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 considered five ossible standards before settin p g our 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.

 CE-RM-87-102_COMMENT_09

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 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. 

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 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. 

'-" 

~O 

\) 

~ 

We considered five possible standards before setting our final rule. Two of ~~ 

the standards required use of evacuated panel technology, but this technology~~ 

h ~ti]l unrefined and very ~pensh'el- On the other end of the spectrum, there existed standards which did not challenge us to really make these 

appliances more energy efficient. 

I"htse 5'ftZrt d...J5 are.-

We bel i eve the standards we chose stri ke a reasonable balance, between "{Rat is --<-

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 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. 

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 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. 

'-" 

~O 

\) 

~ 

We considered five possible standards before setting our final rule. Two of ~~ 

the standards required use of evacuated panel technology, but this technology~~ 

h ~ti]l unrefined and very ~pensh'el- On the other end of the spectrum, there existed standards which did not challenge us to really make these 

appliances more energy efficient. 

I"htse 5'ftZrt d...J5 are.-

We bel i eve the standards we chose stri ke a reasonable balance, between "{Rat is --<-

technologically feasible and economically justifiable for manufacturers and 

consumers, and what is realistic in terms of energy 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 energy by th e year 201 Q

n ^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.

 CE-RM-87-102_COMMENT_09

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 of energy by the year 201~;~ ~~ ~~ 

But~hat does that mean to a~verag~onsumer? The new models will save 265 I 

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 ~~i8 ;l;~,t~~ity costs~aJ~Jb~.;~ ff;c(5 

More importantly though, as a country, 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 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 of energy by the year 201~;~ ~~ ~~ 

But~hat does that mean to atverag~onsumer? The new models will save 265 I 

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 ~~i8 ;lJ~,t~~ity costs~aJ~Jb~.;~ ff;c(5 

More importantly though, as a country, 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 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. 
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.

 CE-RM-87-102_COMMENT_09

Keep in mind that these other standards have not been reviewed at this point, but we belieye 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 $4~3.8t> 

will be paid back in a little over two years' time. And by saving $~in 

elecricity costs over the life of the 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 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 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 $4~3.8t> 

will be paid back in a little over two years' time. And by saving $~in 

elecricity costs over the life of the 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 criticism that 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.

 CE-RM-87-102_COMMENT_09

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 of this critical situation and begin to find 

fundamental, sensible solutions.