ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS 20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE ® CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 312-984-5800 FAX: 312-984-5823 GOVERNMENT RELATIONS: 200 DAINGERFIELD ROAD ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314 703-683-8822 FAX: 703-836-5719 January 19, 1990

TO: AHAM's Microwave Oven, Range and Room Air Conditioner Executive

Boards and Attendees of January 9, 1990 Meeting AHAM/DOE/LBL January 9, 1990 Meeting Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, California
REPORT Attached is an agenda and a list of participants at the meeting (Attachment 1 & 2). The general purpose of the meeting was to discuss the impending rulemaking on ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens, and room air conditioners, prior to the issuing of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) by the Department of Energy (DOE). For ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens, it was AHAM's intent to educate the DOE and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) on the type of products presently available on the market and thus, the need for an expanded list of product classes, and to review the inadequacies of the current test procedures for these products. For room air conditioners, AHAM intended to stress the importance of a uniform and valid method of collecting engineering and technical data and to introduce to LBL the AHAM consultant retained for this purpose, Mr. Bill Beard, so that he can begin to work with LBL to develop the data collection format and reporting parameters. A. Microwave Ovens Rose Rennekamp of Amana was the AHAM group leader for the microwave oven discussion. The important points discussed for microwave ovens included the following: 1. Recommended Product Classes (See Attachment 3) Each of the product classes were reviewed and specification sheets were provided to LBL with examples of specific product classes identified. It was noted that the vast majority of the products presently being sold are countertop, built-in and wall mounted single cavity microwave ovens with and without a browning element. However, many of the other product classes including single cavity combination microwave/convection with and without self-cleaning were becoming an increasingly important segment of the market. It was pointed out that design trade-offs necessary for some product classes could affect the efficiency of the microwave cooking portion of the product. For instance, the porcelain coating required on the cavity for thermal operation could absorb microwaves and thus reduce the microwave energy available for cooking in the cavity. ASSOCIAnONOFHOMEAPPLIANCEMANUFACTURERS

20NORTH WACKERDRIVE· CHICAGO, ILLINOIS60606 312-984-5800 FAX: 312-984-5823 GOVERNMENTRELA TIONS: 200DAINGERFIELDROAD ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA22314 703-683-8822 FAX: 703-836-5719

# I

January 19, 1990
TO: AHAM's Microwave Oven, Range and Room Air Conditioner Executive Boards and Attendees ofJanuary 9, 1990 Meeting AHAM/DOE/LBL January 9, 1990 Meeting Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, California REPORT
Attached is an agenda and a list ofparticipants atthe meeting (Attachment 1 & 2). The generalpurpose ofthe meeting was to discuss the impending rulemaking on ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens, androom air conditioners, prior to the issuing of the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) by the DepartmentofEnergy (DOE). For ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens, it was AHAM's intent to educate the DOE and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) on the type ofproductspresently available on the market and thus, the need for an expanded list ofproduct classes, and to review the inadequacies ofthe current testprocedures for these products. Forroom air conditioners, AHAM intended to stress the importance ofa uniform and valid methodof collecting engineering and technical data and to introduce to LBL the AHAM consultantretained for thispurpose, Mr. Bill Beard, so that he can begin to work with LBL to develop the data collection format andreporting parameters. A. Microwave Ovens Rose Rennekamp ofAmana was the AHAM group leader for the microwave oven discussion. The importantpoints discussed for microwave ovensincluded the following: 1. Recommended Product Classes (See Attachment 3) Each ofthe product classes were reviewed and specificationsheets were provided to LBL with examplesofspecific product classes identified. It was noted that the vast majority ofthe productspresentlybeing sold are countertop, built-in and wall mounted single cavity microwave ovens with and without a browning element. However, many ofthe otherproduct classesincluding single cavity combination microwave/convection with and without self-cleaning were becoming an increasingly important segmentof the market. It was pointed out that design trade-offs necessary for some product classes could affect the efficiency ofthe microwave cooking portion ofthe product. For instance, the porcelain coatingrequired on the cavity for thermaloperationcould absorb microwaves and thusreduce the microwave energy available for cooking in the cavity. ASSOCIAnONOFHOMEAPPLIANCEMANUFACTURERS

20NORTH WACKERDRIVE· CHICAGO, ILLINOIS60606 312-984-5800 FAX: 312-984-5823 GOVERNMENTRELA TIONS: 200DAINGERFIELDROAD ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA22314 703-683-8822 FAX: 703-836-5719

# I

January 19, 1990
TO: AHAM's Microwave Oven, Range and Room Air Conditioner Executive Boards and Attendees ofJanuary 9, 1990 Meeting AHAM/DOE/LBL January 9, 1990 Meeting Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Berkeley, California REPORT
Attached is an agenda and a list ofparticipants atthe meeting (Attachment 1 & 2). The generalpurpose ofthe meeting was to discuss the impending rulemaking on ranges and ovens, including microwave ovens, androom air conditioners, prior to the issuing of the Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) by the DepartmentofEnergy (DOE). For ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens, it was AHAM's intent to educate the DOE and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) on the type ofproductspresently available on the market and thus, the need for an expanded list ofproduct classes, and to review the inadequacies ofthe current testprocedures for these products. Forroom air conditioners, AHAM intended to stress the importance ofa uniform and valid methodof collecting engineering and technical data and to introduce to LBL the AHAM consultantretained for thispurpose, Mr. Bill Beard, so that he can begin to work with LBL to develop the data collection format andreporting parameters. A. Microwave Ovens Rose Rennekamp ofAmana was the AHAM group leader for the microwave oven discussion. The importantpoints discussed for microwave ovensincluded the following: 1. Recommended Product Classes (See Attachment 3) Each ofthe product classes were reviewed and specificationsheets were provided to LBL with examplesofspecific product classes identified. It was noted that the vast majority ofthe productspresentlybeing sold are countertop, built-in and wall mounted single cavity microwave ovens with and without a browning element. However, many ofthe otherproduct classesincluding single cavity combination microwave/convection with and without self-cleaning were becoming an increasingly important segmentof the market. It was pointed out that design trade-offs necessary for some product classes could affect the efficiency ofthe microwave cooking portion ofthe product. For instance, the porcelain coatingrequired on the cavity for thermaloperationcould absorb microwaves and thusreduce the microwave energy available for cooking in the cavity.ARAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -2-

A. 2. DOE Test Procedure

The industry expressed its concern about the existing DOE Test Procedure because it is outdated and has been replaced by a new internationally recognized procedure - International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Publication 705-1988. This new procedure is supported by the U.S. microwave oven industry. The existing DOE Test Procedure was identified as having a number of shortcomings, including: the difficulty of keeping the sodium chloride in solution during the test; the lack of repeatability of the test, which is exacerbated by the use of sodium chloride because it encourages evaporation; the extended time to perform the test, i.e., 1 hour vs approximately 15 minutes for the new IEC test. The DOE procedure would be inconsistent with marketplace values of microwave power output thus microwave oven manufacturers would have to conduct special tests for the DOE. It was noted that neither the existing DOE procedure nor the new IEC procedure is applicable to new technologies which employ combination microwave/thermal cooking means. These procedures provide an efficiency measure for microwave cooking only. 3. Product Usage It was noted that product usage has changed considerably since the study to establish this value was conducted in the mid-1970s. The DOE Test Procedure uses a family size of 4 and assumes that most meals are eaten at home. Family size and lifestyles have changed considerably since that study. These changes affect the product usage for ranges, ovens and microwave ovens and should be updated in order to properly arrive at the product's annual energy consumption. It was noted by DOE that product usage factors are not needed to calculate efficiency, so the lack of good usage data should not delay the collection of efficiency data for the rulemaking. DOE agreed that usage data are important in life cycle cost analyses. However, here they are not really tied to the test procedure usage factors, but can use more appropriate, updated usage figures. 4. Action Items The following items were identified as things needed by LBL and DOE for microwave oven rulemaking. a. A petition from AHAM for a change to the DOE Test Procedure for microwave ovens providing reasons why this change is necessary. b. Energy efficiency and cost data on microwave ovens only based on the current IEC test procedure, IEC Publication 705-1988. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report 

