# 2002 Priority Setting for Standards and Test Procedure Rulemakings under Existing Legislation

October 

## 30,2001

## FISCAL 2002 PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS The enclosed data sheets reflect the priorities proposed forFiscal Year 2002 by the Department of Energy, Office ofBuilding Research and Standards. The Office requests comments onthe data sheets and the proposed priorities and schedules. These proposed priorities arebased onthe presumption that the Lighting and Appliance Standards Program will be fknded at its requested level for the fiscal year 2002. Final priorities will be based on the Department's consideration of comments received and funds available. Oncemlemakings are completed lowpriority actions will be added to the highlmedium priority lists. Written comments should be submitted by November 20,2001, to the 

## U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW,Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, Attn: Michael Raymond, EE-41, orby e-mail at Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. 

## If you have any questions, please contact Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611.

### Table 

### ofContents

'Dropsto Low Pnonty upon completion 

### * Frnal Rules forthese products have been recently publzshed Product Comr~iercial Arr Cooled Central NC& Air Sour~e HP, 65-240kBtwh Central NC& HP, 3 phase, < 65kBtuih Clothea Dryers
Clothes Washers Comt~ier~ldl Water-Cooled AIC &WaterSource Heat Purlips Commercial A'C & HP (all types & sizes) CornmercralFurnaces Cominercral Oil and Gas-Flred Packaged Boilers Cotnrnerclal 1-urnaces Cornme~clal Water Heaters Cookirig Products
Dlrect Heating Equrpment, Gas
Dishwashers
DistnbutionTransforn~ers
Electrlc Motors 1-200HP
Fiuoresceiit Lamp Ballasts* Rulemdklng Standards Standards Standards Test Piocedure Standards* Test Procedure* Standards Test Procedure Standards Standards Test Procedure Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards fect Procedure' Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards Test Procedure Prrorlty Hlgh Mediun

Low Low Low Low Low Hrgh Low Mediuni

Low High Low High Low Low Low Low Low Hrgli Hrgh Low OH Low Low Page I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 Rulemalng Determ~nation Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure Standards Standards Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards* Test Standards' Test Procedure' Test Procedure Standards Test Procedure* Standards* Test Procedure* Standards* Test Procedure Standards Determ~nat~on Test Procedure Product Hrgh Intensity Discharge Lamps Lamps, Fluorescent Lamps, Inca~~descent General Service Lmaps, incandescent Reflector Packaged Terminal A/C & Heat Pumps PlumbrngFrxtures/F~ttings Pool Heaters, Gas Refrigerators
Resrdential Central AIC & HP
Res Central NC&HP -Ductless Splrt ReslderltidlFurnaces and Borlers
Residentral Water Heaters
Room ArCondrtior~ers Tankless Gas Flred Instantaneous Water Heater Standards Small Electnc Motors Pr~or~ty Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Hrgh Low Low Low Low Low Low-Med for Compacts HI& High Medrum

Hlgh Low Low Low Low Low Medium

Hrgh Low Page 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

## Summary of Priorities Standards and Determinations (Dl High Priority Products Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Alr-Source Heat Pumps, 65-240kBtuIh Distribution Transformers Packaged Termlnal Air Condltioners and Heat Pumps Residential Central ACIHP' Residential Furnaces and Boilers Small Electric Motors (D) Medium Priority Products Central Air Condltioners and Heat Pumps, 3 Phase, <65 kBt~d1i Commerc1alOi1and Gas-Flred Packaged Boilers Tankless Gas-Fired Iiistantaneous Water Heaters Low Priority Products



# I Commercial Furnaces 

# 1 12 

# 1 / Distribution Transformers 

# 1 22 

# 1 Test Procedures

Page

1 21 3 5 42 45 52 

### 2 10 5

### 1

High Priority Products Commercial A/C and Heat Pumps Commercial Water Heaters 

### Dishwashers' Low Priority Products (cont.) Commercial Furnaces* Commercial Water Heaters* Cooklng Products Direct Heating Equipment, Gas Dishwashers Electnc Motors, 1-200 HP Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts* High Intensity Discharge Lamps (D) Lamps, Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent General Servlce Lamps, Incandescent Reflector PlumbingFixtureslFittlngs Pool Heaters, Gas

Residentla1 Central A/C and Heat Pump' 

# I Ductless Solit Central ACJHP 

# 1 44 

# 1 I Plumbiiig FixturesIFittings* 

# 1 37 

# 1 Page



### 9 13 15 17 19 23 25 Comm

27 29 3

### 1 3

### 3 36 3

### 8

Page

18 page 

# I

8 

# 1 14 20 Medium Priority Products Compact Refrigerators Low Priority Products (cont.) Direct Heating Equipment, Gas*
43 Electnc Motors, 1-200 HP* Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
41 Low Priority Products 24 26 High Illtensity Discharge Lamps Lamps, Fluorescent*
Clothes Dryers Clothes Washers* 

# 1 Cooking Products* 

# 1 16 

# 1 

# I Small Electric Motors 

## ' Drops to Low Priorityupon Completion 

### * Final Rules for these products have been recentlypublished. 28 3 0 Lamps, Incandescent General Service* Lamps, Incandescent Reflector* Pool Heaters, Gas Refi-iaerators Cominercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers 32 34 39 4 1 4 

### 6 11 Residential Furnaces and Boilers* Residential Water Heaters* Room Air Conditioners 50 46 48

# Standards Product: Commercial Air-Cooled Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps, 65-240 kBtu/h Priority: High

Potential Economic 0.4 (estimated NPV, billions of $1998) BenefitsJBurdens Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cuniulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 Potential Environn~ental or Carbon emissions reduction -est. 

### 7 million tons. Energy Security Benefits 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Status ofRequired Changes 

# 1 DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in 0.50' (to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels)

to Test Procedures

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence 

### ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues



## ....................................................... FY 2001 Priority Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate rulemaking in FY 2002. 

### .................................................... 

### ........................................................................................................................................ Rationale for Priority Level Energy savings are significant. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999,which would save an estimated 2.2 quads from 2005-2030. DOE will considerhigher standards for 

### .?dd!Li.?n?!.sn:!~x.??!!fig?: 

## ............................................................................................ High



# ' Based on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65FR 30929.

# Standards Product: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 3 phase, 

### <65 kBtu1h Priority: Medium

BenefitslBurdens 

# I ............................................................................................................................................................................................ SEER 12 = 1.1 

### (NPV, billions of $1998) Potential Environn~ental 

### or Carbon emissions reduction: SEER 12 =34million tons, SEER 13=43million 

# 1 Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004 

## - 2030 Potential Economic SEER 13standard level =2.91' SEER 12standard level = 2.17'



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. SEER 13 = (0.7) (NPV,billions of $1998)

Issues Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999. Efficiencies 

### ofthese 

# I Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency tons 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. DOE plans topublish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR early in 

### FY 2002. Seepage 

### 8. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Possible State and regional environmental regulation (e.g. air quality). 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................

