2002 Priority Setting 

for 

New Products 

October 26,2001 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR NEW PRODUCTS 

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

existing energy legislation. For these new products, the Department of Energy, Office of 

Building Research and Standards is considering some type of action to reduce their energy 

consumption (e.g., minimum energy efficiency or maximum energy consumption standards, 

voluntary Energy Star programs, or federal procurement programs). The Office requests 

comments on the data sheets and whether energy reduction programs should be developed for 

the products listed. Any new actions taken by the Office are based on the presumption that the 

Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be funded at its requested level for the fiscal 

year 2002. 

Written comments should be submitted by November 20,2001, to the U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Bryan Berringer, 

EE-41, or by e-mail at Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. If you have any questions, please contact 

Bryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

Supermarket Refrigeration 

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 

Commercial Clothes 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 

Standards Consideration 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Sum 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Standards Consideration 

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 

Office Equipment 

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 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

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 

Standards Consideration 

Standards Consideration 

Standards Consideration 

Standards Consideration 

Standards Consideration 

Test Procedure Summary 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Beverage Merchandisers 

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

Action; ~umu6tive (Quads) 2008-2030 ............................................................................ 

Product I Technology Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements ............................................................................ 

Issues 

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

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) 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 

ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divide energy use by installed base. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

According to more recent communications with Copeland and Deifield 

representatives, these estimates are probably low. ........................................................................................................................ 

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

NIA 

NI A 

0.42 

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

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ASHRAE! 117 Test consumption for 27 cu.ft cabinet. 

Proposed CA Tier 1 Regulation. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Beverage Merchandisers 

Test Procedure Overview 

Futuremotential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

California treats Glass-Door Beverage Merchandisers as Glass-Door Reach-Ins, for which 

ASHRAE Standard 117 is the established test procedure (see discussion on Reach-Ins for 

Test procedure details). 

CociCola has proprietary test procedures which include evaluation of energy use. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

A test procedure could be developed which is more suited than ASHRAE 1 17 to the operation 

of beverage merchandisers. In particular, the energy effect of loading of warm beverages is 

not addressed by the current procedure. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

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

beverage merchandisers in most applications. 

The test procedure does not have a component which evaluates the energy required to pull 

down the temperature of warm beverages loaded into the machine. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

The ASHRAE 117 test procedure's lack of a component addressing the loading of warm 

beverages into the machine, and its moderate ambient temperature would tend to make peak 

load predictions of the procedure low for beverage merchandisers. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

Product I 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 

Reduced Eva~ 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 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies 

which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

ASHRAE 29 

ARI 8 10-2000: Based on ASHRAE 29 

CSA C742-98: Based on ASHRAE 29 

t Other Regulatory Actions Canadian Regulations and availability of ARI Data. 

I Efficiencv Im~rovements I 

Issues / Significant product variety. 

Based on "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-1 7, Row 12. Includes 

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

(7.82$/kWh). 

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

Based on ARI average consumption for air-cooled ice makers with 401 to 500 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 NI A .......................................................................................................... 

Stock Efficiency 1 7kWhilOOlb .......................................................................................................... 

Twical New Efficiencv / 7 kWh/100 1b 

Best Available Efficiency 5.8 kW100 lb .......................................................................................................... 

Enerev Star Efficiencv f NIA 

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

Divide enerev use bv installed base. 

Census data for 1998. ........................................................................................................................ 

ADL/DOE Refrieeration ,d Studv. . , 1996 I ........................................................................................................................ 

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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Ice Machines 

Test Procedure Overview 

............................................................................ 1 FuturelPotential Test Procedure(s) 

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

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

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

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°F Ambient Temperature 

70°F Supply Water Temperature andlor Cooling Water 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 temperatures would 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 temperatures because 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 of peak load. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

System Optimization 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 

1.5 years New Low 

0 to 3 years NewIAdvanced High 

2 to 14 yrs 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 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies 

which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

ASHRAE 1 17: Door-opening test with load and ambient humidity. 

NSF 7: Closed-door test without load for performance test. 

CSA C827-98: Based on ASHRAE 117. 

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 

I Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Energy Star Program to be announced in early September 2001 

Emciencv Imorovements 1 

Issues Significant product variety. 

ASHRAE 117 test issues: Repeatability issues with door-opening tests. Expense of test 

means that not all products are tested, and limited spot checks are made by the I manufacturer. I 

"Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-1 8, row 13. Includes Hot Gas 

Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan 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 modification of a typical two-door solid-door refrigerator 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 installed base. 

Annual Shioments (millions. 19951 ADL/DOE Refrigeration Studv, 1996 

Installed Base (millions, 1995) ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

Product Lifetime (vears) ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 I 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency Average for 20 cufi freezer based on CEC data (ASHRAE 1 17 Energy 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I I -5 kwday 1' Delfield freezers for 20 cuft volume. I Soon to be commercially available. Rough estimate of energy use of new Best Available Efliciency 

Energy Star Efficiency 9.36 kWday u u.i 2: src, 3121 JL.\ for 20 cu.fi. freezer ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) N/A 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Reach-In Refrigerators 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

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

Product / Technology Availability 

(Including PriceICost 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 savings unless heat exchangers are space-constrained 

Var-Speed Compressor 1.4 years New Medium 

Dual Compressor 1.5 years New Low 

Brushless DC Fan Mtr 0 to 3 years NewIAdvanced High 

PSC Fan Motors 2 to 14 yrs 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 Thicker Walls 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 

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

ASHRAF! 1 17: Door-opening test 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. 

Significant product variety. 

ASHRAE 117 test issues: Repeatability issues with door-opening tests. Expense of test 

means that not all products are tested, and limited spot checks are made by the I manufacturer. 

"Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-19, row 10. Includes Hot Gas 

Antisweat, High Efficiency Compressor, Brushless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, 44% Energy Reduction 

lo "Application of Best Industry Practice to the Design of Commercial Refrigerators", ADL, Review Meeting with DOE, 3/21/01, p. 16, fifth 

row. Includes Improved Face Frame Design, Improved Gasket, Reduced Antisweat Heater Wattage, Condensate Line Trap, Brushless DC 

Evaporator Fan Motor, PSC Condenser Fan Motor, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, Refrigeration System Optimization, 67% Reduction. 

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

Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors, Variable-Speed Refrigeration System, Hot Gas Antisweat Heating, 80% Reduction. 

" Based on the assumption that a baseline 43.5cuft solid-door Reach-In will have 9kWday energy consumption (Delfield 605 IS). 

'' "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 modification of a typical two-door solid-door refrigerator with top-mount condensing unit. Assumes current unit 

energy use of 12 kWday, $0.076/kWh. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 installed base. .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 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Stock Efficiency 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 consistent with CEC data. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Soon to be commercially available. Energy measured for Delfield prototype Best Available Efficiency *' kWday jointly developed with 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 of DOE-funded project. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Reach-In Freezers and Refrigerators 

Test Procedure Overview 

I Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

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

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? ............................................................................ 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Precedent has been set for use of ASHRAE Standard 1 17 for determination of Reach-In 

Energy Use. This standard has been adopted by Canada, California, and EPA Energy Star. 

Ambient Conditions 75+/-2F I)ry Bulb Temperature, 64 +I-2F Wet Bulb Temperature (55% 

Relative Humidity) 

Intemal Load consisting of containers of salt-water solution and wood filler 

Automatic door-opening for the first 8 hours of the test. Doors remain closed for remaining 

16 hours. 

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 of Reach-Ins 

CEC requires energy testing only for representative cabinets and allows projections of 

energy use for similar cabinets. 

The test's complexity make verification of compliance very difficult. ADL is aware of two 

examples in which reported energy test results are definitely low or likely to be low. 

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

test procedures involving door-openings and/or internal loads. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

Test procedures involving no internal load and no automatic door openings would be 

significantly easier to cany out and would have greater repeatability. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

The ambient temperature condition is somewhat low compared to temperatures often seen 

in commercial kitchens employing the equipment. 

The automatic door-openings provide a reasonable representation of typical reach-in use. .................................................................................................................................................... 

