TALKING POINTS

FOR W. HENSON MOORE
APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ENERGY CONSERVATION
PRESS BRIEFING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 

# hcC4"( AAa.As 6 1 (PL9

Today, we would like to announce a new set of energy conservation standards for refrigerators, freezers and small gas furnaces. The standards are significant because they demonstrate the level of importance this Administration is placing on energy demand issues , not just energy supply issues. They also represent the first of a number of such standards for household appliances that will be reviewed in coming years as a result of the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987. As we review these standards today, I encourage you to view them in the broadest possible context, realizing that energy conservation is an important component of our nation's energy mix, a key element of the National Energy Strategy being developed by the Department of Energy.

BACKGROUND National Appliance Energy Conservation Act established energy conservation standards for a variety of major household appliances.

We p our considered five ossible standards before setting final rule. Two of the standards required use of evacuated panel technology, but this technology.V `^" F i l l eref i ned _and-very eYpen i . On the other end of the spectrum, there existed standards which did not challenge us to really make these appliances more energy efficient. The Act allows DOE to review these standards and set limits which address 3 energy consumption and environmental concerns , but which also take into account the needs of manufacturers and consumers. We feel the standards that are about to be established, which are being filed with the Federal Register today, thoughtfully consider all points of view on this issue and represent the beginning of a new agenda for energy conservation in this country.

We believe the standards we chose strike a reasonable balance.between w„at- s technologically feasible and economically justifiable for manufacturers and consumers, and what is realistic in terms of energy efficiency at the present time. TALKING POINTS FOR W. HENSON MOORE APPUANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ENERGY CONSERVATION PRESS BRIEFING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Today, we would like to announce a new setofenergy conservation standards for refrigerators, freezers and small gas furnaces. The standards are significant because they demonstrate the level of importance this Administration is placing on energy demand issues, not justenergy supply issues. They also represent the first of a number of such standards for household appliances thatwill be reviewed in coming years as aresult ofthe National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987. As we review these standards today, I encourage you to view them in the broadest possible context, realizing that energy conservation is an important component ofour nation's energy mix, akey element of the National Energy Strategy being developed by the Department of Energy.
BACKGROUND National Appliance Energy Conservation Act established energy conservation standards for avariety ofmajor household appliances. The Act allows DOE to review these standards and set limits which address energy consumption and environmental concerns, but which also take into account the needs ofmanufacturers and consumers. We feel the standards that are about to be established, which are being filed with the Federal Register today, thoughtfully consider all points ofview on this issue and represent the beginning of a new agenda for energy conservation in this country. " '-**~O ~**  \) We considered five possible standards before setting our final rule. Two of**~~** the standards required use ofevacuated panel technology, but this**technology~~** h**~ti]l** unrefined andvery**~pensh'el-** On the other end of the spectrum, there existed standards which did not challenge us to reallymake these appliances more energy efficient. 

### I"htse 5'ftZrt

## d...J5 are.- We believe the standards we chose strike areasonable balance,between "{Rat is --<- technologically feasible and economicallyjustifiable for manufacturers and consumers, and what is realistic in terms ofenergy efficiency at the present time. TALKING POINTS FOR W. HENSON MOORE APPUANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ENERGY CONSERVATION PRESS BRIEFING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1989 Today, we would like to announce a new setofenergy conservation standards for refrigerators, freezers and small gas furnaces. The standards are significant because they demonstrate the level of importance this Administration is placing on energy demand issues, not justenergy supply issues. They also represent the first of a number of such standards for household appliances thatwill be reviewed in coming years as aresult ofthe National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987. As we review these standards today, I encourage you to view them in the broadest possible context, realizing that energy conservation is an important component ofour nation's energy mix, akey element of the National Energy Strategy being developed by the Department of Energy.
BACKGROUND National Appliance Energy Conservation Act established energy conservation standards for avariety ofmajor household appliances. The Act allows DOE to review these standards and set limits which address energy consumption and environmental concerns, but which also take into account the needs ofmanufacturers and consumers. We feel the standards that are about to be established, which are being filed with the Federal Register today, thoughtfully consider all points ofview on this issue and represent the beginning of a new agenda for energy conservation in this country. " '-**~O ~**  \) We considered five possible standards before setting our final rule. Two of**~~** the standards required use ofevacuated panel technology, but this**technology~~** h**~ti]l** unrefined andvery**~pensh'el-** On the other end of the spectrum, there existed standards which did not challenge us to reallymake these appliances more energy efficient. 