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

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

### FY 2001 Priority products were left unchanged. sinilk-phase products are regulated by NAECA, and it is desirable to have the same standards for single and three phase products. A DOE rulemaking is inp~ogress for single phase products. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................... Medium



# ' Based on Screening Analysis Report for 

### Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOEplans to initiate rulemaking for three phase equipment when rulemaking for residential (single phase)products iscompleted. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................... Energy savings are significant.

# Standards Product: Clothes Dryers 

## - (GasIElectric) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

## -

to Test Procedures oroduct class for condensing drvers. Heat Pump Elec. Dryer (5.2 

### EF) =3S3 Microwave Elec. Dryer 

### (3.4 EF) = 1.03 Modulating Gas Dryer (3.8 EF) =0.293 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Otl~er Regulatory Actions 

# I DOE regulation ofclothes washers.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by There appears tobe a general consensus among stakeholders that updating clothes Best Available Gas Dryer (2.8 EF) =0.063 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not available



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not available

Interested Parties dryer standards should be given lowpriority. or Voluntary Efficiency 

# I which are likely to have improved moisture extraction. 

# I New electric drvers advertise 30% reduction in energy usage, Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

# I Low 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Significant dryer savings potential has been considered in clothes washer rulemaking (greater moisture extraction). Mechanical extraction has been estimated tobe 20 times more cost effective than thermal extraction.
Proposed Schedule and Rationale

Based on ADL rough estimate, Septen~ber 2001 Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited tobasic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### .P'!?g!.?!???.: 

## ..................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. OtherDOE standards will impose cumulative burden on white goods manufacturers.

# Test Procedure Product: Clothes Dryers 

## - (GasIElectric) Priority: Low 

## ) Relationship to Changes in 

# I Test Procedure needs to be changed for standard.

Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard Low 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ International or Other CSA has conducted specialized dryer tests and has asked DOE to consider Coordinating Activities 

## ...................................................... Recommendation 

### bv Interested Parties 

## ..................................................... Statutory Deadline


### ......................................................

Issues 

# ' revisions to the test 

## .......................................................................................................................................

one walver In effect. There are numerous changes that are requ~red pnorto a standards rulemalung for clothes dryers. Investigate same test cloth issues as was 

# I 1 done in the clothes washer rulemaking. Proposed Schedule andRationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Considered to be a low priority by stakeholders.

# Standards Product: Clothes Washers Priority: Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Potential Energy Savings fromRegulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2004-2030

Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Statusof Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority Total range considered: 

### [0.28

## - 7.7014 Specific examples below: Efficiency Improvement Over the Base Case 

# - MEF Ran~e ofEnergy Savings 

### 5% 0.860 0.28 

## - 0.28 10% 0.908 0.93

## - 0.94 15% 0.961 1.74

## - 1.76 20% 1.021 2.13 

## - 2.15 25% 1.089 4.06 

## - 4.08 35% 1.257 5.94

## - 6.09 40% 1.362 5.98 

## - 6.13 45% 1.485 6.98

## - 7.28 50% 1.634 7.36 

## - 7.70 The Final Rule energy savings equals 

### 5.5 quads over 

### 2004-2030. Required MEF of 

### 1.04in 

### 2004 and 

### 1.26in 

### 2007. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................ The Net Present Value (NPV) is 

### $1 5.3billion cumulative from 

### 2004 to 

### 2030 in 

### 1997 dollars. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................ For period 

### 2004- 2030, 95 million metric tons of carbon and 

### 254 thousand metric tons of NO,. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Final Rule issued January 

### 12, 2001. Changes to the test procedure were incorporated into the standards mlemaking. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................ DOE regulation of clothes dryers. DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. 

## ................................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................ Consortium for Energy Efficiency program with utilities. Energy Starprogram. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement initiative. At least three U.S. manufacturers are marketing high efficient clothes washers. 

### ................................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................ High

Based on DOE Technical Support Document, January 

### 2001 Proposed Schedule



### ............................................................................................ Rationale for Priority Level ANOPR 

## - Published November, 

### 1998 NOPR 

## - July, 

### 2000 Final Rule 

## - January 

### 2001 .'.

### ................................................................................................ Final Rule published January 

### 12,2001. Reviewed April 

### 12,2001.

# Test Procedure Product: Clothes Washers Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

# I International or Other

Coordinating Acti\'itiC> 

### ...................................................... Itccomr~~cndatior~ b~ Interested Parties 

### ...................................................... Statutory Deadline 

## j Issues Test Procedure was changed as part of the standardsrulemaklng.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Low

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Published as part of standards rulemaking. NOPR - July, 

### 2000. Final Rule January, 

### 2001. 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Test procedure was revised recently to implement the standards rulemaking.

# Standards Product: Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps (All products forwhich DOE proposes to accept ASHRAE 90.1-1999 levels) 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings fromRegulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005-



## ...................................................... 

# 1 E:ntial Economic

BenefitslBurdens


### ...................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits



### ...................................................... StatusofRequired Changes to Test Procedures ~ 

# I Other Regulatory Actions

Recommendations by Interested Parties 

### ................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements 

## ................................................. Issues 

## ................................................. FY 2001 

### Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale 0.6' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) Not available. 

# I

....................................................................................................................................... Specific estimates of emission reductions have notbeen developed however, energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### ....................................................................................................................................... DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in



## ......................................................................................................................................... ASHRAE standard 90.1 into the CFR early in FY 2002. EPAphase out ofHCFC refrigerants.



### ....................................................................................................................................... None known.



## ....................................................................................................................................... Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved J~tne, 1999. 

## ...................................................................................................................................


# ' Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65FR 30929. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale forPriority Level Notice of Availability 5100. Final Rule published January 12 2001. 

## .................................................................................................................................................... '.

## ................................... Standards set by EPACTwere amended to adoptrevised ASHRAE 90.1. NO fi~rther action.