### -2-
A. 2. DOE Test Procedure The industry expressed its concern about the existing DOE Test Procedure because itis outdated and hasbeenreplacedby a new internationally recognized procedure

- InternationalElectrotechnical eommission (lEe) Publication 705-1988. This new procedure is supportedby the U.S. microwave oven industry. The existing DOE Test Procedure was identified as having a number ofshortcomings, including: the difficulty ofkeeping the sodium chloride in solution during the test; the lack ofrepeatability ofthe test, which is exacerbatedby the use of sodium chloridebecause it encourages evaporation; the extended time to perform the test, i.e., Ihour vs approximately 15 minutes for the new lEe test. The DOE procedure would beinconsistent with marketplace values of microwave power output thus microwave oven manufacturers would have to conduct special tests for the DOE. It was noted that neither the existing DOE procedure nor the new lEe procedureis applicable to new technologies which employ combination microwave/thermalcooking means. Theseproceduresprovide an efficiency measure for microwave cooking only. I i 3. Product Usage ! It was noted thatproductusage has changed considerably since the study to establish this value was conductedin the mid-1970s. The DOE Test Procedureuses a family size of4 and assumes that most meals are eaten at home. Family size and lifestyleshave changed considerably since that study. These changes affectthe productusage for ranges, ovens and microwave ovens and shouldbeupdated in order toproperly arrive at the product's annual energy consumption. It was noted by DOE thatproductusage factors are not needed to calculate efficiency, so the lack ofgood usage data should not delay the collectionof efficiency data for the rulemaking. DOE agreed that usage dataare importantin life cycle cost analyses. However, here they are notreally tied to the testprocedureusage factors, but can use more appropriate, updated usage figures. 4. Action Items The following items were identified as things neededby LBL and DOE for microwave oven rUlemaking.
a. Apetition from AHAM for a change to the DOE Test Procedure for microwave ovens providing reasons why this change is necessary. b. Energy efficiency and cost data on microwave ovens only based on the current lEe testprocedure, lEe Publication 705-1988. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report 

### -2-
A. 2. DOE Test Procedure The industry expressed its concern about the existing DOE Test Procedure because itis outdated and hasbeenreplacedby a new internationally recognized procedure

- InternationalElectrotechnical eommission (lEe) Publication 705-1988. This new procedure is supportedby the U.S. microwave oven industry. The existing DOE Test Procedure was identified as having a number ofshortcomings, including: the difficulty ofkeeping the sodium chloride in solution during the test; the lack ofrepeatability ofthe test, which is exacerbatedby the use of sodium chloridebecause it encourages evaporation; the extended time to perform the test, i.e., Ihour vs approximately 15 minutes for the new lEe test. The DOE procedure would beinconsistent with marketplace values of microwave power output thus microwave oven manufacturers would have to conduct special tests for the DOE. It was noted that neither the existing DOE procedure nor the new lEe procedureis applicable to new technologies which employ combination microwave/thermalcooking means. Theseproceduresprovide an efficiency measure for microwave cooking only. I i 3. Product Usage ! It was noted thatproductusage has changed considerably since the study to establish this value was conductedin the mid-1970s. The DOE Test Procedureuses a family size of4 and assumes that most meals are eaten at home. Family size and lifestyleshave changed considerably since that study. These changes affectthe productusage for ranges, ovens and microwave ovens and shouldbeupdated in order toproperly arrive at the product's annual energy consumption. It was noted by DOE thatproductusage factors are not needed to calculate efficiency, so the lack ofgood usage data should not delay the collectionof efficiency data for the rulemaking. DOE agreed that usage dataare importantin life cycle cost analyses. However, here they are notreally tied to the testprocedureusage factors, but can use more appropriate, updated usage figures. 4. Action Items The following items were identified as things neededby LBL and DOE for microwave oven rUlemaking.
a. Apetition from AHAM for a change to the DOE Test Procedure for microwave ovens providing reasons why this change is necessary. b. Energy efficiency and cost data on microwave ovens only based on the current lEe testprocedure, lEe Publication 705-1988.AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/19/90 Meeting - Report -3-
A. 4. b. (Cont.)

This data should include both efficiency and cost of baseline units, the engineering characteristics of those units and what would be the added cost for increasing the efficiency of the units using the design options as well as any unique circumstances associated with specific manufacturers. c. Usage Information DOE and LBL would like a recommendation on usage from industry. Since industry is not today able to provide a complete test procedure which includes usage, DOE will need "a reasonable range of where usage may fall." d. Campbell Microwave Oven Use Study LBL would like to get a copy of this study. e. Other Data LBL would also like data on historical shipments, saturation or penetation level, elasticity studies, historical average price data and engineering product lifetime (to use with life cycle costing). B. Ranges and Ovens Mr. Leo Soorus of Whirlpool was the AHAM group leader for ranges and ovens. Important points discussed during this session included the following: 1. Recommended Classes (See Attachment 4) Each of the proposed product classes were reviewed in detail and DOE was provided with specification sheets illustrating the product classes that are available on the market today. In reviewing the product classes, the following points were made. a. Solid Disk, Radiant Under Glass and Induction Surface Units represent product classes with increasing utility in terms of ease of cleaning and safety. b. Radiant Under Glass and Halogen Under Glass Surface Units are classes that are presently small but growing in sales volume. 75-80% of the cooktops are low and high wattage open elements and 12% are solid disk elements. c. Open elements are more forgiving in their ability to transfer heat, that is, they can operate all day long with convex and concave pots and pans (Leo Soorus' "Elvis Presley pans"). Radiant Elements Under AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/19/90 Meeting

- Report -3-
A. 4. b. (Cont.) This data should include both efficiency and cost ofbaseline units, the engineering characteristicsof those units and what would be the added cost for increasing the efficiency ofthe units using the design options as well as any unique circumstances associated with specific manufacturers.
c. Usage Information DOE and LBL would like a recommendation on usage from industry. Since industry is not today able to provide a complete testprocedure which includes usage, DOE will need "areasonable range of where usage may fall." d. Campbell Microwave Oven Use Study LBL would like to get a copy of this study.
e. Other Data LBL would also like data on historical shipments, saturation or penetationlevel, elasticity studies, historical average price dataand engineering productlifetime (to use with life cycle costing). B. Ranges and Ovens Mr. Leo Soorus of Whirlpool was the AHAM group leader for ranges and ovens. Importantpoints discussed during this session included the following: 1. Recommended Classes (See Attachment 4) Each ofthe proposedproduct classes were reviewed in detail and DOE was provided with specification sheetsillustrating the product classes that are available on the market today. In reviewing the product classes, the following points were made.
a. Solid Disk, Radiant Under Glass and Induction Surface Units represent product classes with increasing utility in terms ofeaseofcleaning and safety. b. Radiant Under Glass and Halogen Under Glass Surface Units are classes that arepresently smallbut growing in sales volume. 75-80% ofthe cooktops are low and high wattage open elements and 12% are solid disk elements.
c. Open elements are more forgiving in their ability to transfer heat, thatis, they can operate all day long with convex and concavepots and pans (Leo Soorus' "Elvis Presley pans"). Radiant Elements Under

, AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/19/90 Meeting

- Report -3-
A. 4. b. (Cont.) This data should include both efficiency and cost ofbaseline units, the engineering characteristicsof those units and what would be the added cost for increasing the efficiency ofthe units using the design options as well as any unique circumstances associated with specific manufacturers.
c. Usage Information DOE and LBL would like a recommendation on usage from industry. Since industry is not today able to provide a complete testprocedure which includes usage, DOE will need "areasonable range of where usage may fall." d. Campbell Microwave Oven Use Study LBL would like to get a copy of this study.
e. Other Data LBL would also like data on historical shipments, saturation or penetationlevel, elasticity studies, historical average price dataand engineering productlifetime (to use with life cycle costing). B. Ranges and Ovens Mr. Leo Soorus of Whirlpool was the AHAM group leader for ranges and ovens. Importantpoints discussed during this session included the following: 1. Recommended Classes (See Attachment 4) Each ofthe proposedproduct classes were reviewed in detail and DOE was provided with specification sheetsillustrating the product classes that are available on the market today. In reviewing the product classes, the following points were made.
a. Solid Disk, Radiant Under Glass and Induction Surface Units represent product classes with increasing utility in terms ofeaseofcleaning and safety. b. Radiant Under Glass and Halogen Under Glass Surface Units are classes that arepresently smallbut growing in sales volume. 75-80% ofthe cooktops are low and high wattage open elements and 12% are solid disk elements.
c. Open elements are more forgiving in their ability to transfer heat, thatis, they can operate all day long with convex and concavepots and pans (Leo Soorus' "Elvis Presley pans"). Radiant Elements Under

,AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -4-
B. 1. c. (Cont.)