### I"htse 5'ftZrt

## d...J5 are.- We believe the standards we chose strike areasonable balance,between "{Rat is --<- technologically feasible and economicallyjustifiable for manufacturers and consumers, and what is realistic in terms ofenergy efficiency at the present time.MAJOR BENEFIT : ELECTRICITY SAVINGS

The major benefit, obviously, is energy savings. When implemented in 1993, we expect the new models to be 25% move energy efficient , saving 5.2 quadrillion BTUs of ener b th 201

gy y e year Qn ^Ik V^ ,. But.•what does that mean to an verage onsumer? The new models will save 265 kilowatt-hours of electricit which ranslates into $20 per year savings on a consumer's electric bill. 0 r the ife of a refrigerator or freezer, consumers can expect to save Saf i n electricity costs . Not bad... More importantly though, as"a country, we will be saving an average of 20.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year or, considered another way, we'll save 452 billion kilowatt

-hours of electricity over the period 1993-2015. 452 billion kilowatt-hours.

. .that's nearly 900 million barrels of oil -- more than is in our country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And 900 million fewer barrels of oil purchased from foreign producers. Considered another way, those 452 billion kilowatt

-hours are nearly the amount of energy produced in four years ' time by the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of our nation's largest electric utilities. That's over $33.5 billion of electricity, based on EIA estimate of average electricity costs for 1989!

MINOR BENEFIT: ENVIRONMENT And let me mention at this point a resulting benefit of these standards, an environmental benefit. By reducing the overall need for electricity in this country, we will be doing the environment a favor

. Less electricity means burning less fuel to produce that electricity, thus reducing carbon dioxide , sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emmissions from U

.S. power plants. We estimate that by the year 2015 these standards will have reduced nearly 10 million tons of C02, 126,000 tons of S02; and 95,000 tons of N02 emmissions.

OTHER APPLIANCE STANDARDS Now think about it. If we can save this much electricity and reduce emmissions by implementing efficiency standards for refrigerators, freezers and gas furnaces , think of what can be done with other appliances. That's why we're considering 13 major home appliances as part of this Act, appliances such as furnaces, central and room air conditioners , water heaters, and washers and dryers. Combined, these 13 appliances have the potential to impact 21% of the nation's total energy use. Imagine the effect of reducing the energy requirements of these appliances in every home throughout the U.S. MAJOR BENEFIT: ELECTRICITY SAVINGS The major benefit, obviously, is energy savings. When implemented in 1993, we expect the new models to be 25%**m~ie** energy efficient, saving 5.2 quadrillion BTUs ofenergy by the year**201~;~ ~~** **~~**

### But~hat does thatmean to

### a~verag~onsumer? The new models will save 265

# I

kilowatt-hours ofelectricit ,which ranslates into $20 per year savings on a consumer's electric bill. 0 r the ife of arefrigerator or freezer, consumers can expect to

### ~~i8**;l;~,t~~ity costs~aJ~Jb~.;~**  ff;c(5 More importantly though, as acountry, we wi1l be saving an

### a~rage**o~** 20.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year or, considered another way, we'll save 452

.billion kilowatt-hours ofelectricityover the period 1993-2015.

