U.S. Department of Energ

Energy Conservation Program for Consum

and Commercial and Industrial Equi

Energy Conservation Standards Rulem

Commercial Clothes Washers and Re

Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cookin

April 27, 2006

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC
Welcoming Remarks

• Purpose of Framework Workshop

– To discuss how the Department will 

implement a standards rulemaking fclothes washers and residential dishdehumidifiers, and cooking products

– To solicit information from stakehold

input for conducting the Department
Introduct

Today’s Agenda

Welcome / Opening Remarks / Introductions / Agenda ReviewIntroduction and Analytical MethodologyMarket and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and EnginEnergy and Water Use, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period AnalysisShipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, and LCC Subgroup AManufacturer Impact AnalysisUtility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmentaand Regulatory Impact Analysis Other Issues and Comments / Closing Remarks
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Rulemaking Backgroun

• Four p

roducts are bundled together i

n a sing

•

Commercial Clothes Washers and Resident

– EPACT 2005 legislated standards–

Test procedures will be codified in CFR

•

Residential Dishwashers and Cooking Prod

–

NAECA (1987) legislated standard

s

–

DOE update

d dishwasher standards in 

1994

–

Electric Coo

king Pro

d

u

cts 

–

DOE issu

e

d Fina

further stan

d

ards not e

c

o

n

omically justified a

outweighed benefits

–

DOE update

d test p

r

o

cedures

• 1997 Cooking Products• 2003 Dish

w

a

shers
Rulemaking Schedule

• Workshop Comments Due – May 1• Data Collection Complete – June 20• ANOPR – August 2007• NOPR – July 2008• Final Rule – March 2009
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Analyses for ANOPR

Approaches Key Inputs Analyses 

Market and Technology

Assessment

Screening Analysis

Engineering Analysis

Markups for

Product Price

Determination Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period 

Analysis

National Impact

Analysis

Energy and

Water Use

Shipments

Analysis

• P• T• C• L• P• N• N

• Characterize Industry

• Market Segmentation• Non-Regulatory Programs

• Efficiency-Level Approach• Design Option Approach

• Energy and Water Prices• Installation Costs• Maintenance & Repair Costs

• Accounting Approach

• Backcast and Forecast• Market Saturation

• Identify Firms/Products• Historical Shipments

• Define Distribution Channels• Economic Census Data

Analysis

• Retail Price Collection and

Analysis

Design Options

Product Classes

Retail Prices

Design Energy/Water Use

Advance Notice of Prop

• Efficiency/Performance• Manufacturing Cost

Candidate

Standard

Levels

• Analysis of Energy and

Water Use Data

Technology Options

• D

• Energy Price Forecasts• Site-to-Source Factors

• Energy-Efficiency Levels

• Analysis of Market Data• Analysis of Product Data

• Installation

Costs

• Maint Costs• Repair Costs

• UEC & UWC• Energy &

Water Prices

• Annual Energy Use (UEC)• Annual Water Use (UWC)

Preliminary

Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis

• Manufacturer Prices• Average Costs

• C• 

• Product Prototypes

Energy-EfficiencyLevels
Analyses for NOPR and Fin

Utility Impact

Analysis 

Notice of Propos

Approaches Key Inputs Analyses K

Revise ANOPR

Analyses

Life-Cycle Cost 

Sub-Group Analysis

Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis

Employment Impact

Analysis 

Revise Analyses

• Indus• Sub-G• Direc• Com• Cum• Natio• Revis

• Stakeholder Comments• Demographics

• Manufacturer Interviews• GRIM Analysis

• Emission Rates• National Energy Savings

• Stakeholder Comments

• Manufacturer Prices• Average Costs

• Manufacturer Financial Data

Environmental

Assessment

Regulatory Impact

Analysis

• Emis

• Utility Load Factors• National Energy Savings

• Non-Regulatory

Alternatives

• NEMS-BT

• IMBUILD• NEMS-BT

Direct EmpImpacts

• National Energy Savings• National Product Costs• National Operating Costs

• Utility 

• Life-C• Payb

• Natio• Net P

• Trial 

TSLs

• Department of Justice Review

Advance Notice of Propose
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Relationship of Analyse

Market and Technology

Assessment

Baseline Mod

Technology Options

Screening Analysis

Design Options

Product Clas

Engineering Analysis
Market and 

Market and Technology Asse

• The Department is currently gathering 

including:

– Market structure data– Historical product shipments and prices– Current product features and efficiencies– Product-feature and efficiency trends– Distribution channel information– Non-regulatory incentives

• The Department requests informatio

contribute to the market and technoassessment.
Market and 

Product Classes

• The Department separates each produ

classes based on type of energy used, other performance-related features.

• The Department establishes separate 

conservation standards for each produ
Market and 

Baseline Models

• The Department defines baseline mod

characteristics to serve as the basis fo

– Includes capacity, configuration, efficie

features.

– Usually based on the most commonly s

efficiency product in each product class

– Serves as the basis for cost and perfor

estimates that are intended to represenproduct.
Market and 

Technology Options

• The Department identifies technologies 

manufacturers could use to attain highefficiency levels for each product.

• Initially, the Department intends to dev

technologies for each product that can be considered in the analysis, including technologies considered to be technolofeasible.
Screening Analysis

• In the screening analysis, DOE will elim

further consideration technology optiontechnologically feasible; are not practicmanufacture, install and service; have adverse impact on the utility of the proconsumers; or adversely affect health 

• Technologies not screened out are refe

design options.
Market and 

Product Discussions

1 Commercial Clothes Washers2 Residential Dishwashers3 Residential Dehumidifiers4 Residential Cooking Products
Market and 

Commercial Clothes Washer Pro

• EPACT 2005 establishes one product 

commercial clothes washers that encotop- and front-loading units.