Glass are temperature limited based on the allowable glass temperature and thus require good contact with the cooking utensil for most efficient operation. d. Steam Cooking in an electric oven has nutritional value and therefore, should be a separate class for steam cooking with and without pressure. e. Gas Cooktop Radiant Burner and Sealed Burner technology is relatively new but the category is growing rapidly. f. Gas Oven Radiant Burner technology is available but the efficiency has not been tested. Its benefits include speed of cooking. 2. Background on Test Procedure for Energy Consumption Mr. Soorus reviewed the background of the test procedure and how it was developed and noted that it utilizes an aluminum block for purposes of determining the efficiency of the heating element and oven. This procedure may not be applicable to all cooktops and could not be used on induction elements. The industry does not know how efficient the various cooktops will be using the present aluminum block test procedure because very little testing has been done and no data is available. In actual practice, the efficiency of cooking is largely dependent on the load size being cooked but the DOE Test Procedure does not take this into account. 3. Product Usage As mentioned in the microwave oven discussion, product usage has changed substantially since the studies conducted in the mid-1970s. These studies should be updated based on today's family size and lifestyle. 4. Design Options Proposed by DOE Attachment 5 is a review of the design options for ranges and ovens with industry comments concerning these design options. 5. Action Items The following were identified as being needed by DOE for this rulemaking. a. List of classes along with substantiating information for the product classes, the applicability of the aluminum block test procedure to each product class, and the estimated market share of each product class. b. Data requested by LBL for baseline model in each product class. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report 

### -4-
B. 1. c. (Cont.) Glass are temperaturelimitedbased on the allowable glass temperature and thusrequiregood contact with the cooking utensil for most efficient operation. d. Steam Cooking in an electric oven has nutritional value and therefore, shouldbe a separate class for steam cooking with and without pressure•.
e. Gas Cooktop Radiant Burner and SealedBurner technology is relatively new but the categoryis growing rapidly. f. Gas Oven Radiant Burner technology is availablebut the efficiency has notbeen tested. Itsbenefits include speed ofcooking. 2. Background on Test Procedure for Energy Consumption Mr. Soorusreviewed thebackground ofthe testprocedure and how it was developed and noted that itutilizes an aluminum block for purposes of determining the efficiency oftheheating element and oven. This procedure may notbe applicable to all cooktops and could notbe used on induction elements. The industry does notknow how efficient the various cooktops will be using the present aluminum block testprocedurebecause very little testing hasbeen done and no data is available. In actual practice, the efficiency ofcooking is largely dependent on the load size being cookedbut the DOE Test Procedure does not take this into account. 3. Product Usage As mentioned in the microwave oven discussion, product usage has changed substantially sincethe studies conductedin the mid-1970s. These studies should be updatedbased on today's family size and lifestyle. 4. Design Options Proposedby DOE Attachment 5is a review ofthe design options for ranges and ovens with industry comments concerning these design options. 5. Action Items The following were identified as being neededby DOE for thisrulemaking.
a. List of classes along with substantiating information for the product classes, the applicability ofthe aluminum block testprocedure to each product class, and the estimated market share of each product class. b. Datarequestedby LBL for baseline model in each product class. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report 

### -4-
B. 1. c. (Cont.) Glass are temperaturelimitedbased on the allowable glass temperature and thusrequiregood contact with the cooking utensil for most efficient operation. d. Steam Cooking in an electric oven has nutritional value and therefore, shouldbe a separate class for steam cooking with and without pressure•.
e. Gas Cooktop Radiant Burner and SealedBurner technology is relatively new but the categoryis growing rapidly. f. Gas Oven Radiant Burner technology is availablebut the efficiency has notbeen tested. Itsbenefits include speed ofcooking. 2. Background on Test Procedure for Energy Consumption Mr. Soorusreviewed thebackground ofthe testprocedure and how it was developed and noted that itutilizes an aluminum block for purposes of determining the efficiency oftheheating element and oven. This procedure may notbe applicable to all cooktops and could notbe used on induction elements. The industry does notknow how efficient the various cooktops will be using the present aluminum block testprocedurebecause very little testing hasbeen done and no data is available. In actual practice, the efficiency ofcooking is largely dependent on the load size being cookedbut the DOE Test Procedure does not take this into account. 3. Product Usage As mentioned in the microwave oven discussion, product usage has changed substantially sincethe studies conductedin the mid-1970s. These studies should be updatedbased on today's family size and lifestyle. 4. Design Options Proposedby DOE Attachment 5is a review ofthe design options for ranges and ovens with industry comments concerning these design options. 5. Action Items The following were identified as being neededby DOE for thisrulemaking.
a. List of classes along with substantiating information for the product classes, the applicability ofthe aluminum block testprocedure to each product class, and the estimated market share of each product class. b. Datarequestedby LBL for baseline model in each product class.AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -5-
B. 5. c. Any information than can be used to support and supplement a DOE