452 billion kilowatt-hours..•that's nearly 900 million barrels ofoil

-- more than is in our country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And 900 million fewer barrels ofoil purchased from foreign producers. Considered another way, those 452 billion kilowatt-hours are nearly the amount ofenergy produced in four years' time by the Tennessee Valley Authority, one ofour nation's largest electric utilities. That's over $33.5 billion of electricity, based on EIA estimate of average electricitycosts for 1989!
MINOR BENEFIT: ENVIRONMENT And letme mention at this point aresulting benefit of these standards, an environmental benefit. By reducing the overall need for electricity in this country, we will be doing the environment afavor. Less electricitymeans burning less fuel to produce that electricity, thus reducing carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emmissions from U.S. power plants. We estimate that by the year 2015 these standards will have reduced nearly 10 million tons ofC02, 126,000 tons ofS02; and 95,000 tons ofN02 emmissions.
OTHER APPLIANCE STANDARDS Now think about it. Ifwe can save this much electricityand reduce emmissions by implementing efficiency standards for refrigerators, freezers and gas furnaces, think ofwhat can be done with other appliances. That's why we're considering 13 major home appliances as part ofthis Act, appliances such as furnaces, central and room air conditioners, water heaters, and washers and dryers. Combined, these 13 appliances have the potential to impact 21% ofthe nation's total energy use. Imagine the effect ofreducing the energy requirements of these appliances in every home throughout the U.S. MAJOR BENEFIT: ELECTRICITY SAVINGS The major benefit, obviously, is energy savings. When implemented in 1993, we expect the new models to be 25%**m~ie** energy efficient, saving 5.2 quadrillion BTUs ofenergy by the year**201~;~ ~~** **~~**

### But~hat does thatmean to

### atverag~onsumer? The new models will save 265

# I

kilowatt-hours ofelectricit ,which ranslates into $20 per year savings on a consumer's electric bill. 0 r the ife of arefrigerator or freezer, consumers can expect to

### ~~i8**;lJ~,t~~ity costs~aJ~Jb~.;~**  ff;c(5 More importantly though, as acountry, we wi1l be saving an

### a~rage**o~** 20.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year or, considered another way, we'll save 452

.billion kilowatt-hours ofelectricityover the period 1993-2015.

452 billion kilowatt-hours..•that's nearly 900 million barrels ofoil

-- more than is in our country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And 900 million fewer barrels ofoil purchased from foreign producers. Considered another way, those 452 billion kilowatt-hours are nearly the amount ofenergy produced in four years' time by the Tennessee Valley Authority, one ofour nation's largest electric utilities. That's over $33.5 billion of electricity, based on EIA estimate of average electricitycosts for 1989!
MINOR BENEFIT: ENVIRONMENT And letme mention at this point aresulting benefit of these standards, an environmental benefit. By reducing the overall need for electricity in this country, we will be doing the environment afavor. Less electricitymeans burning less fuel to produce that electricity, thus reducing carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emmissions from U.S. power plants. We estimate that by the year 2015 these standards will have reduced nearly 10 million tons ofC02, 126,000 tons ofS02; and 95,000 tons ofN02 emmissions.
OTHER APPLIANCE STANDARDS Now think about it. Ifwe can save this much electricityand reduce emmissions by implementing efficiency standards for refrigerators, freezers and gas furnaces, think ofwhat can be done with other appliances. That's why we're considering 13 major home appliances as part ofthis Act, appliances such as furnaces, central and room air conditioners, water heaters, and washers and dryers. Combined, these 13 appliances have the potential to impact 21% ofthe nation's total energy use. Imagine the effect ofreducing the energy requirements of these appliances in every home throughout the U.S.Keep in mind that these other standards have not been reviewed at this point,

but we believe in the notion of reviewing them with energy conservation in mind and saving electricity in a realistic, feasible way.

WHY? But why, you might ask. Why create regulations at all? The answer is simple: Because it's necessary. We at the Department of Energy must be as concerned about the demand for energy and consumption patterns as we are about finding supplies to meet that demand. And current trends show that the demand for electricity in some parts of the country will outpace generating capacities within 10 years, maybe even sooner. Consequently, we must evaluate all potential sources of energy for their safety and economic feasibility, but at the same time manage the demand for energy in this country. And the cornerstone of demand side management is conservation. In fact, all of these issues -- energy supply and demand, conservation, the environment -- are key components of the National Energy Strategy we're developing at DOE. (More perspective on conservation as part of NES?????)

CONSEQUENCES There are no simple answers, that's for sure. And every action we take has a consequence. In this case, for instance, consumers will have to pay a little more for these appliances, due to basic design changes that will increase their cost. Specifically, for the most common model of refrigerator/freezer, which comprises about 70 percent of the market, consumers will pay approximately $46 more. However, keep in mind that by saving $20 per year on energy costs, that $4 will be paid back in a little over two years' time. And by saving $i8O in 3 ^b elecricity costs over the life of the appliance, each consumer will actually walk away with of extra 4`in his pocket.