• EPACT 2005 defines commercial cloth

as soft-mount, front-loading or soft-moloading washers that have a clothes cocompartment that is not more than 3.5 horizontal-axis clothes washers and no4.0 cubic feet for vertical-axis clothes w

• The Department is considering using th

2005 product class for their rulemaking
Market and 

Commercial Clothes Washer Bas

• EPACT 2005 establishes energy and w

conservation standards for commerciawashers:

– Minimum modified energy factor (M– Maximum water factor** of 9.5

• The Department is considering using th

2005 levels to characterize the baselin

* MEF means the quotient of the cubic foot (or liter) capacity of the clothes contclothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such energy consumption emachine electrical energy consumption, the hot water energy consumption, and removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load.** Water factor means the quotient of the total weighted per-cycle water consumfoot (or liter) capacity of the clothes washer.
Market and 

Commercial Clothes Washer Techno

Potential technology options to be conside

– Added insulation– Adaptive control systems– Automatic fill control– Direct-drive motor– Horizontal-axis design– Horizontal-axis design with 

recirculation

– Improved-fill control– Improved water extraction to

lower remaining moisture content

– Thermostatically controlled 

mixing valves

– Increased mo– Tighter tub to– Bubble action– Electric disas– Ozonated lau– Reduced the– Suds-saving– Ultrasonic wa– Steam washi– Improved ho

drum design
Market and 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• Should the Department consider different p

for commercial clothes washers? For what 

• Are the energy and water conservation leve

appropriate for characterizing the performacommercial clothes washers?

• Are there other technologies that can impro

clothes washer efficiency that DOE should technology options?

• Of the technology options listed on the pre

there any that DOE should not consider benot technologically feasible; are not practicmanufacture, install and service; have signimpact on the utility of the product to consadversely affect health or safety?
Market and 

Residential Dishwasher Produc

• On May 14, 1991, DOE established en

conservation standards for two producresidential dishwashers. The product cbased on the size of the dishwasher (aANSI/AHAM Standard DW-1).

– Compact, capacity less than eight plac

six serving pieces

– Standard, capacity equal to or greater t

settings plus six serving pieces

• The Department is considering using t

classes from this previous rulemaking rulemaking.
Market and 

Residential Dishwasher Baselin

• The minimum energy conservation sta

dishwashers, as measured by the ene(EF*) in cycles per kWh, became effec14, 1994.

– Compact = 0.62 EF– Standard = 0.46 EF

• The Department is considering using t

characterize the baseline models.

* Energy factor (EF) is the number of cycles per kilowatt-hour per year.
Market and 

Residential Dishwasher Technolo

Potential technology options to be conside

– Increased i– Flow-throug– Ultrasonic w– Variable wa

flow rates

– Variable-sp– Condenser – Fan/jet dryi

– Improved food filter– Improved spray-arm geometry– Improved fill control– Modified sump geometry with 

and without dual pumps 

– Microprocessor controls and 

fuzzy logic including adaptive or soil-sensing controls 

– Reduced inlet-water temperature– Increase motor efficiency
Market and 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• Should the Department consider different p

for dishwashers? For what reasons?

• Are the energy conservation levels identifie

for characterizing the performance of basedishwashers?

• Are there other technologies that can impro

efficiency that DOE should consider as tecoptions?

• Of the technology options listed on the pre

there any that DOE should not consider benot technologically feasible; are not practicmanufacture, install and service; have signimpact on the utility of the product to consadversely affect health or safety?
Market and 

Residential Dehumidifier Produ

• For dehumidifiers, EPACT 2005 establ

product classes based on the capacity measured in pints of water extracted p

– 25.00 pints/day or less– 25.01-35.00 pints/day– 35.01-45.00 pints/day– 45.01-54.00 pints/day– 54.01-74.99 pints/day– 75.00 pints/day or more

• The Department is considering using th

2005 product classes for their rulemak

Combined 
Market and 

Dehumidifier Capacity-Efficiency R

• An initial review of dehumidifier models in AHAM’s Directo

Dehumidifiers seems to show a correlation between efficie

AHAM Certified Dehumidifiers Compared with EPACT 2005 Stand

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

Capacity (pints/day)

Efficiency (liters/kWh)

AHAM Certified 
Market and 

Residential Dehumidifier Basel

• Because efficiency seems to be a function of c

Department plans to complete the engineering cost (LCC) analyses on the product class with percentage of shipments and then extrapolate product classes.

• The Department plans to use 35.01-45.00 pint

representative product class.

• The EPACT 2005 standard for this product cla

liters/kWh.

• The Department is considering using the EPAC

characterize the baseline model.
Market and 

Residential Dehumidifier Technolo

Potential technology options to be conside

– Improved compressor efficiency– Improved fan-motor efficiency– Improved fan efficiency– Improved evaporator performance– Improved condenser performance– Improved flow-control devices– Improved demand-defrost controls– Heat-pipe technology
Market and 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• Should the Department consider different produ

dehumidifiers? For what reasons?

• The Department seeks input on possible metho

extrapolating the standard levels and national imthe representative dehumidifier product class to product classes (e.g., maintaining relative increspecified in EPACT 2005 across product classe

• Is the energy conservation level identified appro

characterizing the performance of baseline dehu

• Are there other technologies that can improve d

efficiency that DOE should consider as technolo

• Of the technology options listed on the previous 

any that DOE should not consider because they technologically feasible; are not practicable to minstall and service; have significant adverse impof the product to consumers; or adversely affec
Market and 

Product Classes for Residential Electric C

• For electric cooking products, the Department is 

product classes based on the list of classes defits 1996 technical support document (TSD) for rcooking products.

– Electric Cooktops

• Low or high wattage open (coil) elements• Smooth elements• Grill with or without down draft feature• Griddle with or without down draft feature

– Electric Ovens

• Standard oven with or without catalytic line• Self-clean
Market and 

Product Classes for Residential Gas Co

• For gas cooking products, the Department is co

classes based on the list of classes defined by DTSD for residential cooking products.