conclusion that it cannot issue a rule on classes other than those listed in the 1982 rulemaking would be helpful for the ANPR. If this conclusion can be substantiated, the data collection could be limited to the 9 product classes that were originally identified. d. For product usage information and test data, industry estimates would be better than DOE's estimates and could be used to bound the high and low end usage. C. Room Air Conditioners Mr. Beard and Mr. Ray Gorenflo of WCI led the discussion on room air conditioners. Room air conditioner manufacturers did not have any problems with the product classes and the test procedure, therefore, discussion at the meeting was limited to the room air conditioners simulation model to be used by LBL and data gathering. 1. LBL Room Air Conditioner Simulation Models LBL indicated that they are seeking data for input to the simulation models. This includes manufacturers' costs, design options, and estimated efficiency gains for the design options. The simulation model for room air conditioners was based on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) model, which was primarily for central air conditioners and heat pumps but was adapted by Texas A&M's Dennis O'Neill for room air conditioners. It was suggested that industry look at how well the simulation program used by LBL coordinates with industry's programs. LBL will provide AHAM with copies of the simulation program along with copies of documentation for the original ORNL program and copies of the Texas A&M report. LBL is also to provide AITAM with copies of any documentation it has regarding the room air conditioner modification of the original ORNL heat pump simulation model. 2. Data Gathering The following points were made during discussion of data gathering. a. Baseline units should be those being produced for the 1990 standard. b. LBL will need the most recent shipment weighted energy factor data for its economic analysis. c. Baseline units should recognize cabinet size limitations. If the largest capacity unit within a product class is used as the baseline unit, then when design options are added, the design options will probably also be applicable to smaller capacity units in that class. Therefore, each manufacturer should choose the same approximate capacity for the baseline unit. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report -5-
B. 5. c. Any information than canbeused to support and supplement a DOE conclusion that itcannotissue a rule on classes other than those listed in the 1982 rulemaking would behelpful for the ANPR. If this conclusion canbe substantiated, the data collection couldbe limited to the 9product classes that were originally identified. d. For product usage information and test data, industry estimates would bebetter than DOE's estimates and couldbeused tobound the high and low end usage. C. Room Air Conditioners Mr. Beard and Mr. Ray Gorenflo ofWCI led the discussion on room air conditioners. Room air conditioner manufacturers did not have any problems with the product classes and the testprocedure, therefore, discussion at the meeting was limited to theroom air conditioners simulation model to beused by LBL and datagathering. 1. LBL Room Air Conditioner Simulation Models LBL indicated that they are seeking data for input to the simulation models. This includes manufacturers' costs, design options, and estimated efficiencygains for the design options. The simulation model for room air conditioners was based on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) model, which was primarily for central air conditioners and heatpumpsbut was adaptedby Texas A&M's Dennis O'Neill for room air conditioners. It was suggestedthatindustry look at how well the simulationprogram usedby LBL coordinates with industry's programs. LBL will provide AHAM with copies ofthe simulationprogram along with copies of documentation for the original ORNL program and copies ofthe Texas A&M report. LBL is also to provide AHAM with copies ofany documentation ithas regarding theroom air conditioner modification ofthe original ORNL heatpump simulation model. 2. Data Gathering The following points were made during discussion of datagathering.
a. Baseline units should be thosebeing produced for the 1990 standard. b. LBL will need the mostrecent shipment weighted energy factor data for its economic analysis.
c. Baseline units should recognize cabinet sizelimitations. Ifthe largest capacity unit within a product class is used as thebaseline unit, then when design options are added, the design options willprobably also be applicable to smaller capacity units in that class. Therefore, each manufacturer should choose the same approximate capacity for the baseline unit. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report -5-
B. 5. c. Any information than canbeused to support and supplement a DOE conclusion that itcannotissue a rule on classes other than those listed in the 1982 rulemaking would behelpful for the ANPR. If this conclusion canbe substantiated, the data collection couldbe limited to the 9product classes that were originally identified. d. For product usage information and test data, industry estimates would bebetter than DOE's estimates and couldbeused tobound the high and low end usage. C. Room Air Conditioners Mr. Beard and Mr. Ray Gorenflo ofWCI led the discussion on room air conditioners. Room air conditioner manufacturers did not have any problems with the product classes and the testprocedure, therefore, discussion at the meeting was limited to theroom air conditioners simulation model to beused by LBL and datagathering. 1. LBL Room Air Conditioner Simulation Models LBL indicated that they are seeking data for input to the simulation models. This includes manufacturers' costs, design options, and estimated efficiencygains for the design options. The simulation model for room air conditioners was based on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) model, which was primarily for central air conditioners and heatpumpsbut was adaptedby Texas A&M's Dennis O'Neill for room air conditioners. It was suggestedthatindustry look at how well the simulationprogram usedby LBL coordinates with industry's programs. LBL will provide AHAM with copies ofthe simulationprogram along with copies of documentation for the original ORNL program and copies ofthe Texas A&M report. LBL is also to provide AHAM with copies ofany documentation ithas regarding theroom air conditioner modification ofthe original ORNL heatpump simulation model. 2. Data Gathering The following points were made during discussion of datagathering.
a. Baseline units should be thosebeing produced for the 1990 standard. b. LBL will need the mostrecent shipment weighted energy factor data for its economic analysis.
c. Baseline units should recognize cabinet sizelimitations. Ifthe largest capacity unit within a product class is used as thebaseline unit, then when design options are added, the design options willprobably also be applicable to smaller capacity units in that class. Therefore, each manufacturer should choose the same approximate capacity for the baseline unit.AI-IAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -6-
C. 2. d. An explanation of the headings on the LBL thble for cost data must be

developed so that all cost data is consistent. Uncertainty will be used to establish how good the cost value is. In this case, the narrative accompanying the data can be just as important as the number itself.

g• e. Uncertainty should be properly defined because it is not always a plus and minus value. It could be one-sided and therefore industry should be requested to provide the sign associated with uncertainty. I'. The efficiency value should indicate if it is an experimental number or an estimate. Design options should be listed individually and where applicable, in combination. Each manufacturer should list them in the order in which they will apply them. h. ADAM should provide a generic cost/efficiency curve. i. Every design option should be identified and addressed in the rulemaking if its contribution to efficiency can be measured by the test procedure. However, some design options are not appropriate for steady state testing. Sometimes when components are tested separately in the laboratory, the improvements projected are not always obtained when the component is put into the product. An explanation of why this happens would be useful to DOE. k. DOE and LBL need compressor map data -- 9 point compressor data. 1. DOE and LBL would like a list of compressor, fan motor and air mover suppliers and contacts. m. DOE and LBL need information one a. Reversing Valve This is not factored into the simulation model and LBL would be interested in the penalty associated with the use of a reversing valve.

D. General b. Effect of Side Louvers on Air Flow

Mr. Michael McCabe indicated that the ANPR will not be published in January and while it may be published in February, it most likely will be published in March. The ANPR will allow a 75 day comment period with a hearing date set about three quarters of the way through the comment period. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report -6-
C. 2. d. An explanation ofthe headings on the LBL table for cost data mustbe developed so that all cost datais consistent. Uncertainty willbe used to establishhow good the cost value is. In this case, the narrative accompanying the datacanbejust as important as the number itself.
e. Uncertainty shouldbeproperly defined becauseitis not always a plus and minus value. Itcouldbe one-sided and thereforeindustry should berequested to provide the sign associated with uncertainty. f. The efficiency value should indicateif itis an experimental number or an estimate. g. Design options shouldbelisted individually and where applicable, in combination. Each manufacturer should listthem in the orderin which they will apply them. h. AHAM should provide a generic cost/efficiency curve. i. Every design option shouldbe identified and addressed in the rulemaking ifits contributionto efficiencycanbe measuredby the testprocedure. However, some design options are not appropriate for steady state testing. j. Sometimes when components are tested separately in the laboratory, the improvementsprojected are not always obtained when the component is putinto the product. An explanation of why this happens would be useful to DOE. k. DOE and LBL need compressor map data

-- 9point compressor data. 1. DOE and LBL would like a list ofcompressor, fan motor and air mover suppliers and contacts.
m. DOE and LBL need information on:

D. General a. Reversing Valve This is not factored into the simUlation model and LBL would be interestedin the penalty associated with the use of a reversing valve. b. Effect ofSide Louvers on Air Flow

Mr. Michael McCabe indicatedthat the ANPR will notbe published in January and while it may bepublished in February, it mostlikely willbepublishedin March. The ANPR will allow a 75 day commentperiod with a hearing date set about threequarters ofthe way through the commentperiod. AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report -6-
C. 2. d. An explanation ofthe headings on the LBL table for cost data mustbe developed so that all cost datais consistent. Uncertainty willbe used to establishhow good the cost value is. In this case, the narrative accompanying the datacanbejust as important as the number itself.
e. Uncertainty shouldbeproperly defined becauseitis not always a plus and minus value. Itcouldbe one-sided and thereforeindustry should berequested to provide the sign associated with uncertainty. f. The efficiency value should indicateif itis an experimental number or an estimate. g. Design options shouldbelisted individually and where applicable, in combination. Each manufacturer should listthem in the orderin which they will apply them. h. AHAM should provide a generic cost/efficiency curve. i. Every design option shouldbe identified and addressed in the rulemaking ifits contributionto efficiencycanbe measuredby the testprocedure. However, some design options are not appropriate for steady state testing. j. Sometimes when components are tested separately in the laboratory, the improvementsprojected are not always obtained when the component is putinto the product. An explanation of why this happens would be useful to DOE. k. DOE and LBL need compressor map data

-- 9point compressor data. 1. DOE and LBL would like a list ofcompressor, fan motor and air mover suppliers and contacts.
m. DOE and LBL need information on:

D. General a. Reversing Valve This is not factored into the simUlation model and LBL would be interestedin the penalty associated with the use of a reversing valve. b. Effect ofSide Louvers on Air Flow

Mr. Michael McCabe indicatedthat the ANPR will notbe published in January and while it may bepublished in February, it mostlikely willbepublishedin March. The ANPR will allow a 75 day commentperiod with a hearing date set about threequarters ofthe way through the commentperiod.AHAM/DOE/LBL