Correlation of peak load impact with ASHRAE 117 test procedure would be fair, since the 

test procedure ambient temperature is relatively low. 

Technology I - 1 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

(Including PricelCost 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 14 years Current High 

Evaporative Condensers <1 year Current High 

Floating Head Pressure 2.5 years Current Low 

Heat Reclaim 2.5 years Current Low 

Mechanical Subcooling 4.9 years Current High ...................................................................................................................................................... The 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 of potential emissions associated with 

leakage and service in supermarket refrigeration systems. Since most systems are now 

using non-ozone- depleting refrigerants, the environmental concern focuses on global 

warming. If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, this would be a significant issue for the 

supermarket refrigeration industry. 

Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies 

that own divisions that have been subject to energy standards of other products. ...................... ____. .............................................................................................................................. Separate Test Procedures for display cases and compressors andlor condensing units. 

Display Cases: CRS-S1-96 (ARI CRMD), ASHRAE 72, CSA C657-95 

Compressors and Condensing Units: Many different test standards depending on 

compressor and heat rejection type. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

None known. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Market penetration of energy-saving technologies (DOE Study) 

Floating Head Pressure 62% 

Mechanical Subcooling 65% 

Liquid-Suction Heat Exchanger 25% (MT), 50% (LT) 

Antisweat Heater controls 69% ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Many system types 

Systems are engineered and built on-site (not factory-completed) I Interaction between 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-Suction Heat Exchangers for Low Temperature applications, Evaporative Condenser, Floating Head 

Pressure, Heat Reclaim, and Mechanical Subcooling. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (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 .................................................................................................... 

Stock Efficiency ................................................................................................... 

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 installed base. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 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 definitions have been established for Supermarket 

Refrigeration systems, since they are complex systems Composed of 

components. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summarv 

Product: Supermarket Refrigeration Systems 

Test Procedure Overview 

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

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

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

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

No applicable test procedures for complete supermarket refrigeration systems. 

Test procedures for separate components of supermarket refrigeration systems (1.e. display 

cases, condensing units, condensers, compressors) generally focus on capacity at design 

conditions rather than energy use, although energy input may be measured during the test. 

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

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

standard includes reporting of condenser fan power. The standard's focus is evaluation of 

capacity and power input during 100% run of an air-cooled condenser. The standard rating 

condition for this test ~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 display cases. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

allowing very low condensing conditions at low ambient temperatures. This latter 

scenarios would result in significant reduction in compressor power. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Correlation of peak load impact with typical test procedures would be good, since test 

procedures generally do not address part load operation. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 industry would possibly have to convert to 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies 

which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Status of Test Procedures ASHRAE 32.1 

CANICSA 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 1 1. Includes HighEfficiency Compressor and Brushless DC Evaporator Fan Motor, 28% energy use reduction. The 28% energy use reduction estimate is 

consistent with other estimates presented in "Commercial Packaged Refrigeration: An Untapped Lode for Energy Efficiency", Toru Kubo et. 

al., presented at the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study. Payback period in years based on medium energy cost locations (7.82$/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 divided by -1 0 year life 

Installed Base (millions. 19951 ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 I 

I Best Available Efficiency 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency 

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

bv EPA. I 

7to 10 

NI A 

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 EP A 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 

NIA 

N/ A 

N/A 

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

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Vending Machines 

- - - --- 

Test Procedure Overview 

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1 has been adopted for performance and energy evaluation for 

Refrigerated Vending Machines. 

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 associated with recovery. 

Ambient Conditions 90+/-2"FDry Bulb Temperature, 65 +/-5% Relative Humidity. 

Beverage Temperature 36 +/- 1°F for energy test. 

Energy test duration is 6 hours after attainment of steady state. Attainment of steady state 

will take more than 24 hours according to the test procedure requirements. 

The proposed Canadian energy standard is based on the ASHRAE 32.1 Steady State test. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

A test procedure based on ASHRAE 32.1 (but perhaps with more moderate ambient and 

product loading temperatures) should be developed which gives proper weighting of energy 

use associated with steady-state and temperature recovery. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

The ambient temperatures are higher than typical temperatures for refrigerated vending 

machines in most applications. 

The energy test procedure does not provide weighting of energy use associated with steady 

state and recovery after loading of product. 

The test procedure does not have a procedure for evaluation of energy used for keeping 

product from freezing for outdoor units during the winter. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

The current test procedures involving high ambient and product loading temperatures are 

relatively good indicator of peak load. However, an appropriate weighting consistent with 

typical vending machine operation for the three test parts of ASHRAE 32.1 would improve 

correlation with peak load impact. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Walk-In Coolers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability 

(Including PriceICost information): 

Combination of Energy Saving Options = 0.3716 

Technology Payback Periodi6 Tech. Maturity Peak Load Impact 

Floating Head Pressure 0.3 year New Low 

Ambient Subcooling 1.7 years New Medium 

Evap Fan Shutdown 0.7 to 2 years New Medium 

Brushless DC Fan Motors -1 year New High 

External Heat Rejection 7 years New High 

Hot Gas Defrost 1.8 years Current Hi& 

Background Material 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efticiency Improvements 

Issues 

I Total 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. 

If the Kyoto protocol were ratified, the industry would possibly have to convert to 

refrigerants with reduced global warming potential. 

Some of the companies involved in manufacturing this equipment have parent companies 

which own divisions which have been subject to energy standards of other products. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Various Test Procedures for Compressors and Condensing Units, depending on compressor 

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

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

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

Standards for compressors andlor condensing units? 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh) 16,200 Divide Energy Use by Installed Base 

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

l6 "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-23, row 13. Includes Floating Head 

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

based on medium energy cost locations (7.82ekWh). 

I Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) of sales by type to installed base distributions. A larger 

number of Walk-In refrigeration systems are sold for revlacement. I 

Installed Base (millions, 1995) 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

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

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

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

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

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

Other Notable Efficiency Level 

0.54 

12 to 25 

8to 12 

NJA 

ADLIDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Insulated Box: ADLiDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 ....................................................................................................................................................... Refrigeration Systems: ADLDOE Ref. Study, 1996 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

N/A 

Appropriate Efficiency Definitions have not been defined for Walk-In 

Coolers. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Walk-In Freezers and Combination Cooler/Freezers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Combination of Energy Saving Options = 0.33'' 

Action; 

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

Product I Technology Availability Technology Payback Period" Tech. Maturity Peak Load Imuact 

(Including PriceICost 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-Driven or 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 

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 comuressors and/or condensing units? 

l7 "Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment", ADL for DOE, June 1996. Table 5-24, row 13. Includes External Heat 

Rejection, Hot Gas Defrost, Evaporator Fan Shutdown, B~shless DC Evaporator and Condenser Fan Motors. Payback period in years based 

on medium energy cost locations (7.82$/kWh). 

Background Material 

1.. Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 1 0.085 1 ADLiDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

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 

Stock Efficiency 

1'400 Freezers 

30,200 Combo 

0.02 

0.275 Freezers 

0.065 Combo 

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

Typical New Efficiency 

Best Available Efficiency 

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

Divide energy use by installed base. 

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30,000 Walk-In Sales [ADL/DOE Refrigeration Study, 19961 Distribution 

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

ADLDOE Refrigeration Study, 1996 

.............................. NIA Appropriate Efficiency Definitions have not been defined for Walk-In 

.............................. Freezers and Combination FreezerICoolers. 

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

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiencv (Future . . Technolowl f NIA -< , ........................................................................................................... 

Other Notable Efficiency Level NIA 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Walk-In Coolers, Freezers, and Combination Cooler/Freezers 

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

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

focus on capacity at design conditions rather than energy use. 

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

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

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 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 refrigeration is complicated by (1) the range of 

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

importance of field installation to overall energy use. 

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

units and/or the insulated boxes. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Typical standard rating conditions apply to operating conditions more energy intensive than 

average typical conditions. For example, the 95°F entering air temperature for ARI 

Standard 460 mentioned above certainly exceeds a typical average. 