– Gas Cooktops

• Conventional burners• Grill with or without down draft feature• Griddle with or without down draft feature• Warming/Simmer burners• Commercial type

– Gas Ovens

• Standard oven with or without catalytic line• Self-clean• Commercial type
Market and 

Product Classes for Residential Micro

• For microwave ovens, the Department is consid

product class, encompassing units with and withelements, as presented in DOE’s 1996 TSD for cooking products. 

• The 1996 TSD notes stakeholder comments req

additional product classes for residential microw

– Portable Microwave Only (cavity volume < 0.8 ft3)

– Portable Microwave Only (cavity volume of 0.8 to 

– Portable Microwave Only (cavity volume > 1.2 ft3)

– Portable Microwave/Thermal (convection)– Built-in (fixed)
Market and 

Electric Residential Cooking Product Ba

• The 1996 TSD for residential cooking products 

following baseline energy factors (EFs*) and cthe largest-selling electric product classes:

– Electric Cooktops, open (coil) elements = 0.737 EF

• Cooktop cooking efficiency = 73.7%; two 6-inch (1250 w

watt) elements

– Electric Cooktops, smooth elements = 0.742 EF

• Cooktop cooking efficiency = 74.2%; two 6-inch (1500 w

watt) solid disk elements

– Electric Ovens, standard with or without a catalytic lin

• Cooking efficiency = 12.15%; clock power = 3.9 watts; 2

insulation; 3.9 cu. ft. volume

– Electric Ovens, self-clean = 0.096 EF

• Cooking efficiency = 13.79%; clock power = 3.8 watts; 2

insulation; self-cleaning energy consumption = 5286 wat

– Microwave Ovens = 0.557 EF

• Cooking efficiency = 55.7%; input power = 1485 watts

* EF is a measure of overall cooking product efficiency. EF is expressed as a percent and is useful cooking energy output of the cooking appliance (energy conveyed to the item being energy consumption.
Market and 

Gas Residential Cooking Product Bas

• The 1996 TSD for residential cooking products 

following baseline energy factors (EFs*) and cthe largest-selling gas product classes:

– Gas Cooktops, conventional burners = 0.156 EF

• Cooktop cooking efficiency = 39.9%; four conven

burners, two 117 Btu/hr standing pilots

– Gas Ovens, standard with or without a catalytic 

• Cooking efficiency = 5.92%; 2" of 1.09 lb/cu. ft. in

pilot ignition = 175 Btu/hour; 3.9 cu. ft. volume

– Gas Ovens, self-clean = 0.054 EF

• Cooking efficiency = 7.13%; clock power = 3.6 wa

ft. insulation; electric ignition = 176 watt-hours; seconsumption = 43,158 Btu; 3.9 cu. ft. volume

* EF is a measure of overall cooking product efficiency. EF is expressed as a perannual useful cooking energy output of the cooking appliance (energy conveyed to its total annual energy consumption.
Market and 

Residential Gas Cooktop Technol

Potential technology options to be conside

– Reduce excess air at burner– Electronic ignition– Sealed burners– Reflective surfaces– Insulation– Thermostatically controlled burners*– Catalytic burners– Radiant gas burners*

* Indicates technology options for which the DOE test procedurmeasure efficiency improvements.
Market and 

Residential Electric Cooktop Techno

Potential technology options to be conside

• Open (coil) elements

– Improved contact 

conductance

– Reflective surfaces– Insulation– Electronic controls*

• Smooth el

– Induct– Haloge– Radian– Electro

* Indicates technology options for which the DOE test procedurefficiency improvements.
– No oven-door window*– Improved insulation– Added insulation**– Reduced vent rate†– Reduced conduction losses– Reflective surfaces– Forced convection

Residential Gas and Electric Oven Techn

– Oven separa– Improved do– Steam cooki– Bi-radiant ov– Halogen lam– Pilotless igni– Radiant burn

Market and 

* DOE dropped the “no oven-door window” option in 1996 due 

on consumer utility and safety.

** Not analyzed in 1996 over concerns of possible reduced cons† The 1996 TSD did not apply this option to self-clean ovens.

Potential technology options to be conside
Market and 

Residential Microwave Oven Techno

Potential technology options to be conside

– Added insulation– Reflective surfaces– Improve efficiency of fan – Improve efficiency of magnetron– Improve efficiency of power supply – Eliminate or improve ceramic stirrer cover– Modify wave guide– Dual magnetrons
Market and 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• Should the Department consider different p

for cooking products? For what reasons?

• Are the efficiency levels identified appropri

characterizing the performance of baseline products?

• Are there other technologies that can impro

product efficiency that DOE should consideoptions?

• Of the technology options listed on the pre

there any that DOE should not consider benot technologically feasible; are not practicmanufacture, install and service; have signimpact on the utility of the product to consadversely affect health or safety?
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Purpose

• The engineering analysis characterizes 

relationship between manufacturer cosefficiency. 

Rulem

• Life-Cy

Paybac

• Manufa• Employ

Cost - Efficiency Relationship

Incremental 

Manufacturing Cost

Efficiency
Methodology

Õ Determine efficiency levels for colle

cost data.

Õ Collect incremental cost data, brok

labor, and overhead costs.

Õ Conduct manufacturer interviews to 

understanding of the various combtechnologies used to increase prod

Õ Document the technologies associa

efficiency level.

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

Establish

Efficiency

Levels

Analytical 

Report

Data 

CollectionFollow-Up

Manufacturer 

Interviews
Establish Efficiency Lev

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

• Determine the baseline model effici• Identify the maximum technological

efficiency levels

• Determine the intermediate efficien

on available products on the markevoluntary initiatives, and consideratperformance of design options cons

Analytical 

Report

Data

Collection

Follow-Up 

Manufacturer

Interviews
Data Collection

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

• The Department seeks to obtain inc

for each of the four products.

Analytical 

Report

Data

Collection

Follow-Up 

Manufacturer

Interviews
Follow-Up Manufact

u

r

e

r Inte

Est

ablish 

Efficiency

Lev

els

Est

ablish 

Efficiency

Lev

els

• Inte

rviews will help understand and 

of imp

roved 

efficiency. Example q

u

–

What are the t

ypical compo

n

e

nts of 

–

What design features are ne

eded to 

the baseline u

nit to a specified high

are the costs of these components?

–

What are the fundamental differenc

design changes that make the cost for some product class/sizes than o

–

What capital conversion inv

estment

each efficie

n

c

y level? What is the n

investments?

A

nal

ytical 

Report

Data

Collection

Foll

o

w-Up 

Manufacturer

Int

ervie

w

s
Analytical Report

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

• Document the technologies, and the

used to achieve each efficiency leve

• Compare new estimates of improve

market and technology assessment 

• Document any discrepancies betwe

technology assessment informationinformation from manufacturer inter

Analytical 

Report

Data

Collection

Follow-Up 

Manufacturer

Interviews
Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• The Department requests feedback 

proposed approach for conducting engineering analysis.
Establish Efficiency Lev

Õ Determine efficiency levels for colle

cost data.

Õ Collect incremental cost data, brok

labor, and overhead costs.

Õ Conduct manufacturer interviews to 

understanding of the various combtechnologies used to increase prod

Õ Document the technologies associa

efficiency level.

Establish 

Efficiency

Levels

Establish

Efficiency

Levels

Analytical 

Report

Data 

CollectionFollow-Up

Manufacturer 

Interviews
Commercial Clothes Was

• For the purposes of analyzing the cost-efficiency relat

commercial clothes washers, the Department is considlevels.

• The Department seeks input on the levels for collecting d

appropriate maximum technologically feasible efficiency Department also invites comment on suggested MEF an

Efficiency Level Level Efficiency Level Source MEF Wat

baseline DOE Standard (effective 2007) 1.26 

1 CEE Tier 1 1.42 2 CEE Tier 2 1.60 3 2007 ENERGY STAR 1.72 4 CEE Tier 3A 1.80 5 CEE Tier 3B 1.80 6 Max Available 2.79 

* The MEF and WF are not from the same clothes washer. The clothes washer with an ME

water factor of 6.0 and the clothes washer with a water factor of 3.5 has an MEF of 2.48. ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers as of February 7, 2006.
Residential Dishwashe

• For the purposes of analyzing the cost-efficiency relat

residential dishwashers, the Department is considering levels.

• The Department seeks input on the levels for colle

appropriate maximum technologically feasible effi

Efficiency Level (cycles

Level Efficiency Level Source

Compact S

baseline DOE Standard 0.62 

1 ENERGY STAR (scaled for compact) 0.78 2 CEE Tier 1 (scaled for compact) 0.84 3 2007 ENERGY STAR 0.88 4 CEE Tier 2 (scaled for compact) 0.92 5 Gap Fill 1.01 6 Gap Fill 1.08 7 Max Available 1.74* 

* Source: Oregon Department of Energy, Tax Credit Qualifying Dishwashers Feb. 2006.** Source: ENERGY STAR qualified dishwashers as of February 8, 2006.
Residential Dehumidifie

• For the purposes of analyzing the cost-efficiency 

residential dehumidifiers, the Department is consefficiency levels.

• The Department seeks input on the levels for 

and the appropriate maximum technologically efficiency level.

Efficiency Levels (

Level Efficiency Level Source 35.01–45.00 pin

baseline DOE Standard (effective 2007) 1.30

1 Between DOE and Default 2012 Standard 1.352 Default 2012 Standard (EPACT 2005) 1.403 Between Default 2012 Standard and Max Available 1.504 Max Available* 1.74

* Source: ENERGY STAR qualified dehumidifiers as of November 28, 2005.
Residential Gas Cookto

• For the purposes of analyzing the cost-efficien

for residential gas cooktops, the Department is efficiency levels. 

• The Department seeks input on the levels f

data and the appropriate maximum technolefficiency level.

Efficiency Level 

Level Efficiency Level Source Conventional bu

Baseline 1996 TSD (with standing pilots) 0.156

1 1996 TSD (without standing pilots) 0.3992 Max Tech (1996 TSD) 0.420
Residential Electric Cook

•

For the p

urpo

s

e

s of analyzing the cost-ef

ficien

for residential elect

ric coo

k

tops, the Dep

artme

three efficiency levels. 

• The Departm

ent seeks input on the levels f

data and appropriate 

m

aximum technologic

effic

iency levels.

Efficie

n

c

y L

e

v

el (EF)

Le

v

el E

fficien

c

y Lev

el

Sourc

e

Low or hi

g

h

w

attage o

p

e

n (coil)

eleme

nts

Smooth 

b

aselin

e 1996 T

S

D

0.7

3

7 0

1 1996 T

S

D/ C

alculate

d 0.7

5

3

0

2 1996 T

S

D/ C

alculate

d 0.7

6

9

0

3

Max T

ech (1996 

T

S

D) 0.7

7

7

0
Residential Gas Ovens

• For the purposes of analyzing the cost-efficien

for residential gas ovens, the Department is coefficiency levels. 

• The Department seeks input on the levels f

data and appropriate maximum technologicefficiency levels.

Efficiency Leve

Level Efficiency Level Source Standard oven with

or without catalytic 

line

S

baseline 1996 TSD* 0.030 

1 1996 TSD** 0.058 2 1996 TSD 0.062 3 Max Tech (1996 TSD) 0.065 

* For standard oven product class, baseline efficiency level assumes the inclusion of a stan** For standard oven product class, first efficiency level assumes the elimination of the stand
Residential Electric Ove

•

For the p

urpo

s

e

s of analyzing the cost-ef

ficien

for residential elect

ric ovens, the Department i

three efficiency levels. 

• The Departm

ent seeks input on the levels f

data and appropriate 

m

aximum technologic

effic

iency levels.

Efficie

n

c

y L

e

v

el (EF)

Le

v

el E

fficien

c

y Lev

el

Sourc

e

Standar

d o

v

e

n

with

or without catal

ytic 

line

S

elf-cle

ba

s

eline 19

9

6 T

S

D

0.107

0.

1 1996 T

S

D

0.111 0.

2 1996 T

S

D

0.118 0.

3

Max T

ech (1996 

T

S

D) 0.1

8

0 0.
Residential Microwave Ov

•

For the p

urpo

s

e

s of analyzing the cost-ef

ficien

for residential microwave 

o

vens, the Departme

four efficiency levels. 

• The Departm

ent seeks input on the levels f

data and the appropriate maximum technoleffic

iency level.

Le

v

el Efficie

n

c

y L

e

v

el S

ource Efficie

n

c

y L

e

v

el 

b

aselin

e 1996 T

S

D

0.5

5

7

1 1996 T

S

D

0.5

8

6

2 1996 T

S

D

0.5

8

8

3 1996 T

S

D

0.5

9

7

4

Max T

ech (1996 

T

S

D) 0.6

0

2
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Energy and Water Use

• The Department needs annual energy 

consumption data reflecting actual use cycle cost and payback period analysis annual operating costs.

• DOE will develop average energy and 

values.

– For dishwashers and cooking products, t

have recently been updated—average tevalues may already reflect actual consum

• DOE also will investigate variability.
Commercial Clothes Was

• The Department requests per-cycle energy and water use 

Efficiency Level Energy Use 

Level

Efficiency Level

Source MEF

1.261.421.601.721.801.802.79

Water Factor Hot Water M

9.59.58.58.07.55.53.5

baseline DOE Standard*

1 CEE Tier 12 CEE Tier 23 2007 ENERGY STAR 4 CEE Tier 3A5 CEE Tier 3B6 Max Available

* Provide the clothes container volume in cubic feet.

• Convert per-cycle values into annual values using cyc

– Multi-Housing: Multi-housing Laundry Association (MLA

sources to establish cycles/day (1-11 cycles/day).

– Laundromats: Coin Laundry Association (CLA) provides – DOE may need to investigate other establishments with 

facilities.
Dishwashers

• The Department requests per-cycle energy and water use 

Efficiency Level (cycles/kWh) Energy Use 

Level

Efficiency Level

Source Compact

0.620.780.840.880.921.011.081.74

Standard Hot Water Ma

0.460.580.620.650.680.750.801.11

baseline DOE Standard*

1 ENERGY STAR2 CEE Tier 13 2007 ENERGY STAR4 CEE Tier 25 Gap Fill6 Gap Fill7 Max Available

• Convert per-cycle values into annual values usin

representative of actual use

– DOE test procedure establishes a use of 215 cyc
Dehumidifiers

• Determine daily energy use from capacity an

– Efficiency level: water removed per unit ener– Capacity: water removed per day (pints/day)– Daily energy use = Capacity ÷ Efficiency

• Determine annual energy use from daily use 

operating hours.

– Operating hours per year not well defined.– DOE 2003 priority-setting activities used 970 – Shipments data indicate predominant use in 

• With weather data may provide an indication 
Cooking Products

•

Annual energy con

s

u

mption determined fro

m En

and Annual Useful Coo

king Energy Output (Outp

–

Annual Energ

y Use = Outputuseful ÷ E

F

–

DOE test procedure modifie

d in 1997 to reflect mo

Ouputuseful values.

–

Conve

ntional cooking products: Outputuseful 55–6

values i

n original test procedure.

–

Micro

w

ave ovens: Outputus

eful

~125% higher than 

A

n

n

ual Useful Cooking Energ

y Output

Product T

ype Original Current Ba

s

eline E

94

7.5

16

0.7

27

7.7

47.134.2

527.

6

88.8

173.1

29.379.8

G

AS (

k

Btu/

year)

Cookt

ops 0.1

6

0.0

3

0.7

4

0.1

0

0.5

6

O

vens

ELECTRIC (

kWh/

yr)

Cookt

ops

O

vens

Microwave O

ven 
Gas Cooktops

• The Department requests cooking efficiency for e

level and standing pilot data for the baseline unit.

Efficie

Level Efficiency Level Source

Conve

baseline 1996 TSD (with standing pilots)* 

1 1996 TSD (without standing pilots) 2 Max Tech (1996 TSD) 

* Provide the number of standing pilots for the baseline cooktop and the input rate (Btu/hr) per 
Standard Gas Ovens

• For standard gas ovens, the Department requests co

electrical test energy consumption for each efficiency pilot data for the baseline unit.

Efficiency Level (EF)

Level Efficiency Level Source Cooking Efficiency (Eff) Standing 

Input R

(Btu/h

2 1996 TSD 0.062 NA

Standard oven with or

without catalytic line

baseline 1996 TSD 0.030*

1 1996 TSD 0.058**

0.065

NA

3 Max Tech (1996 TSD) NA

* For standard oven product class, baseline efficiency level assumes: (1) inclusion of a standing p

electrical energy consumption.

** For standard oven product class, first efficiency level assumes the elimination of the standing pil# Electrical test energy consumption as measured by DOE test procedure. Includes electrical ene

other electrical energy use.
Self-Cleaning Gas Oven

• For self-cleaning gas ovens, the Department requests co

cleaning energy consumption, electrical test energy conspower for each efficiency level.

Efficiency Level (EF) Cooking Efficiency/Energy Use S

Level Efficiency Level Source Self-Cleaning Cooking Efficiency

(Eff)

Electrical Test

Energy Use 

(kWh/yr)#

Ga

(B

baseline 1996 TSD 0.054

0.062

2 1996 TSD 0.063

0.065

1 1996 TSD3 Max Tech (1996 TSD)

# Electrical test energy consumption as measured by DOE test procedure. Includes electrical energy use 

cleaning electrical energy use.
Standard Electric Oven

• For standard electric ovens, the Department reque

efficiency and clock power for each efficiency leve

Efficiency Level (EF)

Level Efficiency Level Source Cooking Efficienc

(Eff) 

2 1996 TSD 0.118

Standard oven with or

without catalytic line

baseline 1996 TSD 0.107

1 1996 TSD 0.1113 Max Tech (1996 TSD) 0.180
Self-Cleaning Electric Ov

• For self-cleaning electric ovens, the Department reque

efficiency, self-cleaning energy consumption per cyclefor each efficiency level.

Efficiency Level (EF)

Level Efficiency Level Source Cooking Efficiency (Eff) Self-C

Consum

(Wa

2 1996 TSD 0.136

Self-Cleaning

baseline 1996 TSD 0.096

1 1996 TSD 0.1333 Max Tech (1996 TSD) 0.137
Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• The Department seeks stakeholder inp

approaches proposed for specifying thannual energy and water consumption. importantly, the Department is interesteof data that can assist in characterizing per year for commercial clothes washeannual energy consumption of dehumi

• The Department seeks stakeholder inp

sources that it can use to characterize in annual energy and water consumptiothe four products.
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Equipm

Markups for Equipment Price De

• The Department uses markups to convert manuf

the engineering analysis into consumer retail pric

• DOE needs retail prices for the life-cycle cost an

analysis.

• DOE must characterize distribution channels for 

– DOE understands that over 93% percent of consu

distributed from manufacturers directly to retailers

– Distributors or wholesalers distribute commercial 

laundromats; Route operators distribute to multi-f

• DOE develops markups for each party involved i

distribution.

• U.S. Census Bureau provides data for calculating • DOE may collect retail price data for validation p• DOE will investigate the variability of retail prices
Equipm

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• The Department welcomes suggestions 

comments concerning its proposed appdevelop estimates of retail prices.
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Per

• Effect of increased efficiency standards on lifetim

expense savings compared to the increase in pu

• Approach

– Calculate average LCC savings and PBPs from a– Analyze variability with sensitivities using high an
LCC and PBP Analy

sis In

Baseline

Manufacturer

Price

Std-Level

Manufacturer

Price

Sales Tax

Installation

Cost

Total Installed

Cost

Energy and

Water Prices

 Energy and

Water Use

Equipment

Price

Annual Ener

g

y

and Water

Expense

Lifeti

me

Repair C

ost

Discount Rate

Maintenance

Cost Energy and

Water Price

Trends

Annual

O

perating

Expense

Paybac

Period

Consumer

Retail Price

Markup

From

Engineering

Analysis

(Price is a

functi

on of

Efficiency)

From

Markups for

Equipment

Price

Determination

From Energy

and Water

Use

Analysis(Use is a

function of

Efficiency)
Energy and Water Price

• Determine energy prices from DOE-Energy 

Administration (EIA) data.

• Determine water and wastewater prices from 

Works Association (AWWA)/Raftelis Financidata.

• DOE will analyze variability using high and lo

estimates.

• DOE will base energy price forecasts on EIA

Outlook.

• DOE will base water price forecasts on histo• The Department seeks input on the propo

approaches for estimating current and foenergy and water prices.
Discount Rates

• DOE uses discount rates (DR) to discount fu

costs savings.

• DR for residential products – DOE will use s

as for other residential product standards ru

– Derived from estimates of the “finance cost” 

residential products.

• DR for commercial clothes washers – DOE w

approach as for other commercial product strulemakings.

– Derived from estimates of the cost of capital 

purchase commercial clothes washers.

• The Department seeks input on the propo

approaches for estimating discount rates and commercial consumers.
Maintenance, Repair, Installati

•

DOE assumes that increases in maintenanc

costs are negligible for more-efficient produc

•

DOE assumes that increases in installation c

negligible for more-efficient products.

–

Exceptions a

re gas coo

king p

roducts t

hat req

efficiency increases requiring ele

ctri

city may 

outlets to be ins

talled.

• The Department seeks inp

ut on whether i

assume tha

t, with the exception of gas co

changes in maintenance, repair, and instwill be negligible for m

ore-efficie

n

t produ
Product Lifetimes

• Past DOE analyses have used the follow

– Commercial Clothes Washers: 10 years– Dishwashers: 13 years– Dehumidifiers: 11 years– Cooking Products

• Conventional: 19 years• Microwave Ovens: 10 years

• The Department seeks input on product l

products of interest to this rulemaking.
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Shipments Analysis

• Required to calculate national impacts fr• Required to calculate future cashflows of 
Base Case Forecast

• The base case forecast: 

– Depicts the situation where new standards a– Serves as a reference point from which to ev

impacts of standards

– Forecast accounts for products going to repla

and those going to new construction

• For dehumidifiers, forecasts may need to acc

to existing households that do not already ha

• Data needed to develop base case forec

– Historical shipments– Historical shipment-weighted average efficie– Market share efficiencies
• The Department requests historical shipments and shipment-w

Shipments, Domestic + Imports Shipment-Weighted Av

(Thousands of Units) Year (EF or MEF) 

199019912004

Base C

Commercial Clothes Was

Market Share (percent) 

2003 2004 

< 4.0: Max Available = 4.0-6.0: CEE Tier 3B = 6.1-7.5: CEE Tier 3A = 7.6-8.0: 2007 E. STAR 8.1-8.5: CEE Tier 2 = 88.6-9.5: CEE Tier 1 = 98.6-9.5: Baseline = 9.5< 9.5

Efficiency Bins (Wate

> 1.89: Max Available = 2.791.80-1.89: CEE Tier 3B =1.801.80-1.89: CEE Tier 3A =1.801.70-1.79: 2007 E. STAR =1.721.60-1.69: CEE Tier 2 = 1.601.30-1.59: CEE Tier 1 = 1.421.20-1.29: Baseline = 1.26< 1.20

Efficiency Bins (MEF) 2002

• The Department requests market share efficien
• The Department requests historical shipments and shipment-w

Shipments, Domestic + Imports (Thousands of Units) Shipment-Weighte

Year Standard Compact Standard 

199019912004

Base C

Dishwashers

• The Department requests market share efficien

Standard C

Market Share (percent) 

2003 2004 

> 1.09: Max Available = 1.71.05-1.09: Gap Fill = 1.080.95-1.04: Gap Fill = 1.010.90-0.94: CEE Tier 2 = 0.90.85-0.89: 2007 E. STAR = 0.80-0.84: CEE Tier 1 = 0.80.65-0.79: E. STAR = 0.780.60-0.64: Baseline = 0.62Efficiency Bins (EF) 

> 0.84: Max Available = 1.110.80-0.84: Gap Fill = 0.800.70-0.79: Gap Fill = 0.750.68-0.69: CEE Tier 2 = 0.680.65-0.67: 2007 E. STAR = 0.650.60-0.64: CEE Tier 1 = 0.620.50-0.59: E. STAR = 0.580.45-0.49: Baseline = 0.46

Efficiency Bins (EF) 2002
• The Department requests historical shipments and shipment-w

Shipments, Domestic + Imports (Thousands of Units) Shipment-Weighte

≤ 25.00

25.01-

35.00 ≤ 25.00

25.01-

35.00

35.0

45.

35.01-

45.00

45.01-

Year 54.00

54.01-

74.99

≥75.00 

199019912004

Base C

Dehumidifiers

≤ 25.00 pints/day 25.01-3

Market Share (percent) 

2003 2004 

> 1.45: Max Available = 11.40-1.44: Mid Point 2 = 11.30-1.39: EPACT 2005 = 1.25-1.29: Mid Point 1 = 11.20-1.24: Baseline = 1.20< 1.20Efficiency Bins (EF) 

> 1.37: Max Available = 1.381.30-1.37: Mid Point 2 = 1.301.20-1.29: EPACT 2005 = 1.201.10-1.19: Mid Point 1 = 1.101.00-1.09: Baseline = 1.00< 1.00

2002 Efficiency Bins (EF)

• The Department requests market share efficien

• The Department is requesting the same data for other 
Base C

Cooking Products

• The Department requests historical shipments data.

GAS COOKING PRODUCTS: Shipments, Domestic + Imports (T

Free-Standing Ranges Built-In Ovens

Standard Standard 

Year Pilot No Pilot Self-Clean Pilot No Pilot Self-Cl

199019912004

ELECTRIC COOKING PRODUCTS: Shipments, Domestic + Import

Year

Free-Standing Ranges Built-In Ovens 

Coil/Std Coil/SC Smooth/Std Smooth/SC SC 

200419911990

Std
Approach – Accounting Meth

• This approach accounts for products going t

units and those going to new construction

– For dehumidifiers, may need to account for u

existing buildings that do not already have th

• EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook provides forec

construction.

• DOE needs historical saturation rates to pro

for existing stock of products.

– Data provided by industry and government p

residential products.

– Data needed for commercial clothes washers

• The Department seeks data on represent

saturation rates for each of the four prodconsideration for this rulemaking.
Shipments Anal

Standards Impacts on Product S

• DOE develops Standards Case Forecasts from t

used to develop the Base Case Forecast.

• Standards Case Forecasts also use purchase pr

operating cost savings to estimate shipments imp

• It is difficult to obtain data showing sensitivity of s

purchase price and operating costs.

– DOE may forecast Standards Case shipments for

scenarios (i.e., specific percentage drops in annuparticular efficiency levels).

• The Department will consider impacts from mark• As part of its preliminary manufacturer impact a

Department will seek input on the potential impenergy conservation standards on product shipDepartment also requests input on any market-pthat currently exist to promote the adoption of mproducts.
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
National Impact Anal

y

s

•

Determines Standards Case national energy 

and national consumer e

conomic impacts re

Case.

•

Approach – Take individual consumer impac

standards and aggregate them to the nation

•

Analysis relies on inputs fro

m prior analyses

–

shipme

nts; retail prices; ener

g

y and 

w

ater s

avings

prices; repair & maintenance c

osts; product lifetim

•

DOE calculates consumer economic impacts 

value (NPV).

– Difference b

etw

een n

ational operating cost saving

equipment e

x

penditur

e

s

•

DOE will use a spreadsheet model to determ

impacts.
Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• The Department seeks input on its plan 

NES spreadsheet models for estimating impacts of amended energy conservati
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup A

• Determine LCC impacts from standards 

consumer subgroups that may be disproimpacted by new standards.

• Possible subgroups for residential produ

low-income households and senior citize

• Possible subgroups for commercial cloth

include small businesses (e.g., laundromlandlord-owned apartment buildings).
Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• The Department requests input on wha

subgroups are appropriate for commerwashers and residential dishwashers, dand cooking products.
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Manu

Manufacturer Impact Ana

• Purpose 

– To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers – To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub

more severely impacted than the industry as a whole

– To examine the impact of cumulative regulatory burde

• Method

– Analyze industry cash flow and net present value thro

Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)

– Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, 

analyses, and address qualitative issues

• Output

– Industry Net Present Value impacts– Subgroup Net Present Value impacts– Other impacts
Manu

Legislative Requiremen

• The Manufacturers Impact Analysis (MIA) fulfills a legislat

determine if a proposed standard is economically justified

– The Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) provides seven 

determining whether an appliance efficiency standard [energy is justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) Two of these factors consider the economic impact of standards on manufacturers 

lessening of competition in the industry. Both of these factors the manufacturer impact analysis. 

– DOE will provide the Attorney General with a copy of the NOP

the evaluation of the impact of standards on the lessening of 

– The Department published Procedures, Interpretations and P

of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consu“process rule”), 10 CFR 430, Subpart C, Appendix A. The proprinciples for the analysis of regulatory impacts on manufactu

– Recently, the Department announced changes to the manufa

format through a report issued to Congress on January 31, 20section 141 of EPACT 2005). Under this new format, DOE wreport preliminary manufacturer impact analysis information in preliminary information includes the anticipated conversion caefficiency level and the corresponding, anticipated impacts on 
Manu

Methodology

• The MIA consists of three main phases 

ANOPR 

Industryprofile

Developstraw-man GRIM*

Developinterview guide

Interv

& in

wid

sub

analy

Phase 1 Phase 2 

PreliminaryMIAInterviews

* Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM)
Manu

Phase 1

• Phase 1 consists of the industry profile and pre

manufacturer impact analysis interviews.

Industry Profile Industry Profile Preliminary Preliminary 

» Occurs during 

analysis

» Topics include

» Shipment p» Conversion » Product mi» Market sha

consolidatio

» Cumulative 

» Occurs during t

analysis

» Topics include:

» Shipment pr» Conversion » Product mix » Market shar

consolidatio

» Cumulative 

» Evaluation of current and past

industry structure and marketcharacteristics

» Produce an industry profile report

with aggregated findings and characteristics

» Identify critical issues that require

special consideration in the MIA, forexample:

» Types or groups of manufacturers» Access to technology» Potential regulatory scenarios

» Evaluation of current and past

industry structure and marketcharacteristics

» Produce an industry profile report

with aggregated findings and characteristics

» Identify critical issues that require

special consideration in the MIA, forexample:

» Types or groups of manufacturers» Access to technology» Potential regulatory scenarios
Manu

Phase 2

• Phase 2 consists of the straw-man GRIM and 

preparation.

Stra Straww-man GRIM -man GRIM Interview G

Interview Gu

» Interview topic

» Engineering » Shipments m» Cost structur» Conversion c» Cumulative b» Direct emplo» Import / Expo» Consolidatio» Replacemen» Impact of the 

» Interview topics 

» Engineering a» Shipments mo» Cost structure » Conversion co» Cumulative b» Direct employ» Import / Expo» Consolidation » Replacement » Impact of the 

» Starting point for discussion of 

impacts

» Inputs include:

» Manufacturer prices» Shipment forecasts» Manufacturing cost estimates» Financial information

» Starting point for discussion of 

impacts

» Inputs include:

» Manufacturer prices» Shipment forecasts» Manufacturing cost estimates» Financial information
Manu

Phase 3

• Phase 3 consists of the manufacturer interview

analyses, and assessment of industry impacts

MaManufacturer Interviews nufacturer Interviews

» Confidential discussion of potential 

impacts resulting from standards, including:

» Obsolescence of existing manufacturing assets» Tooling» Investment

» Confidential discussion of potential 

impacts resulting from standards, including:

» Obsolescence of existing manufacturing assets» Tooling» Investment

AAssessm

ssessme

» Assess compe

smaller, signifi

» Assess cumula

on manufacturDOE standardactions

» Assess impact

employment le

» Assess impact

subgroups

» Assess compet

smaller, signific

» Assess cumula

on manufactureDOE standards actions

» Assess impacts 

employment lev

» Assess impacts 

subgroups
Manu

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• What procedures should the Departme

scheduling interviews and requesting i

• What are appropriate manufacturer sub

each of the four products?

• What regulations or pending regulation

Department consider in the manufacturanalysis?
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Utility Impact Analysis

• This analysis will estimate effects on elec

gas utility industries of reduced energy snew energy efficiency standards.

• The Department will use a variant of EIA

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) called estimate impacts.

• Results are similar to what is found in EI

Energy Outlook.
Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• The Department seeks input on its prop

NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact 
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Emp

Employment Impact Anal

• Estimate indirect employment impacts th

standards.

– The Department estimates direct employ

in the manufacturer impact analysis.

• DOE will use PNNL’s ‘Impact of Sector E

Technologies’ (ImSET) model.

– Estimates the employment and income e

energy-saving technologies in buildings, transportation.
Emp

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• Is this an acceptable approach to asses

employment impacts?
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
En

Environmental Assessm

• This assessment estimates the impact o

three types of energy-related emissions: dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 

dioxide (SO2). 

• The Department will use NEMS-BT to es

emissions impacts from power plants.

• DOE will carry out a separate analysis to 

building emissions from gas-fired appliancooking products and water heating for dand commercial clothes washers).
En

Issues on Which DOE Seeks C

• Are there any other environmental fact

Department should consider in this rule
Workshop Content

1 Introduction

9 Shipments A

2

A

nal

ytical M

ethodolo

g

y 10 National Imp

3 Mar

ket and Technolo

g

y

Assess

m

ent 11 Life-C

y

cle C

4 Screening A

nal

y

sis 12 Manufacture

5 Engineering A

nal

y

sis 13 Utility Impac

6 Energ

y and Wat

er U

s

e 14 Emplo

yment 

7 Mar

kups for Equipment Price 

Determi

n

ation 15 Environmen

8 Life-C

y

cle Cost and Pay

back P

eriod 

An

alysis 16

R

egulator

y I
Re

Regulatory Impact Analy

• This analysis estimates the potential for 

approaches to supplant or augment efficstandards to improve product efficiency.

• The Department will evaluate past, exist

expected non-regulatory programs.