1/9/90 Meeting - Report -7- D. (Cont.) Industry data should be available as early as possible and could be included as comment on the ANPR. Industry data will be used for developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). Industry needs to come back to LBL and DOE with a plan for providing the information requested. Both DOE and LBL stressed that they would use whatever data is available. If industry does not provide the data, it will be obtained from other sources. Incomplete or faulty data can have a detrimental effect on the rulemaking. In summary, industry must move quickly to get action plans in place to supply the following information: 1. Utility features and energy usage to support need for each recommended product class for ranges and'ovens and microwave ovens. 2. Market data information for each product class. 3. Identification of classes that can be tested under the current DOE Test Procedure for ranges and ovens and the microwave classes that can be tested under the IEC Test Procedure in Publication 705-1988. 4. Identification of product classes where test procedures need to be developed. 5. Research on range and oven and microwave oven product usage and changing trends on family size and food preparation in the home (industry must convince DOE that the usage facator in the DOE Test Procedure needs to be updated by current empirical data).Respectfully submitted,

John T. Weizeorick Vice President Engineering & Technical Services
Reviewed by Counsel:

Charles A. Samuels

JTW:ms Attachments

AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report -7-
D. (Cont. l) Industry data shouldbe availableas early as possible and couldbeincluded as comment on the ANPR. Industry data will be used for developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). Industry needs to comeback to LBL and DOE with a plan for providing the informationrequested. Both DOE and LBL stressed that they would use whatever data is available. Ifindustry does not provide the data, it will be obtainedfrom other sources. Incompleteor faulty data can have a detrimental effect on therulemaking.
In summary, industry must move quickly toget actionplans in placeto supply the following information: 1. Utility features and energy usage to support need for each recommended product class for ranges andovens and microwave ovens. 2. Market data information for each product class. 3. Identification of classes that canbe tested under the current DOE Test Procedure for ranges and ovens and the microwave classes that canbe tested under the IEC Test Procedure in Publication 705-1988. 4. Identification ofproduct classes where testprocedures need tobe developed. 5. Research on range and oven and microwave oven product usage and changing trends on family size and food preparationin the home (industry must convince DOE that the usage facator in the DOE Test Procedure needs to be updatedby current empirical data).

Reviewedby Counsel:

Charles A. Samuels

JTW:ms Attachments Respectfully submitted,

# ~A7A£W~**~::;.** Weizeorick Vice President Engineering & TechnicalServices AHAM/DOE/LBL 1/9/90 Meeting

- Report -7-
D. (Cont. l) Industry data shouldbe availableas early as possible and couldbeincluded as comment on the ANPR. Industry data will be used for developing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). Industry needs to comeback to LBL and DOE with a plan for providing the informationrequested. Both DOE and LBL stressed that they would use whatever data is available. Ifindustry does not provide the data, it will be obtainedfrom other sources. Incompleteor faulty data can have a detrimental effect on therulemaking.
In summary, industry must move quickly toget actionplans in placeto supply the following information: 1. Utility features and energy usage to support need for each recommended product class for ranges andovens and microwave ovens. 2. Market data information for each product class. 3. Identification of classes that canbe tested under the current DOE Test Procedure for ranges and ovens and the microwave classes that canbe tested under the IEC Test Procedure in Publication 705-1988. 4. Identification ofproduct classes where testprocedures need tobe developed. 5. Research on range and oven and microwave oven product usage and changing trends on family size and food preparationin the home (industry must convince DOE that the usage facator in the DOE Test Procedure needs to be updatedby current empirical data).

Reviewedby Counsel:

Charles A. Samuels

JTW:ms Attachments Respectfully submitted,

# ~A7A£W~**~::;.** Weizeorick Vice President Engineering & TechnicalServices

### Attachment 1



### January 9, 1990 AHAM meeting with DOE and LBL: Ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, and room air conditioners 

### AGENDA
8:30AM Coffee 9:00AM Microwave ovens 10:00AM Ranges and ovens. 12:00PM Lunch (at LBL cafeteria) 1:30PM Room air conditioners 4:00PM Wrap-up 

### 5:00PM Adjourn Proposed List of Attendees ARAM and DOE at LBL January 9, 1990 FROM DOE: Carl Adams Barry Berlin Eugene Margolis Michael McCabe
FROM LBL: Terry Chan Jim McMahon Benoit Lebot Greg Rosenquist Isaac Turiel 

### 8:30AM 9:00AM 10:00AM 12:00PM 1:30PM 4:00PM 5:00PM

FROMDOE: January9, 1990 AHAMmeetingwithDOEandLBL: Ranges and ovens,microwaveovens, androomairconditioners AGENDA
Coffee Microwaveovens Ranges and ovens. Lunch(atLBLcafeteria) Roomairconditioners Wrap-up Adjourn ProposedListofAttendees AHAMandDOEatLBL January 9, 1990

CarlAdams BarryBerlin EugeneMargolis MichaelMcCabe
FROMLBL: Terry Chan BenoitLebot IsaacTuriel JimMcMahon GregRosenquist Attachment 1



### 8:30AM 9:00AM 10:00AM 12:00PM 1:30PM 4:00PM 5:00PM

FROMDOE: January9, 1990 AHAMmeetingwithDOEandLBL: Ranges and ovens,microwaveovens, androomairconditioners AGENDA
Coffee Microwaveovens Ranges and ovens. Lunch(atLBLcafeteria) Roomairconditioners Wrap-up Adjourn ProposedListofAttendees AHAMandDOEatLBL January 9, 1990

CarlAdams BarryBerlin EugeneMargolis MichaelMcCabe
FROMLBL: Terry Chan BenoitLebot IsaacTuriel JimMcMahon GregRosenquist Attachment 1Attachment 2

AHAM Meeting With DOE/LBL Participants List

Name Organization Phone Number Ray Gorenflo WCI 201/287-2000 Stew Johnson WCI 615/382-1869 Dennis Wilson WCI 404/259-9751 James White GE Appliances 502/452-3498 Joanne Prater Magic Chef 615/478-4513 Rose Rennekamp Amana 319/622-2731 Anne Howard Sharp Electronics 201/529-8698 Bob Woods Thermador/Waste King 213/562-1133 Jim Griesser 

### Whirlpool 614/383-7684 Leo Soorus 

### Whirlpool 616/926-3240 Craig Schulz AHAM 312/984-5825 Jack Weizeorick AHAM 312/984-5842 

### Bill Beard AHAM Consultant 812/477-4000 Charles Samuels AHAM Counsel 202/293-0500 Carl Adams DOE 202/586-9142 Barry Berlin DOE 

### 202/586-9457 Eugene Margolis DOE 

### 202/586-9526 Michael McCabe DOE 

### 202/586-9127 Terry Chan LBL 415/486-7439 Benoit Lebot LBL 

### 615/486-6516 Jim McMahon LBL 415/486-6049 Greg Rosenquist LBL 415/486-6851 Steve Stoft LBL 415/486-7364 Isaac Turiel LBL 415/486-6493 

### Name Ray Gorenflo Stew Johnson Denni s Wilson James White Joanne Prater Rose Rennekamp Anne Howard Bob Woods Jim Griesser Leo Soorus Craig Schulz Jack Weizeorick Bill Beard Charles Samuels Carl Adams Barry Berlin Eugene Margolis Michael McCabe Terry Chan Benoit Lebot Jim McMahon Greg Rosenquist Steve Stoft Isaac Turiel AHAM Meeting With DOE/LBL Participants List
Organization WCI WCI WCI GE Appliances Magic Chef Amana Sharp Electronics Thermador/Waste King Whirlpool Whirlpool AHAM AHAM AHAM Consultant AHAM Counsel DOE DOE DOE DOE LBL LBL LBL LBL LBL LBL Attachment 2

Phone Number 201/287-2000 615/382-1869 404/259-9751 502/452-3498 615/478-4513 319/622-2731 201/529-8698 213/562-1133 614/383-7684 616/926-3240 312/984-5825 312/984-5842 812/477-4000 202/293-0500 202/586-9142 202/586-9457 202/586-9526 202/586-9127 415/486-7439 615/486-6516 415/486-6049 415/486-6851 415/486-7364 415/486-6493 