# Test 

# Procedure Product: 

### Commercial Air Conditioners & Heat Purnps 

### (DOE accepts ASHRAE 90.1-1999 test procedures for all commercial air conditioner and heat pump products.) Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard Statutory Deadline Standards setby EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as of January 12,2001. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Low for most products. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................
Proposed Schedule



### ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -June, 2000



### .......................................................................................... 

## .Fina!.R~!e=.~ctober~..?.!!!!! Final Rule should be published early in FY2002.

# Standards Product: 

### Commercial Funlaces Priority: 

### Low
Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 

## .................................................... Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens 

### 0.56(ASHRAEStandard 90.1-1999) Not available. 

# I Potential Environmental or 

# I Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developed however, 

# I I Energy Security Benefits 

# I estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative 

# 1 -. 

### emission benefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savingsareminimal. to Test ~roc~dures 

### ASHRAE standard 90.1 into the CFR in 

### FY 20027 Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven 

### None known or Voluntary Efficiency 

# 1
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards a~roved June 1999. 

### .................................................................................................................................. 1

### ........................................................ High



# ' Based on ScreeningAnalysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65

### FR 30929. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Notice of Availability May, 2000. Final Rule published January 12,2001. Standards set by EPACT were amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1. No hrther action.

# Standards Product: Commercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Priority: Medium

to Test Procedures ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR early in FY 2002. Recorn~nendations by Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004- 2030 Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status ofRequired Changes Interested Parties 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Evidence of Market-Driven 

# I None known. 

# I 0.2s7(to gobeyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels)



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.2 

### (NPV, billions of $1998)



### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Carbon emissiollsreduction -

### 4 million tons.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. DOE plans to publish Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to in

Proposed Schedule and Rationale or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues



## ....................................................... FY 2001 Priority Proposed Schedule 

# I DOE plans to initiate work in support ofruleinaking Rationale for Priority Level 

# I Energy savings are significant. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved June 1999, which would save an estimated 0.06 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standardsfor 

# ?ddi.t!?~?!.e.?er~~..savi!!g.s~............................................................................................. NIA

Based on ScreeningAllalysisReport for Co~nmercial HVAC Standards, see 65FR 30929.

# Test Procedure Product: Co~nmercial Oil and Gas-Fired Packaged Boilers Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standards set by EPACT arebeing amended upon revision 

### of ASHRAE 90.1 Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I 1 Priority of Standard 

# 1 Medium 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I International or Other 

# I

Coordinating Activities 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendation by 

# 1 Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -August, 2000 Final Rule -October, 2001 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final rule should be published early in FY2002.

# Test Procedure Product: Commercial Furnaces Priority: Low to Changes in Standard Priority ofStandard International or Other

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Standards setby EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as ofJanuary 12, 2001. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Low 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Coordinating Activities Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## ...............................................................................................................................................................................................

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

.............................................................................................................................................................................................. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -December, 

### 1999 Final Rule - October, 2001. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final rule should be published early in FY2002.

# Standards Product: Commercial Water Heaters 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005- 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens 

## ...................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits



### ...................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test ~rocedures -


## ..................................................... Other Regulatory Actions 0.07"



### ..................................................................................................................................... Not available. Specific estimates of emissionreductions have notbeen developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emissionbenefits that are likely to be possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### ...................................................................................................................................... DOE plans topublish the Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to In ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR early in FY 2002. 

## ......................................................................................................................................

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Recommendationsby Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards appoved June 1999. 

## ......................................................................................................................................................................................... High

Based on Screening Analysis Report for Cotnmercial HVAC Standards, see 65FR 30929. 

### Proposed Schedule 

### ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

## Notic.?. of.*~~~!~~~!~!Y..~~~~..~.I,OO~..~~E!..RU!~.~!?I!U~FX~..?OO!~ ..................................... Standards set by EPACT have been amended to adopt revised ASHRAE 90.1- 1999levels for gas- and oil-fired storagewater heaters

# Test 

# Procedure Product: Commercial Water Heaters Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard Prioritv of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ..................................................... Recommendation by Interested Parties 

## ..................................................... Statutory Deadline Standards setby EPACT have been amended upon revision ofASHRAE 90.1 as of January 12,2001 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Low 

## ...................................................................................................................................... ASHRAE is in process ofrevising (SPC 11

### 8.1). Will include heat pump water heaters. 

## ......................................................................................................................................
Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Scl~edule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -June, 2000 Final Rule - October, 2001 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final rule should be pubhshed early in FY2002.

# Standards Product: Cooking Products 

## - Gas & Electric Ovens, Cooktops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low

Ovens Cooktops 

# I [(lm.21 r(0.9) - 0.11 -- Potential Energy Savings Total ranges 

### considered (Gas only):

cumulativeNet Present value, 1999-2030, billions 1990$ @ 7% discount rate from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 1999

# - 2030 Potential Economic Energy Security Benefits 

### Ovens Cooktops [0.2

## - 0.41 [0.1

## - 0.21



### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Total ranges considered (Gas only):



## .................................................... Status of Required Changes 

### Ovens Cooktops NOx[ll -2391 NOx[0-651 C02 [6-1331 C02 [O-361 Cumulative emission reductions, 1999-2030, in (kt) for NOx, and (Mt) for COP 

## ...................................................................................................................................... to Test ~roc'dures 

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

# -1

........................................................................................................................................................................................... DOE regulation ofwhite goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations by 

# I Interested Parties 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven None known. or Voluntary Efficiency 

# 1 Improvements 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Issues 

# 1 Pilotless designs may require installation of an electrical outlet. Loss ofconsumer



### ........................................................................................................................................... 

### ............................................. 

# 1 utility ifloss ofelectrical power. If a loss ofelectricity 2 cannot use oven. 

# 1 FY2001 Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale


# ' Based on Draft Report, April 1996and Supplemental Analysis, November 1997. Proposed Schedule



## ......................................................................................... Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule, no new standards for electric cooking products including microwave ovens, issued 

# - September 8, 1998 Final Rule gas cookinaproducts 

## - ToBe Determined. R. 

## ............................................................................................... Potential energy savings are low to moderate. Analysis too old to use 

## - requires new analysis for rulemaking.

# Test 

# Procedure Product: CookingProducts - Gas & Electric Ovens, Cooktops, and Microwave Ovens Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard 

## .................................................. Priority ofStandard 

## .................................................. International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ................................................... Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties 

## ................................................... Statutory Deadline


### ................................................... Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Test Procedure needed tobe changed for standard. 

# I

....................................................................................................................................... Low 

## ........................................................................................................................................