Furthermore, the standard does not take into consideration the fact that the system is not 

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

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

thus allowing very low condensing conditions during low ambient temperatures. This latter 

scenarios would result in significant reduction in compressor power. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Correlation of peak load impact with typical test procedures would be good, since test 

procedures generally do not address part load operation. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

(Including PriceICost information): 

........................................................................... 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. Payback period 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 Installed Base 

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 

Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency 

........................................................................................................ 2.19 kWday 

Best Available Efficiency 1 NIA 

Energy Star Efficiency 1.2 kWday 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Other Notable Efficiencv Level 

Assume same as typical new. ........................................................................................................................ 

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

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Water Coolers 

Test Procedure Overview 

........................................................................... I Futnre/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? ............................................................................ 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

ASHRAE Standard 18-1987 (R1997) is the basis of water cooler test standards. However, 

this standard does not provide much detail regarding test conditions (ambient and water 

inlet and outlet temperatures are not specified), and is focussed on capacity testing rather 

than energy testing. 

The EPA Energy Star test is based on ASHRAE 18 with the following clarifications. 

Only energy use to maintain water temperatures is measured. No draw of water during 

the test. 

Test period 24 hours 

Ambient temperature 75 +I- 2°F 

Cold Water Temperature not more than 50°F, Hot water not less than 165°F 

The proposed Canadian test standard, also based on ASHRAE 18, includes both energy 

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

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

I water lines. 

It is not very likely that alternative test 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 standby energy use probably captures most of 

the energy use associated with water coolers. 

- The ambient temperature of 75°F used in the EPA test is appropriate for most applications. ............ , ......................................................................................................................................... Peak load impact of Energy Efficient Compressors, Better Thermal Bond Between Coil and 

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

Value is Low. 

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

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Commercial Clothes Dryers, Gas 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

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

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

Potential Environmental or Energy Security 

Benefits 

Status of Test Procedures 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Humidity Sensor = 0.40 

Modulating = 0.8 1 

Not available. 

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

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

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

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

Energy Factor (EF) measure according to 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 coincident with 

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 laundromats because coin-operated dryer operating times 

depend upon the amount of operating time purchased rather than dryness (humidity) of the 

clothing. 

Background Material 

Energy Star Efficiency N/A No Energy Star program .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 1 1.43 1 Modulation 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 Available Efficiency ..........+................................................................................................. 

Other Notable Efficiencv Level 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 clothes dryers. ....................................................................................................................... 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 = Insufficient Data2' 

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

from ~e~ulatoh ~ction; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008- 

2030 

Product / Technology 

Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

Issues 

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-axis family-sized washers have come to 

market. 

Five (5) family-sized commercial washer models 

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

MEF>1.80. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Ozone = 0.26 

Many large-capacity commercial 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 1 CEE (1998) I I 

( Family I Indust. I Family Sized 

Installed Base (millions) 

Product Lifetime hears) CEE (1998) 

No standard exists for large capacity commercial clothes washers. 

The residential clothes dryer has seen no regulations, however, residential clothes washers are on an 

efficiency improvement plan with miIestones in '04 and '07. 

Residential dishwashers in the process of starting a standards review. The effective date of implementation 

is expected to be 2005. 

Residential refrigeration standards were set in 1990,1993, and in 2001. 

In March 2001, a broad cross-section of consumer advocacy organizations petitioned DOE to reconsider its 

new energy conservation standards for clothes washers. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy Factor (EF) test changed to the Modified Energy Factor (MEF) test to account for remaining 

moisture content at end of cycle. 

EF and MEF measured according to CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App J & J1 

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 1 ADLIDoE 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 1 Horizontal Axis; 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 sensors because CFR test uses clean 

cloth. 

- Few reliable sources of information on energy and water consumption of commercial washers since there 

Horizontal Axis (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 (I 993) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Commercial Clothes Washers 

Test Procedure Overview 

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

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

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

Modified Energy Factor MEF = Capacity ffty / (Machine Electrical Energy Consumption 

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

Energy Consumption for removal of Remaining Moisture Content RMC @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 (extra hot, hot, warm, 

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

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

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

CFR 10 Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. J1 will be used for determining compliance 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 organizations and utilities 

in submitting to DOE a Joint Stakeholders Comment (Joint Comment), endorsing new 

standards for clothes washers. These standards would require a 22 percent increase in 

efficiency by 2004 and a 35 percent increase by 2007 above 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 different water 

temperatures. 

There are many factors in the calculations and derived results fkom test measurements that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the washers that reduces the energy consumed by the dryer. Presumably, this also reduces 

the peak demand impact of the dryer. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Gas Duct Furnace 

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

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product / Technology Availability 

(Including PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

-- 

a Power Vent (El = 82%) = 0.02" 

Pulse Combustion (El = 90%) = 0.10'' 

Condensing (El = 93%) = 0.132' ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The installed cost of duct furnaces varies by the type of unit 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. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Manufacturers of gas duct &maces have not been exposed to much government regulation in 

the past, aside from possible exposure of their commercial roof-top air-conditioning products. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see ANSI 283.9). Any 

references to seasonal efficiencies use AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAE Standard 103). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Power 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 efficiency was 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% 1 78% * 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 

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-state thermal 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%minus flue losses) of 80%. 

NIA 

NI A 

82% 

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Gas Duct Furnace 

Test Procedure Overview 

I FuturelPotential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? 

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

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

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 

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 of the 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 

temperature of the surrounding ambient air. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

measured directly, and may be slightly inaccurate. Lastly, duct furnaces are primarily used to 

heat air in an occupied space to temperatures that are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" 

does not indicate how effectively the heater distributes its warm air to keep the space 

comfortable. 

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 furnaces will, therefore, also reduce the seasonal nature of 

gas demand. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

(Including PriceICost information): 

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

Cumulative Burden 

I Status of Teat Procedures 

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

Other Regulatory Actions 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

The installed cost of unit heaters varies by the type of unit and by capacity. The smallest 

units (25MBtu) cost approximately four times more (USD per MBtu) than the largest units 

(500MBtu). 

Standard (Typical) units are widely available in sizes between 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 manufactured by one major manufacturer and are available in three 

sizes (225MBtb 300MBtu, and 400MBtu). While available in the U.S. since 1999, 

condensing units are primarily marketed 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 estimate of $22.80IMBtu. ....................................................................................................................................................... 

Manufacturers of gas unit heaters have not been exposed to much government regulation in 

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

the past, aside &om possible exposure of their co&ercial roof-top air-conditionTng products. 

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 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 

im~act if minimum efficiencv was stated in terms of AFUE. 

22 E, is steady-state thermal efficiency as defined by ANSI 283.9 test procedure. Savings based 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 WAC vol. 1 ') I 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

t Best Available Efficiency 93% Condensing 

Energy Star Efficiency I 

0.5 

154 

0.14 

3.2 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) NI A ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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%minus flue losses) of 80%. 

GRI-9710100 and ADL (2001) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Divided total energy use by installed base. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 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, 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters 

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

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

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

that consume electricity but are not covered under the current testing procedure. Secondly, the 

test procedure only measures a unit heater's full-load steady-state efficiency and does not 

indicate how well the heater performs during "warm-up" and "cool-down" operation nor 

during part-load operation (when the dampers are partially closed or if the fan operates at 

partial speeds). Lastly, unit heaters are primarily used to heat air in an occupied space to 

temperatures that are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively 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 (primarily used 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Oil Unit Heaters 

I Cumulative Burden I Manufacturers of oil unit heaters have not been exposed to 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 &om possible exposure of their commercial roof-top air-conditioning products. 

Status of Test Procedures Efficiency is primarily stated as steady-state thermal efficiency (see UL Standard 73 1). Any 

references to seasonal efficiencies use AFUE (see ANSIIASHRAE Standard 1031. 

Power Vent (E, = 84%) = 0.00223.24 

Pulse Combustion (E, = 90%) = 0.00823324 

Condensing (E, = 93%) = 0.01 0". 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 Regulatorv Actions I Not known. I 

I Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Market share of power vented, pulse combustion, and condensing units is virtually zero. 

Eflliciencv ". Im~rovements I From 1991 to 1995, total shipments of oil-fired unit heaters steadily fell from 2,650 

unitslyear to 1,250 unitslye& (about 17% annually). 

Issues Oil Unit heaters currently fall under ASHRAE 90.1 - 1999. Actual energy savings will be I I larger for units that have good seasonal efficiencies. Codes and Standards could have more 

im~act if minimum efficiencv was stated in terms of AFUE. I 23 E, is steady-state thermal efficiency. Savings based on baseline typical efficiency (E,) of 82%. 

24 Without existing oil-fired unit heaters in these categories, the thermal efficiency values for potential improvements are estimated to be the 

same as for gas-fired unit heaters. 

Backround Material 

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

Unit Enerw Consum~tion (MMBtu1 Divided total enerw use bv installed base. I 

Annual Shipments (millions, 1995) GRI-9710 100 

Installed Base (millions. 1995) GRI-9710100 

t Product Lifetime (years) 13.7 GRI-9710100; estimated average accounting for capacity variations. 

Steady-state thermal efficiency at Min./Max. capacity (ASHRAE 90.1- Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency Same as typical new efficiency. 

Tvoical New Efficiencv Average of six available models (Modine and Renor) I 

Best Available Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84% 1 Modne 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%minus flue losses) of 80%. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Oil Unit Heaters 

Test Procedure Overview ' 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 

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 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 the jacket goes into the space being 

heated. 

I Future/Potential Test 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 accurately measures thermal (or combustion) efficiency for unit heaters 

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

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

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

that consume electricity but are not covered under the current testing procedure. Secondly, the 

test procedure only measures a unit heater's full-load steady-state efficiency and does not 

indicate how well the heater performs during "warm-up" and "cool-down" operation nor 

during part-load operation (when the dampers are partially closed or if the fan operates at 

partial speeds). Lastly, unit heaters are primarily used to heat air in an occupied space to 

temperatures that are comfortable, but "thermal efficiency" does not indicate how effectively 

the heater distributes its warm air to keep the space comfortable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil unit heaters do not use electricity (except for small amounts to power any fans, blowers, 

or pumps), so do not contribute to electric demand peaks. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Exit Signs 

I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 14 Watt Maximum = 0.06" 1 Watt 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-Driven or 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 

incandescent sign. 

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 specifies a 5W per face maximum. 

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

The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. 

Some states banned incandescent lamps from exit signs in the 1990's. 

Although not energy related, exit sign manufacturers must comply with strict performance 

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

I ......................................................................................................................................................... state to the local level. 

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 Conference of Building Officials. 

...., ~~~ ..... 

Not known. 

The ENERGY STAR program has 22 certified manufacturers. 

FEMP recommends the ENERGY STAR guideline. 

Exit signs are identified as one of the top 3 highest potential energy efficiency technologies 

for market transformation, including energy savings potential, cost savings, and likelihood 

of successful market transformation (ACEEE 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 15 Watts 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 

Stock Efficiency 

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 installed base. 

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

Incandescent and CFL from Hubbell, Lithonia, Noralighting, and 

Chloride product specification sheets. 

LED exit signs from Hubbell and Chloride Specification sheets. .................................................... EPA, 2001. 

Electroluminescent and some LED panels already use 1 W or less. 

Photoluminescent materials reauire zero electrical enerw invut. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Exit Signs 

Test Procedure Overview 

Futureffotential Test Procedure(s) 

Energy Star and the proposed California Energy Conunission Amendments to Title 20 

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. 

Input power shall be measured with an appropriate True RMS Watt Meter. 

Each of the photometric characteristics of the sign shall be measured at three voltages: 

Rated input voltage which represents normal operation, 

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

or a remote emergency power source, and 

Voltage corresponding to the minimum voltage provided by the internal batter after the 

marked rated operating time or at 87.5% of the rated emergency input voltage. 

Luminance measurement positions 

"Measurement of Exit Sign Luminance," NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. 

"Directional Indicator Luminance Measurement Points," ANSIAJL 924, Standard 

for Safety: Emergency Lighting and Power Equipment, May 9, 1995. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

No issues to mention at this time. 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

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 system to 

stabilize. Lumen output may be higher at testing time than at the average life of the light 

source, which will occur after at least 3000 hours of operation. 

Exit signs operate 24 hours per day; so duty cycle and the per-fixture installed savings 

potential can be accurately determined. There is some uncertainty around the installed base 

in the U.S.. which affects the 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Torchieres 

I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

I ........................................................................... 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product 1 Technolopy - Availabilitv 

(Including PriceICost information): 

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

Cumulative Burden 

Wattage Limit set at 190 W = 0.8326 

Wattage Limit set at 70 W = 1.7326 

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

- Product is primarily directed toward the residential sector. 

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

Utilities have sponsored turn-in and rebate programs for halogen torchieres. 

Most halogen or incandescent torchieres retail for less than $20, while non-subsidized CFL 

torchieres typically cost in the range of $30 to $50 (CWEB, 2000). ....................................................................................................................................................... 

California may implement state-wide maximum wattage of 190W on fixtures. 

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

The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. 

Although not mandated, many manufacturers are responding to the combination of safety 

concerns and high energy consumption, by installing safety measures such as lower wattage 

bulbs and protective caaes to avoid materials coming into contact with the bulb. 

Status of Test Procedures 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

No test procedure for efficiency, although applicable measurement 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 sector product 

- 

While not an energy efficiency regulation issue, regulations could lead to lower wattage 

lamps and may reduce fire risk. 

26 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 300 Watts. Savings estimates based on installed base remaining constant (i.e., no growth in 

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

nit Energy Consumption (kWh) 

I hual Shipments (millions) 1 l4 1 Halogen, 9000; Incandescent: 4500; CFL: 650. 

Calwell and Granda, 1999. 

CEC, 200 1 ( effective July, 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 

Installed base assumes all halogen. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sales of halogen torchieres have been decreasing following fires. Move to 

lower wattage incandescent (< 190W) or CFL (< 70W). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... BTS, 2000. One of seven CFL substitute lamps developed due to DOE 

initiative. 

" 67 

"40 

EPA 2001. Calculated using 60 lmlW Energy Star specification (for fixture 24 

inches and 30 watts) and 4,000 lumen output (typical 300W Halogen). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Assume efficacy will improve to highest linear florescent tube (100 lm/W) and 

4000 lumen demand. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Torchieres 

Test Procedure Overview 

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

Future/Potential Test Procedure(s) 

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

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

consumption and potential savings? ............................................................................. 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Energy Star requires testing using the methods in Table 1 for performance 

characteristics including input power and light output. 

CEC urouosed standards do not suecifv a test method for torchiere fixtures. 

Energy Star states that there will potentially be 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 

consumption and the potential savings - input power and light output. 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Test procedure and metric of energy input correlate highly 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 

EEE C 62.41 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Traffic Signals 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; I 

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

Product / Technology Availability 

(Including PriceICost information): 

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

Cumulative Burden 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

All Red Signals to 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 incentives offered 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 certified manufacturers. ....................................................................................................................................................... California may implement a standard of 8-22 W, corresponding to signal type (e.g. red ball, 

green arrow, etc.). 

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

The adoption hearing will take place in January of 2002. 

California, Minnesota, Texas, Ohio, and Oregon have standards pertinent to performance, 

visibility and use requirements of LED traffic signals (Bullough et al., 2000). 

Although not related to energy consumption, traffic signals are subject to performance, 

visibility, electrical, and quality assurance requirements set forth by the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers. ....................................................................................................................................................... Institute of Transport Engineers (ITE) has specifications for LED traffic signals which 

include chromaticity, luminous intensity, compatibility with load switches, QA, etc. 

EPA has ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Traffic Signals 

EPA is working with the ITE to develop the visibilitv reauirements for LED vellow sipnals. 

I Other Re~ulatorv Actions I Not known. I 

Issues 

27 Savings based on a baseline of 99% incandescent and 1% LED. 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Emciency Improvements 

I Total 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 certified manufacturers. 

- Consortium for Energy Efficiency launched a similar program in January 2000 with 22 

partner utilities around the U.S. Philadelphia was an early adopter, investing $2.33 million 

program to replace all 28,000 signals in the city. 

LED Traffic signals may reach saturation soon simply because installation makes clear 

economic sense, especially in cases where utilities sponsor rebate programs. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

I Annual Shipments (millions) Suozzo (ACEEE), 1998. 

Assumed annual replacements of lflifetime plus 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 1 CEE, EPA Energy Star, & Dialight product spec sheets. 

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I -- - I 1 There are specifications regarding safety (luminous intensity), power factor, Minimum Efficiency Standard voltage and circuitry, but not efficiency. 

Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency ........ 

LET): 10-22 W I - Best available LED signals today are 7W red, 9W yellow & 1 1 W green Best Available Efficiency (LedTronics, 2001 ). I 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

- l5 

3-7W 

When the ITE approves yellow LED'S, EPA Energy Star will develop a 

criteria for yellow signals (EPA, 2001). ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... LED efficacy expected to double over the next five years (Petrow, 200 1) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Traffic Signals 

Test Procedure Overview 

FuhrreIPotential Test 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 consumption of traffic signals; 

focus of test procedures has been product performance and safety. 

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

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

technologies. 

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

traffic signals. This same test procedure can be applied to more efficient devices, as the 

new products must comply with the same minimum standards. 

The ITE has a specification and test procedure outlined in their Vehicle Traffic Control 

Signal Heads (VTCSH) document. Section 2 and 2a are an interim draft for LED signal 

modules. 

Energy Star products must meet the minimum performance requirements of the relevant 

ITE specification and be tested under the conditions presented in Section 6.4.2 of the 

VTCSH Part 2. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

Although yellow balls and arrows fall under the ITE specifications, compliant products 

have not yet been developed (Energy Star Program Requirements, 2001). Energy Star is 

working with ITE to revise the specifications. 

ITE will add specifications for pedestrian and arrow signal modules. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

The test procedures do not cover power input, only power factor and other electrical 

characteristics. 

Installed base and duty cycle for traffic signals is fairly well known, so the corresponding 

energy savings potential is reasonably accurate. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

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

Technology metric that indicates peak load impact. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Ceiling Fans 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability 

(Including Price/Cost information): 

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 supplied by Energy Star in which 26 fan models from 9 

different manufacturers were tested by the Hunter Method, 8 of the models (3 1%) met Energy 

Star guidelines for airflow efficiency. Currently Home Depot stores sell the highest 

efficiency fan on the market, the Hampton Bay "Gossamer Wind" series. ..................................................................................................................................................... 

Most manufacturers of ceiling fans 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 Rezulatorv Actions 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. 

" Savings based 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 feasibility of employing a permanent 

magnet/brushless DC motor is not clear (due to different rotational rates). 

Backeround Material 

Total Energy Use (quads, 1995) 

Unit Energy Consumption (kwh) 

Annual Shipments (millions, 2000) 

Installed Base (millions, 1995) 

Product Lifetime (years) 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

Typical New Efficiency 

Best Available Efficiency 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Fan 

0.076 

50 

Lighting 

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

227 

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

Fan 

Sanchez (LBNL, 1997) 

Average based on total energy 

and installed base 

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 

1 15 CFiWWatt 

340 CFWatt 

Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. 

(Parker, 1999) 

Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. 

(Aerodynamic blades - 

Parker, 1999) 

Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. 

(www.EnergyStar.gov) 

Average of high and lowspeed efficiencies. 

(Aerodynamic blades and 

permanent magnet motor) 

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

180 W 

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

180 W 

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

60 W 

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

60 W incandescent three light 

fixture 

60 W incandescent three light 

fixture 

Pin-based CFL 

(www.EnergStar.gov) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 temperature and humidity controlled room above a tunnel or large diameter 

tube, that is slightly larger 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 consumption is monitored. 

Fans are rated for efficiencv on a CFMWatt basis. 

As the Hunter Method was proposed very recently (December 15,2000) there are currently 

no details on future modification 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 additional noise 

regulations. Controls can also increase energy savings, e.g., the Gossamer Wind fan 

includes motion sensing controls to insure that the fan does not operate with no one in the 

I 'BT,"nd air flow, lighting associated with 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 Star compliance, the amount of air 

moved per watt, as quantified by the Hunter Method test, correlates well with the impact of 

ceiling fans on peak energy loads because the majority of ceiling fans will operate during 

I I peak load times. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Compact Audio 

I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

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

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability 

I finelmdine PriceICost information): 

Current Energy 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 standby mode. 

Cumulative Burden I This and related products have not been regulated. I 

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

Other Regulatorv Actions I ~ot known. I 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 54% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000) 

Efficiency Improvements I -50 Different Models Consume 1 W or Less Standby .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I '9 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 10 Watt 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) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 1 W Standby Phase I1 (2003) - www.EnergyStar.gov 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Component Stereo and RACK Audio 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; 

Cumulative (Ouads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability 

(Including PriceICost 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 standby mode. 

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 Savings based 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 (Future Technolow) 

Average based on UEC and installed base. ........................................................................................................................ 

Rosen and Meier (LBNL. 1999) I 

Average based on installed base 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 

( Other Notable Efficiency Level I 1 W Standby ( Phase 11 (2003) - www.EnergyStar.gov I 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 accordance with Energy Star guidelines, units are tested under the following conditions: 

Total Harmonic Distortion (Voltage) <3% THD, Ambient Temperature of 22'C, and within 

Market-Specific Ranges for Voltage and Frequency. 

Test equipment is set up and the test unit connected properly. The unit is brought to 

standby mode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately 90 

minutes). 

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

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

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

The testing procedure will not change with the implementation of Energy Star Phase I1 

requirements on January 1,2003. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

The test procedure correlates mildly with the energy consumption of compact audio devices, 

as standby energy consumption currently accounts for about 50% of compact audio energy 

consumption. On the other hand, standby power is a poor proxy for RACWComponent audio 

energy consumption; only about 10% of RACWComponent audio energy consumption 

occurs in the standby mode. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

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

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Dehumidifiers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory EnergyStar Level (1.5 LkWh) = 0.1 932 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 

(Including Price/Cost information): capacity dehumidifiers (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 1.35 LIkWh. Energy Star level and best available efficiencies vary with size. Values given are for 

mid-sized units, 25 - 35 Llday. 

Status of Test Procedures 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

"ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers" 

ANSVAHAM DH-, for Test Methodology. 

CANICSA-C749-94 (Section 4.2), for Energy Factor Calculation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Not known. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Models Meet or Exceed Energy Star Performance Levels 

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

Installed Base (millions) Average based on shipments and 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 

I Other Notable EEciency Level NIA 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Dehumidifiers 

Test Procedure Overview 

FutureEotential 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 

Tests are conducted in accordance with ANSYAHAM Standard DH-1 and Canadian 

standard CSA-C749-94. 

Air entering the dehumidifier must be at 80°F dry bulb/70eF wet bulb (standard conditions). 

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

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

density of water at the test temperature (1 kgllitre at standard conditions) and expressed in 

terms of LkWh. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

There are no indications of imminent changes in the test procedure. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

The testing procedure closely models the UEC, as dehumidifiers typically operate at steadystate conditions approaching similar dry-to-wet bulb temperature ratios. 

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

The test procedure correlates well with performance during peak demand periods, as a 

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 I This and related products have not been regulated. 

Product I Technology Availability 

(Including PriceICost 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 available in June, 2001. Once Tier 2 limits take 

effect on January 1,2004, analog boxes will have an easier time fulfilling Energy Star requirements, 

as allowable vower 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-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

Wide range of products 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 satisfy Energy Star Criterion (Category 2); they 

came to market in June, 200 1. 

33 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 197 kWh/yr. 

34 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 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 

Stock UEC (kWh/yr) 

Typical New UEC (kwh) or Efficiency 

Best Available UEC (kwh) or Efficiency 

Energy Star Efficiency 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Other Notable Efficiency Level 

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 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 W standby ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NI A ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 W standby 

Digital Wireless 

Average based on UEC and installed base 

Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) 

Average based on installed base and lifetime. 

Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) 

Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) 

Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) 

Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. (LBNL, 2001) 

V~:VU .EnernvSrar.?~o~ and Rosen, Meier, and Zandelin. 

(LBNL, 2001) 

m.EnergyStar.gov 

Proposed for 2003 EnergyStar (m.EnergyStar.gov) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 accordance with 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 connected properly. The unit is brought to 

standby mode, then allowed to reach operating temperature and stabilize (approximately 90 

minutes). 

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

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

correct average value within a +lo% - 0% 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 evaluating set-top 

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

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

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 standby power draw 

measured during testing is does not vary significantly from the active power draw. The 

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

draw decreases, as many set-top boxes operate in the active mode during the peak demand 

I I periods. I 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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-Driven or 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. 

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

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

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

be 

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

"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 Penetration Target (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. (Appliance Magazine, May 2001) 

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

active vower consumvtion 

1 

-- 

~ssues 1 

35 Savings based on a baseline consumption of 5 Watt standby. Used 25-inch and 27-inch 73's for savings estimates. 

Backound Material 

0.348 

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

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

I I Same minimum I 

Minimum Efficiency Standard 

Stock Efficiency 

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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

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

Action; 1 Watt 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 Star website lists 45 I I (Including ~ricelcgt information): I models by 8 different manufacturers,%ailable as of September, 2003, that satisfy the Phase I 

reauirements. ......... 

Cumulative Burden No related products have encountered energy efficiency regulation. 

Status of Test Procedures "ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for TVs, VCRs, TVNCRs, TVlDVDs, and 

TVNCRIDVDs"; currently under revision (www.EnergyStar.gov) 

36 Savings based on a baseline consumption (typical new) of 4 Watt standby. Baseline consumption extrapolated for year 2000 from Rosen and 

Meier (LBNL, 1999). 

Other Regulatory Actions 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Issues 

Background Material 

Not known. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55% Energy Star Market Penetration Target (Y2000; Webber et al., 2000) 

-5 Different Models Consume 1 W or Less Standby (w.energystar.gov) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-Watt Standby power proposed for Y2003 Energy Star criterion (www.energystar.gov) 

Energy Star Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Wi;dby 1 wuwEnergyStar.gov 

Maximum Efficiencv (Future Technolom~ I 

I Other Notable Efficiency Level ( 1 W Standby Proposed for 2003 Energy Star (www.EnergyStar.gov) I 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Video Cassette Recorders 

/ Test Procedure Overview I No 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 

Futuremotential Test 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 standby mode. ...................................................................................................................................................... 

Assuming that the future test procedure is similar to that used to evaluate RACK and 

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

would have a low correlation with VCR energy consumption; standby mode accounts for 

-35% of VCR energy consumption. 

Product Peak Load Impact and Correlation 

with Test Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

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

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

periods and cannot be readily determined. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Copy Machines 

Commercial Residential 

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

Regulatory Action; 0.1" 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 likely minimal because the CotF devices have 

PriceICost information): replaced previously existing product models (based on speed performance). A cost premium is unlikely 

due to effort of keeping 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; dependant on print speed. Low and Off power requirements. Timeto-Power-Down requirements also. 

Copier of the Future, More aggressive than E*, two targets. Target 1 (best) 60 cpm at 10 W low power and 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

1 Issues 

ragid power-up. No specification for 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 government mandates purchase of E*- 

compliant Copy Machines. 

Best in class Copiers with low power capability, 

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

Canon imageRUNNER 3300 (33 cpm) - less than 

10 W in sleep (CotF award) ..................................................................................... 

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 

10 W in sleep (Copier of the Future award) 

bwer sleep power 

Energy Star enablement is the key to limiting electricity use. 

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

1 Wan sleep is not possible, however lower requirement than that defined by CotF may be possible. 

37 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology. 

38 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100% Energy Star enabled. 

Background Material 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 consumption and 

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 of time specified (based on copier speed) for the copier to switch into Off mode. 

Begin recording energy consumption. 

Continue for one hour and compute the time average power draw. 

4) For the mid and high copier speed range, the copier is subjected to sleep-mode testing 

Turn on the copier and make on copy. 

Let the machine sit for exactly 15 minutes. 

Record energy consumption for one hour. 

Compute the time-average power draw. 

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

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

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

UEC and potential energy savings because the 

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

the test procedure, accounts for the majority of 

device UEC. Improvements in the Energy Starenabled rate will 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 substantial peak load impact, 

as higher-end devices can draw up to a few 

kilowatts while copying. in addition, most 

commercial copiers spend most of the 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 of the Future criteria would decrease 

peak loads somewhat by decreasing the "standby" 

power draw and the amount of time spent in 

"standby" mode during peak demand periods. 

Conversion to inkjet copiers would certainly 

reduce the peak loads in both the sleep (regulated 

by test procedure) and active modes. 

The test procedure does not capture a significant 

portion of the possible energy savings. A 100% 

Energy Star-enabled rate would realize about a 60% 

reduction in energy consumption. The current 

Energy Star-enabled rate (68%) limits the magnitude 

of the potential gains. 

Presumably, most residential copiers reside in 

home offices. The "standby" mode power draw 

has the greatest impact upon peak period power 

draw, revealing little correlation between actual 

operation and the "sleep" mode considered in the 

current test procedure. 

The CotF criteria would drastically reduce 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 active modes. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Desktop Computers 

I I Commercial I Residential 1 

I .............................................................................. I ........................................................... 1 ...................................................................................... draws 2.3W in sleep 

Issues Energy savings depend in large part upon increasing Energy Star enabled rate, a software option 

Potential Energy Savings from 

Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product 1 Technology 

Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

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

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

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

Low-power microprocessors may encounter resistance in non-portable machines due to the necessity of 

manufacturer re-design and demand for faster and bigger machines. 

j9 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new Pentium 111 technology (25% Energy Star enabled). 

100% Energy Star, 50% Enabled = 

100% Energy Star enabled, Pentium 111 = 1 .94j9 

1 Watt Sleep (Current Energy Star rate) with a 

Pentium I11 = 0. 1639 

Laptop Computer = 3.8339 

Low-Power Design (features use of Transmeta 

processor) = 3.5539 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

100% Energy Star enabled, Pentium I11 = 0.0839 

1 Watt Sleep (Current Energy Star rate) with a 

Pentium 111 = 0.1 1 39 

Laptop Computer = 0.35j9 

Desktop PCs with a 1 watt sleep levels are not yet available; the SCENIC - 1000 MHz. 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 of the low-power strategies used in commercially-available laptop computers technoIogy (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 available but it is technically feasible to 

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

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

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

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

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

chips. A Transmeta chip costs $50 more than a comparable Pentium 800 MHz. processor. (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% of the rated power supply wattage .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90% of Desktop Computers sold in Y2000 were 

Energy Star Compliant (Webber) 

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

85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 

17% of the Personal Computer stock are computers 

of laptop design 

Current best market performer: SCENIC L.i815, 

2.3W in sleep 

25% of Desktop Computers in stock are E* 

enabled 

85% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Y2000 (Webber et al.) 

-17% of the personal computer stock in Y2000 is 

of Laptop design 

ederal government mandates purchase of E*- 

compliant computers 

Current best market performer: SCENIC L.iS1.5, 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 consumption and 

potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with Test 

Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

- - 

Commercial Residential 

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

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

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

Any system that consumes less than 15 W in the active mode is not required to have a sleep mode. 

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

Power source must be 1 15 VAC RMS (+I- 5 V RMS) 

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

resolution to 0.1 Watts. 

Test conditions: line impedance 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 of the products sold are able to meet the criteria. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futurelpotential test procedures identified. 

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

closely with actual energy consumption and potential 

savings because it only measures sleep-mode power 

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

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

consumption dominates the UEC. If the Energy Starenabled rate increases appreciably (to loo%), the 

sleep mode energy consumption would account for a 

majority of the UEC and strengthen the correlation 

between the Energy Star test procedure and UEC. 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The computer active mode dominates the peak 

power impact of desktop computers, because 

many computers are active during the work day. 

The Energy Star test procedure does not address 

active power draw. However, increasing the 

Energy Star-enabled rate, which the test procedure 

directly addresses, would reduce the aggregate 

peak demand of desktop PCs by increasing the 

number of PCs that power down during peak 

demand periods 

A PC of laptop or low-power design directly 

reduces peak power draw by about 80%. 

Reducing the sleep mode Energy Star power level 

will achieve a small reduction in peak electrical 

power draw. 

The Energy Star test procedure is not capturing the 

majority of energy savings because of the low 

Energy Star-enabled rate and the measurement of 

only the sleep power draw. In the current PC model 

(25% Energy Star enabled) the active energy 

consumption dominates the total energy 

consumption. Even if the Energy Star-enabled rate is 

raised to 100% the active mode will dominate the 

UEC. 

Most likely, desktop PCs do not have a substantial 

peak power impact, as residential computer use is 

more common at night than during the day. Research 

shows that the majority PCs and monitors not 

"active" are in the "off" mode instead of "sleep". 

Thus during the peak-load sensitive times of the day, 

PC's and monitors draw minimal power, in modes 

not measured under the test procedure. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Fax Machines 

Product I Technology 

Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

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 (Current Energy Star rate) = 

0.244" 

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

Issues 

Residentiat 

Inkjet 1 Watt Sleep = 0.0740 

Enhanced Laser Technology (SURF) = 0.04~' 

Inkjet facsimile machines account for a plurality (but not a majority) of new product sales. 

An existing laserjet device consumes 2 Watts in the standby mode. 

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

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

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

Energy Star test procedure document; Low-power draw must be less than 10-1 5 Watts. (based on print rate) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 95% Energy Star Market Penetration Target for Y2000 (Webber et al., 2000) 

38% of Faxes sold in Y2000 are of Inkjet technology (30% are laser; ADL, 2001) 

Federal government mandates purchase of E*-compliant fax machines 

I Watt Stby Mandate is nearly possible. Best currently marketed device is the FAX5000L at 2W sleep. 

This is a LaserJet, Comparable Inkjet levels are possible. The Savin F3615, an inkjet device, also 

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 savings are 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 satisfy Energy Star 

criteria, et CLBNL, 2000) 

Inkjet, with 1 Watt Sleep 

Enhanced Laser (SURF) Technology 

(Canon, 2001) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Fax Machines 

Test Procedure Overview 

Future/Potential Test 

Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test 

procedure(s) and metric(s) 

represent actual annual 

energy consumption and 

potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with Test 

Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

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 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 temperalure of 25 degrees C. 

- Test procedure: 

Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the sleep mode. 

Record the energy consumed for one hour and divide by one. 

This ensures that variations in current draw are accounted for. 

This method is recommended in order to gain accurate results but is not essential for equipment that 

draws constant power. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futureipotential test procedures identified. 

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Testing procedures and metrics accurately capture the essence of energy consumption and savings tactics for 

this device, because standby energy consumption represents the vast majority of the UEC. 

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Because facsimile machines operate in active mode infrequently, the standby power draw measured by the 

test procedure correlates closely to the peak impact (and reduction potential) of facsimile machines. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Laser Printers 

Potential Energy Savings from 

Regulatorv Action; 

I -. 

~ukulatiie (~uads) 2008-2030 ....................................................................................... : .................................................... 1 ..................................................................................... Product I Technology For Commercial only, Copier of the 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 

PricelCost information): 

Residential 

Inkjet Printer = 0.042 

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

Status of Test Procedures 

I Meeting power draw levels of the sleep-mode for higher-speed laser printers (e.g.,Large Office band) may 

be difficult. However, commercially-available laser printers that hlfill the Copier of the Future criteria do 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary Efficiency 

Improvements 

not exist. 

Laser printer manufacturers continue to investigate high-throughput inkjet technology heavily. In general, 

inkjet printers could more readily displace low-end laser printers, at a lower first cost (assuming print 

quality concerns can be overcome). .............................................................................................................................................................................. 

This industry has never been regulated. .............................................................................................................................................................................. Energy Star test procedure document; Sleep mode power and time to power-down depend on the print rate 

(pages per minute). Power range of 10 to 75 Watts. Time to power-down range of 5 to 60 minutes. 

Standards comparable to that of the Copier of the Future technology. 10 Watt maximum and fast warm up 

time are a few of the requirements of this standard. 

............................................................................................................................................................................... 99% of the 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 of E*-compliant laser printers. 

1 watt sleep implementation is unlikely. Best marketed product currently draws 3.5 Watts in low power 

mode. Xerox Laseriet Docucolor 2060 160 DD~). ..~-~ ~ 

Issues Energy savings depend in large part upon 

increasing Energy Star enabled rate. E* enabled 

rate is not 99%, even for Y2000 stock. 

Change to idqet technology might 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 sensible alternative. 

However, improvement of inkjet performance 

equality is necessary. 

42 Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 100% Energy Star enabled. 

43 Copier of the Future technology scenario is defined as requirement of printers to meet the Target 1 copier requirements. It specifies a 

maximum of 10 Watts in sleep mode. 

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 

Other Notable 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Laser Printers 

Test Procedure Overview 

FuturelPotential 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 

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 source must be 115 VAC RMS (ti- 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 temperature of 25 degrees C. 

Test procedure: 

Measure the average power drawn by the fax machine in the sleep mode. 

Record the energy consumed for one hour and divide by one. 

This ensures that variations in current draw are accounted for. 

This method is recommended in order to gain accurate results but is not essential for equipment that 

draws constant power. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futureipotential test procedures identified. 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Test procedures do not correlate well with energy 

consumption and savings potential, because the 

Energy Star program only measures the the low 

power level (it also defines the maximum time 

period to before entering "sleep" mode). Laser 

printers have a 60% Energy Star-enabled rate, and 

the "active" and "standby" modes account for most 

(-80%) energy consumption. A higher Energy Starenabled rate would increase the relevance of the test 

procedure to the UEC and energy savings potential 

by decreasing the amount of time and energy 

consumed in the "standby" mode. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The test procedures do not correspond closely 

with the peak load impact of laser printers, as laser 

printers operate in "active" and "standby" modes 

during much of the peak period portion of the day. 

The test procedure only measures "sleep" mode 

power draw. 

CotF criteria would reduce the peak load impact 

by decreasing the standby draw and increasing the 

amount of time in "sleep" mode (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 Star test procedures correlate weakly 

with actual energy consumption energy savings, as it 

measures only the low (or sleep) power draw. The 

standby (ready-to-print) mode accounts for a 

majority of energy consumption. 

Peak load is not an important issue for these devices 

because residential laser printers are estimated to 

spend >95% of their time in the Off mode. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 (1 5 W on, 7 W sleep), No PM = 0.88" 46 

Low-power Server with 1 W sleep and PM scheme = 0.92" ....................................................................................................................................................... RLX Technologies manufactures low-power and power-management capable servers, 

using Transmeta processors; unknown cost premium. 

Amohus offers a similar low-~ower server technolom. 

I Cumulative Burden I Has never been regulated. I 

Status of Test Procedures 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

No documentation for Energy Star Standards 

Gubler & Peters have data upon which PM time schemes can be based ........................................................................................................................................................ 0% of servers sold are of the RLX (low power) design. Just coming to market. 

Implementation of power management schemes is possible (Gubler & Peters; RLX) 

RLX Technologies is an examule of enerm efficient low-end server comouter desim 

" Savings based on a baseline consumption that corresponds to typical new technology, 0% Energy Star enabled. 

Issues 

45 Based on the low power level similarity of Desktop computers and server usage from Gubler & Peters (2000). 

Energy savings depend in largepart upon a movement to energy efficient processor designs 

E*is non-existent for server computers 

PM schemes may interrupt and interfere with Ecommerce, WWW use, and web 

performance that users are accustomed to. 

46 IUX Technologies uses a transmetta chip 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 EnergyStar program ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Minimum UEC (kWyear) Future Technology 87 Low-power server, 1 Watt 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Low-End Servers, Commercial 

I Test Procedure Overview 

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

Futuremotential Test Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test procedure(s) and 

I metric(s) represent actual annual energy 

............................................................................ I consumptioh and 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. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 Savings from 

Regulatory Action; 

Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology 

Availability (Including 

PriceICost information): 

Cumulative Burden 

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 

Voluntary EBciency 

Improvements 

Issues 

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

defined as having a low power level of 8 Watts. 

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 = 0.1 48 

1 Watt sleep, Current Energy 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 of up 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 residential use 

for a 15" LCD is 33 years. (In practice, a 15-inch LCD effectively replaces a 17-inch CRT due to the 

LCD's more efficient use of screen space for viewing and higher display resolution.) 

Organic LED technology is under development but not commercially available in monitors. 

The 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 15 Watts 

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 Mandating use of 1 Wlsleep 

power draw (8131101). Currently best available 

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

power = 0.82 W 

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

increasing Energy Star enabled rate, a sohare 

option 

E*, although prevalent in new monitor sales, is 

often disabled by user; increasing E* enabled rate 

may require software modification, e.g., 

permanent enabling of power-down features 

LCD technology is expensive (ADL, 2001) 

59% of monitors in stock are E* enabled (ADL, 

2001) 

95% Energy Star Market Penetration target for 

Y2000 (Webber et al.) 

3% of residential monitors sold in Y2000 were 

LCD (ADL, 2001) 

Federal govemment mandates purchase of E*- 

compliant monitors 

Federal Government Mandating use of 1 Wtsleep 

power draw (8131101). Currently best available 

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

power = 0.82 W 

High LCD cost premium impedes LCD market 

penetration,with higher barriers expected in the 

residential market than the commercial market. 

Smct enforcement of energy star configuration 

will save energy 

Electronics efficiency optimization (for 1-Watt 

sleep) can save much energy at little additional 

cost to consumer and no interruption of 

verformance 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Monitors 

Background Material 

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 

Other Notable 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) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Cholesteric Technology (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) 

Cholesteric LCD Technology, 17" 

panel, Current Energy Star, (Kent State, 

200 I), (ADL, 200 1) 

17" CRT with 1 Watt sleep and Current 

Energy Star, Kawmoto et al (LBNL, 

2001), (ADL, 2001) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Monitors 

Test Procedure Overview 

Future/Potential Test 

Procedure(s) 

How effectively do test 

procedure(s) and metric(s) 

represent actual annual 

energy consumption and 

potential savings? 

Product Peak Load Impact 

and Correlation with Test 

Procedure and Metric, by 

Technology 

Commercial Residential 

For Tier I1 models - (test standard for equipment shipped after July 1, 2000) 

Monitor into 1st sleep mode within 30 min of inactivity, deep sleep after 60 min - controlled by 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 following manner: 

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

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

Power source must be 1 15 VAC RMS (+- 5 V RMS) 

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

resolution to 0.1 Watts. 

Test conditions: line impedance <0.25 ohm, Total harmonic distortion <5%, Input AC frequency = 60 

Hz (+i- 3 Hz.), and an ambient temperature of 25 degrees C. 

Under the above conditions the power level in the sleep mode is then measured. 

Product meets Energy Star criteria if 95% or more of the products sold are able to meet the criteria. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... No futureipotential test procedures identified. 

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The Energy Star test procedure does not capture much of the energy savings because of the actual (fieldmeasured) Energy Star-enabled rate. 

Depending on the Energy Star-enabled rate, the influence of the active and standby energy consumption, 

relative to total UEC, changes. Currently, CRT monitors realize a 60% Energy Star-enabled rate and 

active energy consumption dominates energy consumption. This suggests that effort into active power 

draw reduction (which is not measured by the test procedure) would realize higher energy savings than 

decreasing the sleep power draw. As the Energy Star-enabled rate approaches loo%, the sleep mode 

energy consumption becomes more significant but the active energy use still accounts for a majority of 

energy consumption. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The "active" power draw and Energy Star-enabled 

rate dominate the peak load impact of commercial 

monitors. The test procedure effectively captures the 

ability of monitors to power down during peak 

periods, but does not capture the peak power draw of 

"active" monitors during peak periods. 

Residential monitors probably do no impact peak 

loads because residential computers and monitors 

operate more frequently at night than during the day. 

In addition, the majority PCs and monitors not 

"active" are in the "off' mode rather than "standby" 

mode. Thus, during the peak-load sensitive times of 

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

modes that do not fall under the test procedure. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Pool Pumps 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

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

Product I 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-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Manufacturers of motors of greater horsepower have 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 Determining Losses 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) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Pool Pumps 

No product specific test procedures. 

FuturePotential Test Procedure(s) NPSI may be trying to implement a test procedure for pool pump manufacturers, says David 

Nibbler of Waterpik Technologies/Jandy Pool Products. Detailed information was not known. 

I How effectively do 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 sensitive times. Pool pumps can operate at any time as long as the NSF requirement of 

Technnln~v one water change even, 8 hours is met. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

Manufacturers of motors which are of greater rated power than typical well pump 

applications have 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 specific water 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 available but are not marketed as motors for well DumDs. 

Lifetime and durability are important factors for this equipment. 

Submersible pump 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. 19981 and (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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: Well Pumps 

No product specific test 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. says the 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 of time each day (1 9 minutes/household-day). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Broilers 

Potential Energy Savings from 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 of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements .............................................................................. 

50 All calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of 

electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

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 

Installed Base (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 Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Year 2000 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building 

Appliances" (ADL, 1993) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Installed Base is 9 1% gas I 9% electric. NAFEM & Food Management 

(c. 1990) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Fryers 

Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

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

Product I Technology Availability 

(Including PricerCost information): ........................................................................... 

Cumulative Burden 

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

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efilciency Improvements ............................................................................ 

Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has 

seen regulation in the past. .................................................................................................................................................... 

All eaui~mentwes have 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 typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Background Material 

I Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

"Opportunities and Competition in the Food Service Equipment Industry" Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) (ADL. 1995) 

I Stock Efficiency 

Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 

Installed Base (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 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building I 50q;E:r Appliances" (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 1 42% electric. NAFEM & Food Management Comments (c. 1990) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

Product I Technology Availability 

(Including PricelCost 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 calculations based upon difference between "Best Available" and "Typical New" gas equipment. This will tend to overstate savings of 

electric devices, which typically have significantly higher efficiencies than gas devices. 

Background Material 

Total Energy Use (quads) 1 0.039 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 Available Efficiency 

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 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building 

Appliances" (ADL, 1993) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Installed Base is 50% gas / 50% electric. NAFEM & Food Management 

(c. 1990) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 

Status of Test Procedures 

Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary 

Efficiency Improvements 

rssues 

Background Material 

Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has 

seen regulation in the past. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

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

t Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

Unit Energy Consumption (MMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) I 1 Annual Shipments (millions, 1997) 89'000 gas 1 Appliance May, 2000 1 67.000 elec 

Installed Base (million, 1995) NAFEM (ADL, 1995) 

Product Lifetime hears) Estimated I 

t Minimum Efficiency Standard NI A 

35 - 45% gas Stock Efficiency 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) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Standards Consideration 

Product: Ranges 

Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008-2030 

Product I Technology Availability 

nncludine PriceICost information): 

I Cumulative Burden I Most commercial cooking equipment manufacturers do not make other equipment that has I 

t seen regulation in the past. 

Status of Test Procedures All equipment types have ASTM Test Standards. I 

Evidence of Market-Driven or 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 efficiencies than gas devices. 

Background Material 

I Total Energy Use (quads) "Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances" (ADL, 1993) 

Unit Enerev Consumtion IMMBtu) "Characterization of Commercial Building Avvliances" (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 estimates based on "Characterization of Commercial Building Best Available Efficiency 

......................................................................................... " ........................... " ........................... .............................................................................. Energv Star Efficiencv 1 &A 1. 1 

Maximum Efficiency (Future Technology) 

Installed Base is 9 1% gas I 9% electric. NAFEM & Food Management Comments ic. 1990) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
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 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. 

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 Stock Efficiency "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 1 67% electric. NAFEM & Food Management 

(c. 1990) 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC
Test Procedure Summary 

Product: All Commercial Cooking 

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

Test Procedure Overview 

FuturelPotential Test 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). 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 03CC