### Name Ray Gorenflo Stew Johnson Denni s Wilson James White Joanne Prater Rose Rennekamp Anne Howard Bob Woods Jim Griesser Leo Soorus Craig Schulz Jack Weizeorick Bill Beard Charles Samuels Carl Adams Barry Berlin Eugene Margolis Michael McCabe Terry Chan Benoit Lebot Jim McMahon Greg Rosenquist Steve Stoft Isaac Turiel AHAM Meeting With DOE/LBL Participants List
Organization WCI WCI WCI GE Appliances Magic Chef Amana Sharp Electronics Thermador/Waste King Whirlpool Whirlpool AHAM AHAM AHAM Consultant AHAM Counsel DOE DOE DOE DOE LBL LBL LBL LBL LBL LBL Attachment 2

Phone Number 201/287-2000 615/382-1869 404/259-9751 502/452-3498 615/478-4513 319/622-2731 201/529-8698 213/562-1133 614/383-7684 616/926-3240 312/984-5825 312/984-5842 812/477-4000 202/293-0500 202/586-9142 202/586-9457 202/586-9526 202/586-9127 415/486-7439 615/486-6516 415/486-6049 415/486-6851 415/486-7364 415/486-6493Attachment 3

MICROWAVE OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES I. Single Cavity - Microwave Only 1. Countertop, Built-in and Wall Ovens II. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal without Forced Air Movement 1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 5. Built-ion and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean III. Single Cavity - Microwave and Thermal With Forced Air Movement 1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 5. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 

### Attachment 3

MICROWAVE OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES
I. Single Cavity

- Microwave Only 1. Countertop, Built-in and Wall Ovens II. Single Cavity

- Microwave and Thermal without Forced Air Movement 1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermaland Without Self-Clean 3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermaland Without Self-Clean 5. Built-ion and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermaland With Self-Clean 8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surfaceunits) With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean III. Single Cavity

- Microwave and Thermal With Forced Air Movement 1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With ElectricThermal and With Self-Clean 4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 5. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermaland Without Self-Clean 7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With ElectricThermaland With Self-Clean 8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermaland Without Self-Clean 9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surfaceunits) With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 

### Attachment 3

MICROWAVE OVEN PRODUCT CLASSES
I. Single Cavity

- Microwave Only 1. Countertop, Built-in and Wall Ovens II. Single Cavity

- Microwave and Thermal without Forced Air Movement 1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermaland Without Self-Clean 3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and With Self-Clean 4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermaland Without Self-Clean 5. Built-ion and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermaland With Self-Clean 8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surfaceunits) With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean III. Single Cavity

- Microwave and Thermal With Forced Air Movement 1. Countertop Ovens With Electric Thermal 2. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Electric Thermal and Without Self-Clean 3. Built-in and Wall Ovens With ElectricThermal and With Self-Clean 4. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and Without Self-Clean 5. Built-in and Wall Ovens With Gas Thermal and With Self-Clean 6. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Electric Thermaland Without Self-Clean 7. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With ElectricThermaland With Self-Clean 8. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surface units) With Gas Thermaland Without Self-Clean 9. Free Standing, Drop-in and Slide-in Ranges (with surfaceunits) With Gas Thermal and With Self-CleanMicrowave Only

Single Cavity
Microwave/Thermal w/o air Single Cavity

Microwave /Thermal w/air Single Cavity

Microwave/Thermal Two Cavity CLASSES

X


### 1 Class

X


### 1 Class

Covere

TOTAL 19 Classes (2)

Built-in or Wall Oven bine 

### Class (2) + surf

Electric/Gas w/and w/o Self-Clean (4 Classes) (2) + surf 'Tectric/Gas w/and w/o Self-Clean (4 Classes)



### Under Individual Sta (3) Free Standing or Drop-in or Slide-in Ranges

ce elements = (3) Electric/Gas w/and w/o Self-Clean (4 Caasses) ce elements = (3) Electric/Gas w/and w/o Self-Clean (4 Classes)



### Wards 

### Microwave Only Single Cavity Microwave/Thermal w/o air Single Cavity

Microwave/Thermal w/air Single Cavity

Microwave/Thermal Two Cavity CLASSES (1) 

### (2) (3) Free Standing or BuiIt-in or Drop-in or**Counterto~** 

### Wall Oven Slide-in Ranges 

# (x Co bine 

# 0 lass (2) + 

### surf ce elements = 

### (3) X 

### Electric/Gas Electric/Gas w/and w/o w/and w/o 

### Self-Clean Self-Clean 1 

### Class (4 Classes) (4 Calsses) (2) + 

### surf ce elements = 

### (3) X 

### Electric/Gas Electric/Gas w/and w/o w/and w/o Self-Clean Self-Clean 1 

### Class (4 Classes) (4 Classes)

Covere Under Individual St ndards

TOTAL 19 Classes Microwave Only Single Cavity Microwave/Thermal w/o air Single Cavity

Microwave/Thermal w/air Single Cavity

Microwave/Thermal Two Cavity CLASSES (1) 

### (2) (3) Free Standing or BuiIt-in or Drop-in or**Counterto~** 

### Wall Oven Slide-in Ranges 

# (x Co bine 

# 0 lass (2) + 

### surf ce elements = 

### (3) X 

### Electric/Gas Electric/Gas w/and w/o w/and w/o 

### Self-Clean Self-Clean 1 

### Class (4 Classes) (4 Calsses) (2) + 

### surf ce elements = 

### (3) X 

### Electric/Gas Electric/Gas w/and w/o w/and w/o Self-Clean Self-Clean 1 

### Class (4 Classes) (4 Classes)

Covere Under Individual St ndards

TOTAL 19 ClassesAttachment 4

RANGE PRODUCT CLASSES

Electrical Top Section Using a. Low or High Wattage Open Elements b. Solid Disk Elements c. Radiant Elements/Under Glass d. Induction Elements e. Halogen Elements/Under Glass f. Grill--With Down Draft Feature g. Griddle

--With Down Draft Feature Electric Ovens a. Standard Electric Oven With or Without a Catalytic Liner b. Electric Oven--Self-Clean c. Forced Convection Oven for Cooking d. Forced Convection Oven for Cleaning e. Halogen Lamp Oven f. Steam Cooking With and Without Pressure Gas Cooking Tops a. Conventional Burner With Electrical Cord b. Conventional Burner Without Electrical Cord c. Sealed Burners d. Radiant Burners Gas Ovens a. Standard Gas Oven With Cord (standard or catalytic finish) b. Standard Gas Oven Without Cord (standard or catalytic finish) c. Gas Self-Clean Oven d. Radiant Burner Gas Oven e. Gas Convection Standard Oven f. Gas Convection Pyrolytic Oven 

### Attachment 4

RANGE PRODUCTCLASSES

Electrical Top Section Using

a. Low or High Wattage Open Elements b. Solid Disk Elements c. Radiant Elements/Under Glass d. Induction Elements e. Halogen Elements/Under Glass f. Grill--With Down Draft Feature g. Griddle--With Down Draft Feature Electric Ovens

a. Standard Electric Oven With or Without a Catalytic Liner b. Electric Oven--Self-Clean c. Forced Convection Oven for Cooking d. Forced Convection Oven for Cleaning e. Halogen Lamp Oven f. Steam Cooking With and Without Pressure Gas Cooking Tops
a. Conventional Burner With Electrical Cord b. Conventional Burner Without Electrical Cord c. Sealed Burners d. Radiant Burners Gas Ovens

a. Standard Gas Oven With Cord (standard or catalytic finish) b. Standard Gas Oven Without Cord (standard or catalytic finish) c. Gas Self-Clean Oven d. Radiant Burner Gas Oven e. Gas Convection Standard Oven f. Gas Convection Pyrolytic Oven 