..!?~!?~!?.??.5!.39?%!!?!e Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued 

## - October 3 

### ...................................................................................... 1997 

### ..................................................................... >

# Standards Product: Direct Heating Equipment (Gas) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1998- 2030
BenefitsIBurdens 

### .................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Total range considered: [O

## - 0.119Specific examples

### be lo^:'^ 

# I ~iezo igilit. & l~revious & previous,



## .................................................................................................................................. ...l..ii~ .4)

## - 0.11 

### NPV, Billions of 1990$ 

### 7% Piezo ignit. (64.8% AFUE) 0.1

Interested Parties Derate 20% (66.9% AFUE) 0

Status ofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by or Voluntary Efficiency lmorovements 

# I Emission reductions in (kt) for SO, and NOx, and (Mt) for CO,. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Final rule published 5/12/97.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ None known that will impact product. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Induced Draft (78.0% AFUE) (0.3)

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Condens. & Modulat. Oper. (87.0%AFUE) (1.O)

Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority Fuel switching. Rural communities use forbackup heating during power outages. Utility concern with electronic ignition. 

## ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Low

Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. 

# "' Exainples shown for design options and AFUE are for gravity wall heaters (27

## - 46 kBtulhr). Proposed Schedule



## ........................................................ Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited tobasic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### .P.'!?~!.?????: 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

# Test Procedure Product: Direct Heating Equipment 

### (Gas) Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard Low 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International orOther Coordinating Activities 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendation by Interested Parties 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Statutory Deadline 

### ( Issues 

# I I -- - Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule 

### ......................................................................................... Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule issued May 12 1997. 

### ...................................................................................................

# Standards Product: Dishwashers 

### Priority: Low 

# I Potential Energy Savings 

# I Best Available (as listed in Energy Star) (1.05 EF) = 1.7" 

# I from Regulatory Action;

Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

## - Current Energy StarDishwasher (0.58 EF) =0.45" -.


### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# ~ z:ntial Eco~omic Not available.



### BenefitslBurdens 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Potential Environmental or Not available. 

### Energy SecurityBenefits 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Statusof Required Changes Test procedure is being revised to properly reflect energy consumption for new 

### to Test Procedures technologies (e.g.adaptive controls) and reduced annual cycles. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Other Regulatory Actions DOE regulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendations by Somemanufacturers believe that updating the dishwasher standard should be given 

### Interested Parties a lowpriority. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Evidence ofMarket-Driven Energy Savers program. Federal Energy Management Program for procurement 

### or Voluntary Efficiency initiative. At least two U.S.manufacturers are marketing adaptive control 

### Improvements dishwashers. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Issues Increased efficiency may impact product utility (e.g, may require pre-rinsing of dishes or cleaning of filters) or the availability ofaffordable models (contract



## ..................................................... .!??.%?.?9>:.. 

## ..................................................................................................................... FY 2001

### Priority Low 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale


# " Based on ADL rough estimate, September 2001 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited tobasic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary programs. Estimated potential energy savings are moderate.

# Test Procedure Product: Dishwashers Priority: High Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard 

## .................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Test Procedure needed to be changed for standard.



## ...................................................................................................................................... I.o\v 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Erfi)rriunJcn\a\,to hal-mon~/c ~nt~.rnar~onal tcbt procedures should ~ncludc dishwashers. 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Manufacturers support a test procedure revision for more accurate testing ofnew adaptive control models. Industry working on revising its test procedure suggestions to encompass the variety of sensor techniques now in the market. 

## ......................................................................................................................................

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

Issues New technology in product, i.e. smart controls, fuzzy logic. Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule NOPR -published September, 

### 1999 Reopening Notice -July, 2000 Final Rule -January 2002 

### ................................................................................................... ........................................................................................ .'.

# Standards Product: Distribution Transformers Priority: High

Not available. 

# I Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- BenefitslBurdens Energy Security Benefits estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative [0.39-10.71'~



### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I Status ofRequired Changes 

# 1 Need topublish a test procedure before rule. 

# I emission benefits that are likely tobe possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions None known. Recon~mendations by 

# I Interested Parties 

# I

. - or Voluntary Efficiency promotes energy efficient electrical products. Imarovements
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Issues



### ....................................................... FY 2001 Priority Most efficient designs includeproprietary technology. NEMA recommends adoption ofvoluntary standards as specified in 

### TP-I.



### ...................... 

# .-p.~tentia!~~~~~..sa~i?.1:s.f~0?.?.fe.1:tf!at0fl:.a~..t!0!?.fl~!e~ti!!t!ed.P.4:.r?EM.*~ High



## '* Based on DOE detennination notice, October 

### 22, 1997 Proposed Schedule 

### ...................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

### .................................................................... ..D.OE.?~.engag:d>.?.?!a??dg!d?..~!:m?king. Potential for significant energy savings through regulatory action under EPCA, as amended by EPAct.

# Test Procedure Product: Distribution 

### Transformers Priority: Low Relationshipto Changes in - Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

## ...................................................... International or Other 

# I CoordinatineActivities

Recommendation by Interested Parties 

## ...................................................... Statutory Deadline 

# I Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Test Procedure needs to be established for standard.



## ....................................................................................................................................... High 

## .......................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................... NEMA recommends using NEMA TP-2 test standard. 

# I

....................................................................................................................................... Sampling Plan; Definitions of Covered Products Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -published November 12, 1998 Reopening Notice - June, 1999 Another Reopening Notice - January-February, 2002 Final Rule - Summer 2002 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Test procedure needs to established for Standard in 

### FY 2002.

# Standards Product: Electric Motors, 1

## - 200 

### HP Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

## .................................................... Potential Economic Estimated 

### 31.3billion kWh/yr could be saved through enforcement ofEPCA standards that became effective 

### 1997. Certification program tobe take effect in early 2002. 

## ........................................................................................................................................ Not Available. 

# I Interested Parties

Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by 

# I or Voluntary Efficiency Motor Challenge. Motor Master+ Improvements 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Issues DOE regulates system efficiencies (e.g. HVAC) where motors are components of 

### Not Available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final rule for test procedures published October 

### 5, 

### 1999.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known that will impact product. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Enforce~nent such systems. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ FY 2001 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next two years. Work would be limited tobasic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### ..Pr9g:.?!???: 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Determination required by EPCA

# Test 

# Procedure Product: Electric Motors, 

### 1 - 200 HP Priority: Low 

# I Relationship to Changes in 

# I Test Procedure needed tobe revlsed to support the standard 

# - Recommendation by Manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates support test procedure rulemaking.

# I - Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinatine Activities 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Low 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Natural Resources Canada: Energy Efficiency Regulations for Electric Motors International Electrotechnical Commission/International Standards Organisation

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

## ....................................

## -. Issues 

## ...............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ...........................................................................................................................................

Expect DOE test procedure tobe revised for compatibility with global (IECIISO) Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Proposed Rule Issued -November 27, 1997 Final Rule - October 

### 5, 1999 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final Rule recently published 

### .

# Standards Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

### Priority: Low 

## 1 Potential Energy Savings

fromRegulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2005-2030


### .................................................. Potential Economic BeneSitsIBurdens 1.4 -2.6NPV, billions of 1997$ @ 7% 

### Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 

# I 1 Statusof Required Changes 

# I None required.



### to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions In Canada, Natural Resources Canada has proposed to adopt similar ballast


### Improvements 

# I Luminaire Testing and Rating Program, The Energy Cost Savings Council, and - 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency standards with an effective date in 2005 (firboth new andieplacement ballasts). Some ballast manufacturers also make electric motors. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA Green Lights and Energy StarBuildings, ASHRAE 90.1, DOE'S FEMP Procurement Guidelines and Federal Relighting Initiative, EPAct 1992Voluntary


### Proposed Schedule and Rationale Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority - - some utility ~~~programs. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standards, for electronic ballasts, may adversely affect U.S. manufacturers. Impact on U.S. employment levels. 

### .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Low 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -March, 2000 Final Rule - September, 2000 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Final Rule in FY2000.

# Test Procedure Product: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Priority: Low
Coordinating Activities 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties 

# 1 Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other 

# I Statutory Deadline 

# I I Efficiency levels for new standards are already in the market and are covered by existing standards and test procedures. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Low 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I Issues 

# I I Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level

# StandardsDetermination Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps 

### Priority: Low 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 1995- [4.4

## - 8.3]13 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Energy SecurityBenefits StatusofRequired Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency replacement). 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... FY 2001 Priority Low 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not Available.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Specific estimates of emission reductions have notbeen developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative emission benefits that are likely tobe possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. IES and ANSI procedures are in place. Issues with definitions, covered products and sampling. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA mercury disposal requirements may apply. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Mercury vapor lamps being replaced by metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps. 

### Improvements lssnes
Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Concern about non-equitable impact ofpossible elimination ofmercury vapor lamps (e.g. significant regional and municipal variation exists). High first cost impact (elimination ofmercury vapor lamps will require fixture
DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. 

## ....................................................................................................................................... 

## ..Pro~~ed.schedu!e .................... Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are high.

l3 Based on LBNL rough estimate, September 2001

# Test Procedure Product: High Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamp Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in 

# I Test Procedure needs tobe developed for standard. Standard International or Other

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule 

# ] No work expected during 

### FY2001. 

### ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................

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

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

# I Rationale for Priority Level 

# I I

# Standards Product: Lamps, Fluorescent Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

## - 2030 

# I Potential Economic

RenefitslBurdens 

### Best

### Available FEMP procurement recomrnendat~on levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and 

### Utube lamps) =2.1414 

### Recommended FEMP procurement recomrnendat~on levels (4-foot, 8-foot, and 

### Utube lamps) = 1.2614 T8 efficacy levels (technology sh~ft fromTI2to T8) =0.1114 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Not Ava~lable. 

# I Potential Environmental or 

# I Not Available. 

# I

Energy Security Benefits to Test Procedures 29, 1997 Other Regulatory Actions Ex~st~ng EPA mercury d~sposal requirements apply, but EPA Issued a final rule Improvements Issues Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more - Recommendations 

### by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency 

## [ FY 2001 Priority 

# 1 Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale July 6,1999, including lamps as Ukiversal ~a&rdous Waste. 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA Green LightsiEnergy Star Buildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Procurement Guidelines and Federal Relighting Initiative, and some utility DSM programs.

l4 Based on ADL and LBNL rough estimate, September 2001 Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

### DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

## ..p.'o~;'ams. ...................................................................................................................... Interested Palties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999 for adding additional general service fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Fluorescent Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

## ...................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ...................................................... Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline


### ......................................................

Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: -- Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard



## ....................................................................................................................................... Low 

## .......................................................................................................................................



## ..R!~P?.!!?!.?~!?%!!!!~ .....................

Rationale for Priority Level ..F?n$!.R.U!?.?2?.U?d..M?~.29>.j9992

### .................................................................................

# Standards Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

## - Teclmology sh~ft to incandescent halogen lamp, 10%efficacy Increase =3.73" 3% efficacy increase = 1 19" 1.5%efficacy Increase =0.61

# ''

. - 2030 Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens Potential Environmental or
Recommendations 

### by 

# I ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Not Available.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. , Not Available. Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. IES and ANSI procedures are in place, DOE test procedure Final Rule issued May 29, 1997. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................

difficult. FY 2001 Prinritv Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA Green LightsIEnergy StarBuildings, ASHRAE 90.1, FEMP Federal Relighting Initiative, and some utility DSM programs, Voluntary Luminaire Testing and Rating Program. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Because lamps are components of systems, establishment of standards is more

" Based on ADL and LBNL rough estimate, September 2001. Proposed Scl~edule



### ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### ..P.TOgr.????S. 

### ...................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997(2002) for amending current lamp standards and 1999for adding additional general service fluorescentand incandescent lamps.

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Incandescent General Service Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Priority ofStandard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues Low 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

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

..............................................................................................................................................................................................
..!?~~!??%!.%!?%!!!!e 

### .......................

Rationale for Priority Level F?~%!.R?!Z.!~?.U?~ 

## ..M?~.29>.j992... ................................................................................

# Standards Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Priority: Low 

# I Potential Economic 

# 1 Not Available.

BenefitsIBurdens Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2008 

## - 2030 

# I Potential Environmental or 

## / Not Available. 

# I Technology shift to halogen infrared reflector lamp, 30% efficacy increase =2.23" 3% efficacy increase = 0.2816 1.5% efficacy increase = 0.141h 

# I Energy Security Benefits 

# I I
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven 

# 1 EPA Green LightsiEnergv StarBuildings, ASHRAE 90.1,FEMP Federal 

# I to Test ~roc~dures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by or Voluntary Efficiency Relighting initiative, angsorneutility I%Mprograms, Voluntary Luminaire Imarovements Testing and Rating Program. 29, 1997. 

## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

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

## / Issues 

# 1 Because lanips are components of systems, establishment of standards is more 

# I difficult. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. FY 2001 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale

'"ased on ADL and LBNL rough estimate, September 2001. Proposed Schedule



## ....................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### ..I?!9g!-?F??: 

## ...................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a lowpriority product. Potential energy savings are unknown at this time. Statutory deadline is 1997 (2002)for amending current lamp standards and 1999for adding additional general service fluorescent and illcandescent lamps.

# Test Procedure Product: Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Priority: Low 

## ( Relationship to Changes in 

## ( Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard

Standard 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Priority of Standard 

# 1 Low 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Recommendation by Interested Parties 

# 1 I Statutory Deadline 

# I I 

# I Issues 

# I 

# I Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule 

### ..................................................... Rationale for Priority Level ..F!na!.Ru!?.!25u?d..M?129>.i99? 

### ...................................................................................

# Standards Product: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High



### BenefitslBurdens .O1 above 

### new constructionequip. levels (NPV, billions of $1998) 

### Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004 

## - 2030 

### Potential Economic 0.56" (to gobeyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 

### replacement equip. levels) 0.0317(to go beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 

### new construction equip. levels)



### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.6 above

### replacement equip. levels (NPV, billions of $1998) 

### Energy Security Benefits Statusof Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions

Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

## . . ,. million tons (above 

### new construction equip. levels) 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. DOE plans to publish Final Rules to incorporate the test procedures referred to in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the 

### CFR by September 2001. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA phase out ofHCFC refrigerants. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 

### Priority

" Bascd on Screening Analysis Report for Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65 FR 30929. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. None known.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6199, which would save an estimated 0.1

### 1 quads from 2001-2030. DOE will consider higher standards for additional energy savings. 

### ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 

### NIA

# Standards Product: Plumbing FixturesIFittings Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Ouads) Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens 

## ..................................................... Potential Environmental 

### or The Department has not conducted any recent analysis regardingpotential energy savings for this product.



### ...................................................................................................................................... Not available.



## ...................................................................................................................................... Not available. 

# I Interested Parties 

# I

Energy Security Benefits Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by 

# I or Voluntary Efficiency 

# I 1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................... None. 

## ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Issues As flow rates and water consumption decline the effects onutility need tobe 

# 1 carefully considered. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ FY 2001 Priority Low Proposed Schedule and Rationale Proposed Schedule



## ...................................................... Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited tobasic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### ..R'!?~'a"s.. 

## ...................................................................................................................... Dependent upon revislon by ASME and approval by ANSI to ASMEIANSI A112.18.1 and ASMEIANSI A112.19.6.

# Test Procedure Product: Plunlbing FixturesIFittings Priority: 

### Low

Recommendation 

### by Interested Parties Relationshipto Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities 

# I Statutory Deadline 

# I I ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Low 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

# I Issues 

# I I Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### Final Rule - 

### March 18, 

### 1998 

## ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

# Standards Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2000-2030 

### ..................................................... Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Energy Security Benefits



### ..................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test procedures -



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

### ..................................................... Recornmendationsby Interested Parties 

## ..................................................... Evidence of Market-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements 

### ..................................................... Issues Total range considered: [0.2 - 0.91'' Specific examples below: IID. (78% E,) Non-condensing limit, (82.2% E,) Condensing, (90.8% E,) 0.2 0.4 0.7 

### ....................................................................................................................................... Total range: [ (1.4) 

## - 0.2 ]I6 Cumulative Net Present Value, Billions 1990$ @ 

### 7% IID, (78% E,) Non-condensing Itmit. (82.2%E,) Condensing, (90.8% E,) 0.2 0.2 (0.6) 

## ....................................................................................................................................... IlD. (78%E,) Non-cond. limit, (82.2% E,) Condensing, (90.8%E,) NOx 42 42 42 CO, 11 

### IS 

### 35 Cumulative Emission reductions in (kt) for SO, and NOx, and (Mt) for 

### CO, 

## ....................................................................................................................................... Final rule issued 5/12/97.



### ....................................................................................................................................... None known that will impact product. 

### ....................................................................................................................................... None known
Proposed Schedule and Rationale

" Based on DOE preliminary analysis, June 1995. Proposed Schedule



## ........................................................ Rationale for Priority Level DOE does not plan to actively pursue rulemaking in the next year. Work would be limited to basic technology investigation and monitoring ofvoluntary 

### .9'0g?-.?ms. 

## ..................................................................................................................... Interested Parties believe this is a low priority product. Potential energy savings are low.

# Test 

# Procedure Product: Pool Heaters (Gas) Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other



### .............................................................................................................................................................................................

Issues Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Low 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

## ...............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Proposed Schedule 

### ........................................................ Rationale for Priority Level 

### ................................................................................... 

## Fina!.rule.i.ssue!!.Ma~.J.1~.!.99?:

# Standards Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratoriFreezers, & Freezers Priority: Low Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 1998- 2030 

### ...................................................... Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens Potential Environmental or Not available Energy Security Benefits 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Status 

### of Required Changes 

# I No changes requ~red for standards. 

# I
............................................................................................................................................................................................

to Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions 

# 1 EPA phase out of ~nsulation HCFCs ~n2003. 

## - 

# I
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ~0E;egulation of white goods for full line manufacturers. Recommendations 

### bv Interested Parties 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Evidence of Market-Driven 

# 1 SuoerEfficient Refrigerator Program (Golden Carrot). New York Housing
Proposed Schedule and Rationale orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority



### ..

## Pro~o:ed.schedu!e.................... 

# ..F?na!.Rui:.lssue~.:.*~.4!..TS~.i.9.97 ............................................................................... Rationale for Priority Level Rule issued, will be effective July 

### 1,2001 

# - - .+ Authority mass procurement. Energy Savers program. Significant quantities of new high efficiency models are beino marketed. 

## ................................................................................................................. .9.. 

## ....................................................................... Final Rule Issued - April 28, 1997. 

### ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Low


# '' Based on LBNL rough estimate, September, 2001. No formal analysis has been conducted for Department since the Final Rule was issued in 1997.

# Test Procedure Product: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorIFreezers, & Freezers Priority: Medium for compact refrigerators and refiigeratorlfreezers, Low for all others. Relationship to Changes in Standard 

## ..................................................... Priority of Standard 

## ..................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ..................................................... Recommendation by Test Procedure not needed tobe changed for standard Low Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Issues 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Tests at NIST have revealed deficiencies in the compact refrigerator test procedure. Tltese will be researched and corrected, probably by revising the test procedure for compact refrigerators. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NIST tested compact refrigerators, and proposed a modification ofthe compact refrigerator test procedure. 

