. 19931 

# I ~nnual shipments (millions, 1997) 

### 8 1,300 FE&S (1997) Installed Base (million. 1995) NAFEM (ADL. 1995) 

# I I Product Lifetime (years) 15 -20 Estimated Minimum Efficiencv Standard 

# I

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

# 1 

# 1 65 

# - 75% elec 

# I 40

# - 50% gas Stock Efficiency 

# I "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# t Typical New Efficiency Year 2000 estimatesbased on "Characterization of CommercialBuilding

Best Available Efficiency



## ......................................................................................... "

## ........................... "

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

# 1 &A 

# 1. 

# 1 Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) InstalledBase is 9 1% gas I 9% electric. NAFEM & Food Management Comments ic. 1990)

# Standards Consideration Product: Steamers


### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 0.1 1' 

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


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

### I Technolow Availability 

# I (Including ~rice/~o% information):



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

# I Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has



## ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... seen regulation in the past. 

### Status of Test Procedures All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



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

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


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

## ................... '

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

# 1 1 Issues 

# '' All calculations based upon differencebetween "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. 

### Backround Material

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



### ............ Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993)

, Annual Shinments (millions. 1997) FE&S (1997) 

# I Installed Base (million, 1995) NAFEM (ADL, 1995) Product Lifetime (vears) Estimated

..... Minimum Efficiency Standard NIA 

# 1 

# [Ill:

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

# I 40

# - 60% gas StockEfficiency "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 60 

## - 70% elec


## ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Tv~ical New Efficiencv 

# 1 

# I 1 Best Available Efficiency 70% gas Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building 

# I 90% elec 

# I Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

# I Energy Star Efficiency Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) Comments NIA


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

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 33% gas 167% electric.NAFEM & Food Management (c. 1990)

## Test 

## Procedure Summary Product: All Commercial Cooking



## ............................................................................ Test Procedure Overview FuturelPotentialTest Procedure(s1 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 All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards.



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

...................................................................................................................................................... Unknown; 

### only electric appliances contribute to peak loads, and they account for only -19% of all site energy consumption(ADL, 1993).