### Attachment 4

RANGE PRODUCTCLASSES

Electrical Top Section Using

a. Low or High Wattage Open Elements b. Solid Disk Elements c. Radiant Elements/Under Glass d. Induction Elements e. Halogen Elements/Under Glass f. Grill--With Down Draft Feature g. Griddle--With Down Draft Feature Electric Ovens

a. Standard Electric Oven With or Without a Catalytic Liner b. Electric Oven--Self-Clean c. Forced Convection Oven for Cooking d. Forced Convection Oven for Cleaning e. Halogen Lamp Oven f. Steam Cooking With and Without Pressure Gas Cooking Tops
a. Conventional Burner With Electrical Cord b. Conventional Burner Without Electrical Cord c. Sealed Burners d. Radiant Burners Gas Ovens

a. Standard Gas Oven With Cord (standard or catalytic finish) b. Standard Gas Oven Without Cord (standard or catalytic finish) c. Gas Self-Clean Oven d. Radiant Burner Gas Oven e. Gas Convection Standard Oven f. Gas Convection Pyrolytic Oven

### Attachment 5

DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RANGES AND OVENS

I. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GAS COOKTOPS a. Thermostatically controlled gas burners Those burners are designed to control the flame temperature so that the input power can be better adjusted to the output demand. • Consumer has not accepted technology • Not sensitive to test procedure b. Radiant gas burners Gas is burned in a chamber placed below a ceramic plate. The plate becomes a radiator of infrared energy and a gas jet passes through holes in the plate, imparting additional energy to the cooking utensil. This type of burner could provide consumer utility with a higher efficiency than conventional burners.
o Delete • Do not know if current test procedure is applicable • Should be a product class • Not being produced in U.S. c. Insulation/Reflective surface Located at the base of the flame, reflective materials can redirect radiative energy to the cooking utensil. • Suitable Design Option d. More efficient burners A new generation of burners, called sealed gas burners, are "more efficient and precise than conventional gas cooktops" (Appliance-- May 1989, p. 59). They allow manufacturers to reduce the burner gas input rate (from 8,000 to 6,000 Btu/hr and from 12,000 to 10,000 Btu/hr for example). • Not clear -- Product class or design option II. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS a. Improved contact conductance - Design option for all product classes This applies only sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops. Their efficiency is improved by designing them to have better thermal contact with cooking utensils. • Need comment -- test procedure uses aluminum block
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

### Attachment 5 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RANGES AND OVENS
I. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GAS COOKTOPS
a. Thermostatically controlled gas burners Those burners are designed to control the flame temperature so that the input power can be better adjusted to the output demand. " Conswner has not accepted technology**~** 

### Not sensitive to test procedure 

### b. Radiant gas burners Gas is burned in a chamber placed below a ceramic plate. The plate becomes a radiator of irlfrared energy and a gas jet passes through holes in the plate, imparting additional energy to the cooking utensil. This type of burner could provide consumer utility with a higher efficiency than conventional burners.

• Delete • Do not know ifcurrent test procedure is applicable " Should be a product class " Not being produced in U.S.


### c. Insulation/Reflective surface Located at the base of the flame, reflective materials can redirect radiative energy to the cooking utensil.

• Suitable Design Option 

### d. More efficient burners Anew generation of burners, called sealed gas burners, are "more efficient and precise than conventional gas cooktops" (Appliance-- May 1989, p. 59). They allow manufacturers to reduce the burner gas input rate (from 8,000 to 6,000 Btu/hr and from 12,000 to 10,000 Btu/hr for example).

• Not clear

-- Product class li)r 

### design op-tion 

### II. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS
a. Improved contact conductance

- Design option for all product classes 

### This applies only sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops. Their efficiency is improved by designing them to have better thermal contact with cooking utensils. " Need comment
-- test procedure uses alwninwn block


### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Attachment 5 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RANGES AND OVENS
I. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GAS COOKTOPS
a. Thermostatically controlled gas burners Those burners are designed to control the flame temperature so that the input power can be better adjusted to the output demand. " Conswner has not accepted technology**~** 

### Not sensitive to test procedure 

### b. Radiant gas burners Gas is burned in a chamber placed below a ceramic plate. The plate becomes a radiator of irlfrared energy and a gas jet passes through holes in the plate, imparting additional energy to the cooking utensil. This type of burner could provide consumer utility with a higher efficiency than conventional burners.

• Delete • Do not know ifcurrent test procedure is applicable " Should be a product class " Not being produced in U.S.


### c. Insulation/Reflective surface Located at the base of the flame, reflective materials can redirect radiative energy to the cooking utensil.

• Suitable Design Option 

### d. More efficient burners Anew generation of burners, called sealed gas burners, are "more efficient and precise than conventional gas cooktops" (Appliance-- May 1989, p. 59). They allow manufacturers to reduce the burner gas input rate (from 8,000 to 6,000 Btu/hr and from 12,000 to 10,000 Btu/hr for example).

• Not clear

-- Product class li)r 

### design op-tion 

### II. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ELECTRIC COOKTOPS
a. Improved contact conductance

- Design option for all product classes 

### This applies only sheath-type electrical resistance cooking tops. Their efficiency is improved by designing them to have better thermal contact with cooking utensils. " Need comment
-- test procedure uses alwninwn block


### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

### -2-
b. Solid elements Solid elements have twice the surface area, a greater thermal mass and run at lower temperature than elements commonly used. They also maintain flatness` better over time which improve contact conductance. Some solid elements work with a thermostat that allow a better control of the heating process. ® Product class c. Halogen lamps Halogen lamps have a faster heating response and so they use less electricity than conventional electric cooktops. Product class • Test procedure question d. Induction Vuyri¢r% - elements Heat is produced by inducing eddy currents directly in the pan. Induction burner have the fastest heating responses as well as the lowest heating losses ( conductive , convective and radiative losses). Several European manufacturers are making them more available on the market despite their high cost. Reasons are their very high convenience and cooking efficiency.

Product class ® Test procedure question -- aluminum block cannot be used e. Insulation/Reflective surface Design option for all classes except induction As for gas burners, insulating/reflective material can reduce thermal losses and reflect radiative energy back to the cooking utensil. As an example , a manufacturer , Schott, has designed a highly insulating microporous material "that enhances safety and energy efficiency" for their new product , a smoothtop (Appliance Manufacturer

--p. 31 March 89). III. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS (GAS AND ELECTRIC) a. Improved insulation of the cabinet envelope Denser fiberglass insulation can be used to reduce losses. • Design option ® Test procedure question

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

### -2- 

### b. Solid elements Solid elements have twice the surface area, a greater thermal mass and run at lower temperature than elements commonly used. They also maintain flatness better over time which improve contact conductance. Some solid elements work with a thermostat that allow a better control of the heating process.
II Product class


### c. Halogen lamps Halogen lamps have a faster heating response and so they use less electricity than conventional electric cooktops.

II Product class tI Test procedure question 

### d. Induction l;iutn¢r$'

- elements 

### Heat is produced by inducing eddy currents directly in the pan. Induction burner have the fastest heating responses as well as the lowest heating losses (conductive, convective and radiative losses). Several European manufacturers are making them more available on the market despite their high cost. Reasons are their very high convenience and cooking efficiency.

II Product class II Test procedure question

-- aluminum block cannot be used


### e. Insulation/Reflective surface Design option for all classes except induction 

### As for gas burners, insulating/reflective material can reduce thermal losses and reflect radiative energy back to the cooking utensi1

. 

### As an example, a manufacturer, Schott, has designed a highly insulating microporous material "that enhances safety and energy efficiency" for their new product, a smoothtop (Appliance Manufacturer--p. 31 March 89). III. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS (GAS AND ELECTRIC)
a. Improved insulation of the cabinet envelope Denser fiberglass insulation can be used to reduce losses.

II Design option II Test procedure question



### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -2- 

### b. Solid elements Solid elements have twice the surface area, a greater thermal mass and run at lower temperature than elements commonly used. They also maintain flatness better over time which improve contact conductance. Some solid elements work with a thermostat that allow a better control of the heating process.
II Product class


### c. Halogen lamps Halogen lamps have a faster heating response and so they use less electricity than conventional electric cooktops.

II Product class tI Test procedure question 

### d. Induction l;iutn¢r$'

- elements 

### Heat is produced by inducing eddy currents directly in the pan. Induction burner have the fastest heating responses as well as the lowest heating losses (conductive, convective and radiative losses). Several European manufacturers are making them more available on the market despite their high cost. Reasons are their very high convenience and cooking efficiency.