### A rulemaking to modifL the test procedure will begin in 2002. 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Compactrefrigerator manufacturers have obtained inconsistent results when testing each other's products. Deficiencies intest procedure have been identified.

# Standards Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps 

### Priority: High 

## - drops to Low priority upon completion 

### Potential Energy Savings fromRegulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2006 

## - 2030 

### Potential Economic BenefitsIBurdens



## ...................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits



### ...................................................... StatusofRequired Changes to Test procedures 

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

# I..
....................................................

Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties 

## ...................................................... Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements 

## ...................................................... Issues 

## ...................................................... FY 2001 

### Priorit Total range considered: [I 

### .7 - 8.812"Specific examples below: 11 SEER 12SEER 13SEER 18 SEER 

# ----

1.7 3.0 4.2 8.8



### ...................................................................................................................................... Net Present Value, C~~mulative 2006-2030, Billions 1998$ @ 

### 7% discountrate 20 11 SEER 12SEER 13SEER I8 SEER 

# ----

2 2 1 (10) 

## ...................................................................................................................................... Cumulative 2006-2030, Carbon in Mt, NO, in kt 

# '" 11 SEER 12SEER 13SEER 18 SEER 

# ---- C: 13 24 33 63 NO,: 37 73 94 184 

### ...................................................................................................................................... Changes are not requlred for standards.



### ........................................................................................................................................ EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant 

## - 2010 DOE regulation of furnaces. 

## .......................................................................................................................................



## ....................................................................................................................................... Energy Starprogram recommending a 12SEER. Small manufacturers. Niche Products. Regional variation. 

## ..................................................................................................................................... High 

### Proposed Schedule and Rationale



# '" Based on DOE analys~s for Supplemental NOPR, see un\v.crcn doe.govibi~~ldil~~sIcodes standards/tndex.htm. 

### Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level SANOPR -November, 1999 NOPR -October, 2000 Final Rule -January 22, 2001 Supplemental NOPR (Final Rulewithdrawn) -July 25, 2001. 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................ Potential energy savings are large.

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Priority: High 

# 1 Relationship to Changes in 

# I Test Procedure does not need to be changed for standard. 

# I

Standard 

## ...................................................... Priority of Standard 

## ...................................................... International or Other Coordinating Activities 

## ..................................................... Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline


## ..................................................... Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: High 

## .......................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................... Would like to see itpublished.



### ....................................................................................................................................... Many changes to accommodate new technology ARI has subm~tted data for and developed new default cycllc degradation coefficients Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -January, 2001 Final Rule tobe issued in early FY 

### 2002. 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Testprocedure revision long overdue.

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps -Ductless Split Systems Priority: Medium

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties 

## .....................................__ Statutory Deadline


## .................. ......__._.._. Issues
Proposed Schedule 

## .................................................... 

## ..~.~~.p.!a!?s.toi!!i.t~.?.te..\?~~~Ir:..~!?..s~~~~*.~.f~~!e.mak?!!~ .................................................. Rationale for Priority Level Change would make test procedure more accurate for this product. Test Procedure does not need tobe changed for standard.



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. High 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Ductless split system manufacturers would prefer to use calorimetertest.



## .....................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................ Calorimeter test (which is used for room air conditioners) 

### is more suitable and accurate for testing ductless split central air conditioners, but this test is not currently in the DOE central air conditioning test procedure.

# Standards Product: Resident~al Furnaces & Boilers Priority: High 

# 1 Potential Energy Savings 

# 1 from Regulatory Action; I Cun~ulative (Quads) 2012

# - 2042

Energy Security Benefits Not available. Total range cons~dered

### [I 8 - 15 11'' Spec~fic examples below.


# ...I
................................................................................................................................... Sveclfic est~mates ofemission reductions have not been developed however, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative ernissiotl benefits that are likely tobe possible. Expected oil savings are more Prev~ous 

### + cont~nuous modulat~o~l& unprv HX (96% AFUE) Conde~lslng & qrvHX (98% AFUE) Gas Furnaces Gas Bolters 

# I ......................................................................................................................................................................................... significant than other products. Status of Required Changes Final rule issued May 12, 1997. Insul 

### ,IID, ~mprv fan nmtor, & two stage oper (81 8% AFUE) IID & vent damper (81 8% AFUE) 

# I Interested Parties Previous 

## + condensing (90% AFUE) Adv venting & lrnprv msul (88% AFUE)

to Test procedures - Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations 

### bv
-, 

# . 

# - 1 or Voluntary Efficiency ACEEE indicated that trend for higher efficiencyproducts stopped in-1994. 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Possible State and regional environmental regulation. DOE regulation ofcentral air conditioning products. 

## ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Proposed Schedule and Rationale Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... Ventins and electricity use. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Low

Based on LBNL rough estimate for gas only, September 2001. Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Rulemaking was initiated in 2001. 

## .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Potential energy savings are significant. Higher standards levelsrequiring technologies such as condensing furnaces would impact utility to consumers.

# Test Procedure Product: Residential Furnaces & Boilers Priority: Low



# 1 Issues 

# I I

Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other Coordinating Activities Recommendation by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Test Procedure not needed to be changed for standard. The test procedure for combined space- and water-heating appliances (a separate product class within the standards rulemaking) needs to be developed. 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. High 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ASHRAE SPC 124 has released forpublic review a test procedure for combined appliances. 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................

..!??-!?~!??.d.%!!!!4!!!!?

Rationale for Priority Level Final rule issued May 

### 12 1997. 

## ............................................................................................. ............................................................. >

# Standards Product: Residential Water Heaters 

## - Gas, Oil & Electric 

### Priority: Low



### Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004-2030 

### Electric Bottom 

### Ht. Traps, 3" 

### Insul. & 

### Plastic Tank 

# I I2" 

### Insul., 

### 3" Insul., Sidearm

### w/ 80% Flue Baffle & 

### JIJ3 2.5" 

### Insul., Heat Traps, Flue Baffle 2" 

### Insul., Heat Traps, Flue Baffle Heat Traps, Flue Baffle Quads 

### at source

The Final Rule energy savings equals 4.6 quads over 2004-2030. 

## ................................................................................................................................................... The Net Present Value (NPV) is $2.0 billion cumulative from 2004 to 2030 in 

### 1997 dollars. 

### Potential Econon~ic Benefits/Burdens Potential Environmental or 

# I For per~od 2004- 2030, 152m~llion metric tons ofcarbon and 273 thousand metnc tons of 

### Energy Security Benefits Test Procedures Other Regulatory Actions EPA phase out ofHCFCs for insulation (2003). Consumer Product Safety Commission initiative forprevention of ignition offlammable vapors by gas water heaters. 

### Recommendations by Interested Parties


### .......................................................... Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Imorovements 

### .................................................................................................................................................... Demand-side management programs for high efficiency water heaters.



### .................................................................................................................................................... Fuel switching.Replacement blowing agent for insulation. Installation in small spaces. 

### .................................................................................................................................................... High ....... 

### ........................................................... FY 2001 

### Priority Proposed Schedule and Rationale 

# '' Based on DOE Technical Support Document, January 2001



### Proposed Schrdr~le Rationale for Priority Level NOPR -Apnl, 2000 Flnal Rule 

## - January, 2001 FmaI Rule publ~shed January 17, 2001.Rev~ewed Apnl 

### 12, 2001.

## Test Procedure Product: Residential Water Heaters 

## - Gas, Oil & Electric Priority: Low Relationship to Changes in 

# 1 No changeneeded Standard Priority of Standard International or Other 

## 1

Proposed Schedule and Rationale: Coordinating Activities Recommendation

### by Interested Parties Statutory Deadline Issues 

## ..........................................................................................................................................................................................

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



### ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Test procedure published in May, 

### 1998.

# Standards Product: Room Air Conditiorters Priority: Low

Potential Economic 

# I Not available Bcnefits/Burdens 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Potential Energy Savings from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 2008 -2030 Potential Environmental or 

### ( Not available -7% more efficient than Energy Star (-10.8 EER) =0.723 -15% more efficient than Energy Star (-1 1.5EER) = 

### 1.223 Energy Security Benefits

Issues Final Rule Issued - September 24 1997 

## .......................................................................................................... Z. 

## .............................................................................. FY 

### 2001 Priority Low to Test procedures Other Regulatory Actions Recommendations by Interested Parties Evidence ofMarket-Driven or Voluntary Efficiency Improvements Proaosed Schedule and Rationale 

### .............................................................................................................................................................................................. EPA phase out of HCFC-22 refrigerant. 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. DSM programs. Labeling program very effective.



### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

23 Based on LBNL rough estimate, September, 2001. No formal analysis has been conducted forDepartment since the Final Rule was issued in 1997. 

# ..!!r.?~*?ed.schedu!e Rationale for Priority Level Final Rule Issued - September 24 1997 

## .......................................................................... ........................................................................... ff...f
<

# Test Procedure Product: Room Air Conditioners Priority: Low Standard Prioritv of Standard 

## I International or Other 

## 1

Coordinating Activities 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Recommendationby 

# 1 I better predicting actual energy usage, as explained below. 

### 1 lnterestedParties

Statutory Deadline Issues Proposed Schedule and Rationale: 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................. There are no other existing orproposed test procedures specifically targeted at room air conditioners. The only possible alternative wouldbe to develop a seasonal energy efficiencymeasure analogous tothe 

### SEERused for central air conditioners. It is uncertain how valuable such a seasonal standard would be in Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level 

### ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

# Standards Product: Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters 

### Priority: Medium 

### Potential Energy Savings 0.10Z4 (togobeyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels) 

### from Regulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 2004- 2030 

### ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Potential Economic 0.05 (NPV,billions of $1998) 

### BenefitslBurdens 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Potential Environmental or Carbon emissions reduction =

### 2 million tons. 

### Energy Security Benefits 

## ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Statusof Required Changes DOE plans to publish the Final Rule to incorporate the test procedures referred to 

### to Test Procedures in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 into the CFR in September 2001. 

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

Proposed Schedule and Rationale Recommendations by 

### Interested Parties Evidence of Market-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency Improvements Issues 

### FY 2001 Priority 

### ...............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... None known.



## .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Revised ASHRAE 90.1 standards approved 6/99. 

### ........................................................................................................................................................................................... High

2"ased on Screening Analysis Report fox Commercial HVAC Standards, see 65FR 30929. 

### Proposed Schedule 

### ..................................................... Rationale for Priority Level 

### .................................................. 

## ..~.~~.p.!ans.to:iI?~?E~e..~~r.k.!!?..su~~!!*.~.f.ru!e.maki.!!~ Energy savings are significant ifDOE decided to gobeyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 levels I

# Standards Determination Product: Small Electric Motors 

### Priority: High 

### Potential Energy Savings fromRegulatory Action; Cumulative (Quads) 

### 1998- 2030 Potential Economic BenefitslBurdens 

## ................................................... Potential Environmental or Energy Security Benefits



### ................................................... Status of Required Changes to Test Procedures Other Regulatorv Actions Recommendationsby Interested Parties 

## ................................................... Evidence ofMarket-Driven orVoluntary Efficiency I~nprovements 

## ................................................... Issues 

### ................................................... FY 2001 Priority Not available. 

# I Specific estimates of emission reductions have not been developedhowever, estimated energy savings indicated above are indicative ofthe comparative enlission benefits that are likely tobe possible. Expected oil savings are minimal. 

### ....................................................................................................................................... IEEE 114test procedure for single-phase induction motors isunder review.



### ........................................................................................................................................ S~n:ill motors urdInN.-\L:(':\ "c.o\.c~.cd products" (c.g.whit^. goods)arc exclnpt. 

### ....................................................................................................................................... None known.



## ....................................................................................................................................... Proposed Schedule aud Rationale Proposed Schedule DOE plans to initiate determination in 

### FY2002. 

### .................................................... ...................................................................................................................................... Rationale for Priority Level Potential energy savings are significant. Determination required by EPCA. 4 

# *' Based on draft DOE report, May 1996. Otherestimates are in preparation and should be ready by the end of 2001.

# Test Procedure Product: Sinall Electric Motors Priority: Low

Interested Parties Statutory Deadline 

# I Relationship to Changes in Standard Priority of Standard International or Other CoordinatingActivities Recommendation by Issues Proposed Scl~edule and Rationale: 

## ............................................................................................................................................................................................... High 

### ...............................................................................................................................................................................................



## ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

Proposed Schedule Rationale for Priority Level Dependent on Determination. 

### ..........................................................................................................................................................................................