### t 33

As you prepare your stories, you will probably hear criticism that these standards go too far...or that they don't go far enough. Keep in mind that these other standards have not been reviewed at this point, but we belieye in the notion ofreviewing them with energy conservation in mind and saving electricity in arealistic, feasible way.
WHY? But why, you might ask. Why create regulations at all? The answer is simple: Because it's necessary. We at the Department of Energy must be as concerned about the demand for energy and consumption patterns as we are about finding supplies to meet that demand. And current trends show that the demand for electricity in some parts ofthe country will outpace generating capacities within 10 years, maybe even sooner. Consequently, we must evaluate all potential sources of energy for their safety and economic feasibility, but at the same time manage the demand for energy in this country. And the cornerstone ofdemand side management is conservation. In fact, all ofthese issues

-- energy supply and demand, conservation, the environment

-- are key components of the National Energy Strategywe're developing at DOE. (More perspective on conservation as part ofNES?????) CONSEQUENCES There are no simple answers, that's for sure. And every action we take has a consequence. In this case, for instance, consumers will have to pay a littlemore for these appliances, due to basic design changes thatwill increase theircost. Specifically, for the most common model ofrefrigerator/freezer, which comprises about 70 percent of the market, consumers will pay approximately $46 more. However, keep in mind that by saving $20 per year on energy costs, that**$4~3.8t>** will be paid back in a little over two years' time. And by saving**$~in** elecricitycosts over the life ofthe**ap~liance** each consumer will actually walk away with extra**~in** his pocket

. 

### .K'23
CONSIDER THE As you prepare your stories, you will probably hear criticismthat these standards go too far

...or that they don't go far enough. Keep in mind that these other standards have not been reviewed at this point, but we belieye in the notion ofreviewing them with energy conservation in mind and saving electricity in arealistic, feasible way.
WHY? But why, you might ask. Why create regulations at all? The answer is simple: Because it's necessary. We at the Department of Energy must be as concerned about the demand for energy and consumption patterns as we are about finding supplies to meet that demand. And current trends show that the demand for electricity in some parts ofthe country will outpace generating capacities within 10 years, maybe even sooner. Consequently, we must evaluate all potential sources of energy for their safety and economic feasibility, but at the same time manage the demand for energy in this country. And the cornerstone ofdemand side management is conservation. In fact, all ofthese issues

-- energy supply and demand, conservation, the environment

-- are key components of the National Energy Strategywe're developing at DOE. (More perspective on conservation as part ofNES?????) CONSEQUENCES There are no simple answers, that's for sure. And every action we take has a consequence. In this case, for instance, consumers will have to pay a littlemore for these appliances, due to basic design changes thatwill increase theircost. Specifically, for the most common model ofrefrigerator/freezer, which comprises about 70 percent of the market, consumers will pay approximately $46 more. However, keep in mind that by saving $20 per year on energy costs, that**$4~3.8t>** will be paid back in a little over two years' time. And by saving**$~in** elecricitycosts over the life ofthe a:=;Pliance each consumer will actually walk away with extra**~in** his pocket

. 

### .K'23
CONSIDER THE As you prepare your stories, you will probably hear criticismthat these standards go too far

...or that they don't go far enough.That's why I encourage you to consider this action taken today by reviewing

the whole story. Don't view it as a harsh regulation being imposed on manufacturers or consumers

. Don't view it as free choice being taken away. Instead, consider these new standards as a fresh opportunity for us to ensure our future energy resources and to protect our environment. An opportunity for.-us to take control of this critical situation and begin to find fundamental, sensible solutions. That's why I encourage you to consider this action taken today by reviewing 'the whole story. Don't view it as a harsh regulation being imposed on manufacturers or consumers. Don't view it as free choice being taken away. Instead, consider these new standards as a fresh opportunity for us to ensure our future energy resources and to protect our environment. An opportunity for-us to take control ofthis critical situation and begin to find fundamental, sensible solutions. That's why I encourage you to consider this action taken today by reviewing 'the whole story. Don't view it as a harsh regulation being imposed on manufacturers or consumers. Don't view it as free choice being taken away. Instead, consider these new standards as a fresh opportunity for us to ensure our future energy resources and to protect our environment. An opportunity for-us to take control ofthis critical situation and begin to find fundamental, sensible solutions.