II Product class II Test procedure question

-- aluminum block cannot be used


### e. Insulation/Reflective surface Design option for all classes except induction 

### As for gas burners, insulating/reflective material can reduce thermal losses and reflect radiative energy back to the cooking utensi1

. 

### As an example, a manufacturer, Schott, has designed a highly insulating microporous material "that enhances safety and energy efficiency" for their new product, a smoothtop (Appliance Manufacturer--p. 31 March 89). III. DESIGN OPTIONS FOR OVENS (GAS AND ELECTRIC)
a. Improved insulation of the cabinet envelope Denser fiberglass insulation can be used to reduce losses.

II Design option II Test procedure question



### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory-3-

b. Reduced vent size

- Design option for non self-clean ovensVent rate in standard ovens can be reduced to the rate of selfcleaning ovens by either reducing the vent tube size or adding a baffle. Savings come by reducing excessive losses through the exhaust. • Could effect performance • Must consider UL fire and expulsion test c. Reduced conduction lossesStandard oven suspension can be upgraded to the level of selfcleaning ovens. This can be done by adding another thermal break, improving gasket, and modifying inner panel. ® Design option d. Insulation with lower conductivities Advanced insulation panels (with low conductivity and/or higher density ) can also be used to reduce thermal losses. • Design option e. Use of reflective surfaces Reflective surfaces on the inner panel of the oven can increase oven efficiency. • Design option • Comment on material problems, i.e., chrome changing to gunmetal black f. Reduction of thermal mass A reduction of thermal mass in the oven will reduce heating energy use. • Design option g. Forced convection during cooking Forced convection in an oven increases quality of most cooking as well as overall energy efficiency. a Product class v Possible test procedure problems

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -3- 

### b. Reduced vent size

- Design option for non self-clean ovens 

### Vent rate in standard ovens can be reduced to the rate of selfcleaning ovens by either reducing the vent tube size or adding a baffle. Savings come by reducing excessive losses through the exhaust.

_ Could effect performance
• Must consider UL fire and expulsion test 

### c. Reduced conduction losses Standard oven suspension can be upgraded to the level of selfcleaning ovens. This can be done by adding another thermal break, improving gasket, and modifying inner panel.

• Design option 

### d. Insulation with lower conductivities Advanced insulation panels (with low conductivity and/or higher density) can also be used to reduce thermal losses.**~** Design option


### e. Use of reflective surfaces Reflective surfaces on the inner panel of the oven can increase oven efficiency.

• Design option • Comment on material**problems~ ~.e.~**  chrome changing to gunmetal black 

### f. Reduction of thermal mass Areduction of thermal mass in the oven will reduce heating energy use.
• Design option 

### g. Forced convection during cooking Forced convection in an oven increases quality of most cooking as well as overall energy efficiency.

_ Product class
• Possible test procedure problems



### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -3- 

### b. Reduced vent size

- Design option for non self-clean ovens 

### Vent rate in standard ovens can be reduced to the rate of selfcleaning ovens by either reducing the vent tube size or adding a baffle. Savings come by reducing excessive losses through the exhaust.

_ Could effect performance
• Must consider UL fire and expulsion test 

### c. Reduced conduction losses Standard oven suspension can be upgraded to the level of selfcleaning ovens. This can be done by adding another thermal break, improving gasket, and modifying inner panel.

• Design option 

### d. Insulation with lower conductivities Advanced insulation panels (with low conductivity and/or higher density) can also be used to reduce thermal losses.**~** Design option


### e. Use of reflective surfaces Reflective surfaces on the inner panel of the oven can increase oven efficiency.

• Design option • Comment on material**problems~ ~.e.~**  chrome changing to gunmetal black 

### f. Reduction of thermal mass Areduction of thermal mass in the oven will reduce heating energy use.
• Design option 

### g. Forced convection during cooking Forced convection in an oven increases quality of most cooking as well as overall energy efficiency.

_ Product class
• Possible test procedure problems



### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

### -4- h. Forced convection during cleaning Forced convection during self-cleaning can speed up the process mainly during the preheating of the cavity. ® Design option for self-clean i. Oven separator (allowing the user to reduce oven volume when possible An oven separator , quickly installed by the user, can reduce the cooking volume when a small meal is baked : less volume is heated, decreasing cooking time and energy use. ® Design option j. Steam cooking This cooking process, along with conventional cooking and forced convection , saves both energy and time (Appliance p. 40 May 89). The food is said to be healthier : "vegetables retain their vitamins, meats come out tender and juicy ". Redesign is necessary to include a steam loop inside the oven. ® Separate product class k. Halogen lamp As for cooktops, a special halogen lamp has been developed for use in an oven by a European manufacturer: "this type of heating can reportedly save up to 33 percent on energy use compared to a conventional oven (...) cooking time reduced by 35 to 55% during broiling and by 21 to 71% during conventional cooking." (Appliance p. 51 March 89). 1. Multiple cooking process Broiling conventional electric cooking, forced convection and microwave are combined into one oven. Each cooking mode can be used separately or in conjunction with one another. Electronic programs help the user to choose the best combination of heating. Important savings in cooking time and energy are claimed. Electricity consumption can be cut by 80% and cooking time by half (Appliance p.40 May 89). ® Test procedure problem

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

### -4- h. Forced convection during cleaning Forced convection during self-cleaning can speed up the process mainly during the preheating of the cavity.

• Design option for self-clean 

### i. Oven separator (allowing the user to reduce Oven volume when possible An oven separator, quickly installed by the user, can reduce the cooking volume when a small meal is baked: less volume is heated, decreasing cooking time and energy use.
• Design option 

### j. Steam cooking This cooking process, along with conventional cooking and forced convection, saves both energy and time (Appliance p. 40 May 89). The food is said to be healthier: "vegetables retain their vitamins, meats come out tender and juicy". Redesign is necessary to include a steam loop inside the oven.
• Separate product class 

### k. Halogen lamp As for cooktops, a special halogen lamp has been developed for use in an oven by a European manufacturer: "this type of heating can reportedly save up to 33 percent on energy use compared to a conventional oven (

...) cooking time reduced by 35 to 55% during broiling and by 21 to 71% during conventional cooking." (Appliance p. 51 March 89). 1. Multiple cooking process Broiling conventional electric cooking, forced convection and microwave are combined into one oven. Each cooking mode can be used separately or in conjunction with one another. Electronic programs help the-user to choose the best combination of heating. Important savings in cooking time and energy are claimed. Electricity consumption can be cut by 80% and cooking time by half (Appliance p.40 May 89).

• Test procedure problem



### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -4- h. Forced convection during cleaning Forced convection during self-cleaning can speed up the process mainly during the preheating of the cavity.

• Design option for self-clean 

### i. Oven separator (allowing the user to reduce Oven volume when possible An oven separator, quickly installed by the user, can reduce the cooking volume when a small meal is baked: less volume is heated, decreasing cooking time and energy use.
• Design option 

### j. Steam cooking This cooking process, along with conventional cooking and forced convection, saves both energy and time (Appliance p. 40 May 89). The food is said to be healthier: "vegetables retain their vitamins, meats come out tender and juicy". Redesign is necessary to include a steam loop inside the oven.
• Separate product class 

### k. Halogen lamp As for cooktops, a special halogen lamp has been developed for use in an oven by a European manufacturer: "this type of heating can reportedly save up to 33 percent on energy use compared to a conventional oven (

...) cooking time reduced by 35 to 55% during broiling and by 21 to 71% during conventional cooking." (Appliance p. 51 March 89). 1. Multiple cooking process Broiling conventional electric cooking, forced convection and microwave are combined into one oven. Each cooking mode can be used separately or in conjunction with one another. Electronic programs help the-user to choose the best combination of heating. Important savings in cooking time and energy are claimed. Electricity consumption can be cut by 80% and cooking time by half (Appliance p.40 May 89).

• Test procedure problem



### Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory