Energy and Economic Impacts of U.S. Federal Energy 

and Water Conservation Standards Adopted From 

1987 Through 2012

Principal Authors

Stephen Meyers, Alison Williams and Peter Chan

Environmental Energy Technologies Division

Project Contributors

Greg Rosenquist, Helcio Blum, Barbara Atkinson, Sanaee Iyama, 

Jie Gu, Maithili Iyer, Sarah Price

Environmental Energy Technologies Division

One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

April 2013

The work described in this report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program under Contract No. DE-AC02-

05CH11231.
2

Disclaimer

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While 

this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would 

not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or 

service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or 

imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency 

thereof, or the Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed 

herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof 

or the Regents of the University of California.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

Copyright Notice

This manuscript has been authored by an author at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under 

Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government retains, 

and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges, that the U.S. Government 

retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published 

form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.

Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program under Contract No. DE-AC02-

05CH11231.
3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 2

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5

Analysis Method Overview ............................................................................................................ 7

Product-Level Impact of Standards: The Case of Refrigerator-Freezers........................................ 9

National Impacts........................................................................................................................... 10

Consumer Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 15

Sources of Uncertainty.................................................................................................................. 15

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A: Methods for Estimating National Impacts from Standards..................................... 18

NAECA 1987 and 1988 and DOE Updates before 2007.......................................................... 18

EPACT 1992 ............................................................................................................................. 19

EPACT 2005 ............................................................................................................................. 22

EISA 2007................................................................................................................................. 22

DOE Standards 2007-2011........................................................................................................ 23

General Methods....................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix B: Quad and Carbon Equivalents................................................................................. 24
4

Abstract

This paper presents estimates of the key impacts of Federal energy and water conservation

standards adopted from 1987 through 2012. The standards for consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment include those set by legislation as well as standards 

adopted by DOE through rulemaking. 

In 2012, the standards saved an estimated 3.6 quads of primary energy, which is equivalent to 

3% of total U.S. energy consumption. The savings in operating costs for households and 

businesses totaled $51.4 billion. The average household saved $347 in operating costs as a result 

of residential and plumbing product standards. The estimated reduction in CO2 emissions 

associated with the standards in 2012 was 198 million metric tons, which is equivalent to 3% of 

total U.S. CO2 emissions.

The estimated cumulative energy savings over the period 1990-2070 amount to 179 quads. 

Accounting for the increased upfront costs of more-efficient products and the operating cost 

(energy and water) savings over the products’ lifetime, the standards have a past and projected 

cumulative net present value (NPV) of consumer benefit of between $1,104 billion and $1,390

billion, using 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates, respectively.

The water conservation standards, together with energy conservation standards that also save 

water, reduced water use by 1.8 trillion gallons in 2012, and will achieve cumulative water 

savings by 2040 of 54 trillion gallons. The estimated consumer savings in 2012 from reduced 

water use amounted to $13 billon. 
5

Introduction

The energy conservation program for consumer products and certain commercial and industrial 

products was established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). EPCA 

established a program consisting of test procedures, labeling, and energy conservation targets for 

19 types of consumer products. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 amended 

EPCA by replacing the energy conservation targets program and directing that energy 

conservation standards be set for the covered consumer products. With the passage of the 

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) in 1987, EPCA was further amended to 

establish the first national energy conservation standards for consumer products. Subsequent 

amendments in 1988, 1992, 2005, and 2007 further expanded the scope of coverage to include 

additional consumer products, certain commercial and industrial equipment, as well as water 

conservation standards for residential and commercial products. EPCA, as amended, requires 

the Department of Energy (DOE) to update or establish standards at levels that “achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy [or water] efficiency ... which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and economically justified.” EPCA defines “economically justified” 

standards as those for which benefits exceed the costs, given a number of factors, including 

impacts on consumers and manufacturers and the nation’s need to save energy or water. 

This paper presents estimates of the key impacts of the energy and water conservation standards 

that have been adopted from 1987 through 2012. It updates the results presented in Meyers et al. 

(2012),1 which covered standards adopted through 2011. The standards covered include those set 

by legislation as well as standards adopted by DOE through rulemaking. The estimates cover 

both historic and projected impacts of these standards. The impacts cover primary energy savings 

and water savings, net present value of consumerabenefits, and estimated reductions in CO2

emissions. 

Table 1 lists products covered by standards, the year(s) compliance was or will be required, and 

the legislation that initially authorized each standard. The standards that were adopted in 2012

cover the following products (compliance year in parentheses):

 Residential clothes washers (2015/2018)

 Residential dishwashers (2013)

 ASHRAE products (2012/2013/2014)b

 

a The term “consumer” as used in this report refers to all buyers and users of appliances and equipment covered by 

standards.

b Water and evaporatively cooled air conditioners, VRF water source heat pumps, computer room air conditioners.
6

Table 1. Federal Energy and Water Conservation Standards for Appliances and Equipment 

Adopted From 1987 Through 2012

Product Compliance Date for 

Original Standard and 

Updates

Authorizing 

Legislation*

RESIDENTIAL 

Clothes Washers+

1988, 1994, 2004/2007, 

2015/2018

NAECA 1987

Clothes Dryers 1988, 1994, 2014 NAECA 1987

Dishwashers +

1988, 1994, 2010, 2013 NAECA 1987

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 1990, 1993, 2001, 2014 NAECA 1987

Freezers 1990, 1993, 2001, 2014 NAECA 1987

Room Air Conditioners 1990, 2000, 2014 NAECA 1987

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 1992/1993, 2006, 2015 NAECA 1987

Water Heaters 1990, 2004, 2015 NAECA 1987

Furnaces 1992, 2013 NAECA 1987

Boilers 1992, 2012 NAECA 1987

Direct Heating Equipment 1990, 2013 NAECA 1987

Cooking Products 1990, 2012 NAECA 1987

Pool Heaters 1990, 2013 NAECA 1987

Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits 2007 EPACT 2005

Torchieres 2006 EPACT 2005

Dehumidifiers 2007, 2012 EPACT 2005

External Power Supplies 2008 EISA 2007

COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL

Electric Motors 1997, 2010 EPACT 1992

Warm Air Furnaces 1994 EPACT 1992

Packaged Boilers 1994 EPACT 1992

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 1994/1995, 2003/2004, 

2010, 2012, 2012-14

EPACT 1992

Water Heaters, Hot Water Supply Boilers and 

Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks 1994, 2004

EPACT 1992

Distribution Transformers 2007, 2010 EPACT 1992, 

EPACT 2005

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers 2010, 2012 EPACT 2005

Automatic Ice Makers 2010 EPACT 2005

Clothes Washers+

2007 EPACT 2005

Unit Heaters 2008 EPACT 2005

Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines 2012 EPACT 2005

Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers 2009 EISA 2007

LIGHTING PRODUCTS

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 1990, 2005/2010, 2014 NAECA 1988

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 1995, 2008, 2012

EPACT 1992, EISA 

2007

Medium Base Compact Fluorescent Lamps 2006 EPACT 2005
7

Illuminated Exit Signs 2006 EPACT 2005

Traffic Signal Modules and Pedestrian Modules 2006 EPACT 2005

Mercury Vapor Lamp Ballasts 2008 EPACT 2005

Metal Halide Lamp Ballasts and Fixtures 2009 EISA 2007

General Service Incandescent Lamps, 

Intermediate Base Incandescent Lamps and 

Candelabra Base Incandescent Lamps

2012/2014 & 2020

EISA 2007

PLUMBING PRODUCTS

Faucets++ 1994 EPACT 1992

Showerheads++ 1994 EPACT 1992

Water Closets++ 1994/1997 EPACT 1992

Urinals++ 1994/1997 EPACT 1992

Pre-rinse Spray Valves++ 2007 EPACT 2005

* 

* * The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was amended to set energy or water conservation standards by

the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA 1987), the National Appliance Energy Conservation 

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988), the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPACT 2005), and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007).

+ + Water and energy conservation standard

+ ++ Water conservation standard

Analysis Method Overview

Different analytical methods were used for five sets of standards. For NAECA 1987 and 

NAECA 1988 standards and DOE updates of those standards issued before 2007, we utilized the 

analyses conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in 2007-2008.2For 

EPACT 1992 standards, we developed new estimates for this study. For EPACT 2005 standards, 

we reviewed and utilized an analysis conducted by Nadel et al.3and added information from 

DOE analyses where available. For most of the EISA 2007 standards, we drew upon an analysis 

conducted by DOE.4For the other EISA 2007 standards,c we used unpublished national impact 

analyses that were prepared by LBNL for DOE. For standards adopted by DOE in 2007-2012, 

we drew on the national impact analyses performed for the rulemakings for each of the standards

and adapted the results for the framework of this study. Appendix A further describes the use of 

the above sources in this study.

It is important to note that the analyses performed for the rulemakings for each of the standards

adopted by DOE in 2007-2012 were highly detailed and were carefully reviewed by 

stakeholders. All of the other sources used for this study were much less detailed in their 

approach and less extensively reviewed. 

The most challenging aspect of estimating the impacts of standards is characterizing what would 

have happened without new or amended standards. We call this counterfactual against which 

 

c Dishwashers, residential boilers and dehumidifiers.
8

impacts of standards is measured the “base case.” The sources used for this study vary in how 

they characterized the base case. The LBNL analysis of the NAECA standards and DOE updates 

of those standards before 2007 estimated a dynamic base case in which the energy efficiency of 

the products improves somewhat even without standards. The analyses performed for DOE’s 

rulemakings also consider how the market might change in the absence of new or amended 

standards. In contrast, the analyses used for EPACT 1992, EPACT 2005, and EISA 2007 

standards used simple assumptions (in many cases, no change in efficiency) regarding the base 

case.

We focused on three key impacts associated with standards: (1) primary energy savings; (2) 

additional installed costs; and (3) operating cost savings. Operating cost savings primarily 

consist of energy cost savings. Energy cost savings were estimated using historical average 

annual energy prices through 2011, and recent projections of average annual energy prices after 

2011. For standards that save water, we also included water cost savings where possible. In some 

cases (primarily the DOE rulemakings in 2007-2012), the operating cost savings also include 

changes in maintenance and repair costs associated with the standards.

From (2) and (3) we derived net cost or savings for each year. We also estimated annual 

reductions in CO2 emissions associated with the standards using the annual energy savings and 

annual average CO2 emissions factors for the electricity generation sector and for natural gas.

For each standard we developed a time series of annual impacts, with economic impacts 

expressed in constant dollars. For the NAECA standards and DOE updates of those standards 

before 2007, and for standards adopted by DOE in 2007-2012, we estimated annual impacts for 

each standard for 30 years worth of shipments. For most of the other standards, for which the 

base case often assumed no change in efficiency, we used a shorter period of shipments as a way 

of compensating for the lack of a dynamic base case, which might tend to overstate the savings 

from standards. For all standards, we estimated annual energy savings and operating cost savings 

until products installed in the final year considered are retired from the stock. Retirement is 

based on the average lifetime for each product.

Using the annual economic impacts, we derived a net present value (NPV) by discounting future 

impacts to the present (defined as 2012 for this report). For economic impacts occurring after 

2012, we used discount rates of 3% and 7%, which are the rates used by DOE in its analyses of 

national impacts, in accordance with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget to 

Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.

5

For economic impacts occurring 

before 2012, we derived estimates of their present value using interest rates of 3% and 7%. This 

approach reflects the view that the present value of the past stream of benefits should reflect the 

returns to those “profits” had they been invested elsewhere in the economy.
9

We estimated a monetary value of the reductions in CO2 emissions using the mid-range series for 

the global Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) developed by a Federal interagency process.dThe series 

used has a value of $22.3 per metric ton in 2010 and increases at 3 percent per year.

Product-Level Impact of Standards: The Case of Refrigerator-Freezers

Figure 1 illustrates how standards have had an important effect on the energy efficiency of new 

products, in this case refrigerator-freezers. The average new refrigerator-freezer in 2010 used 

only 44% of the energy per year as an average new unit in 1985. Total energy use for these 

products has declined even as shipments increased and the average size of new units grew. 

Nationally, in 2010 refrigerator-freezers used one-third less total energy than in 1985 even 

though there were 70 million more units in use.e

Figure 1. Refrigerator-Freezer Energy Use Trends: Average Energy Use for New Products 

and Total Energy Use for Refrigerator-Freezers

Source: AHAM Fact Books and 2011 DOE standards rulemaking for residential refrigeration products.f

 

d

For details on the SCC values, see appendix 16-A of the Technical Support Document for the final rule for 

residential refrigeration products. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/refrig_finalrule_tsd.pdf

e The increase in total energy use depicted after 2025 is due to growth in purchases of refrigerator-freezers. If the 

standard is updated as required by EPCA, the declining trend would continue.

f

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/refrig_finalrule_tsd.pdf

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

1400 

1600 

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 kWh Quads

Total Primary Energy Use (quads)

1990 Std Average Energy Use (kWh)

1993 Std

2001 Std

2014 Std

Standard-size products only
10

National Impactsg

In 2012, the energy and water conservation standards saved an estimated 3.64 quads of primary 

energy, which is equivalent to 3% of total U.S. energy consumption. The savings in operating 

costs totaled $51.4 billion. 

As shown in Table 2, the cumulative primary energy savings through 2012 amount to 32.7

quads. The cumulative consumer NPV through 2012, which equals the operating cost savings 

minus the additional product costs associated with standards, is between $372 billion and $484

billion. Standards on plumbing products account for a large share of the total NPV because they 

were highly cost-effective.

Over the entire time period considered (1990-2070), the cumulative primary energy savings

amount to 178.7 quads and the cumulative consumer NPV is between $1,104 billion and $1,390

billion (Table 3). Residential products account for more than half of the total cumulative primary 

energy savings. In addition to energy cost savings from energy conservation standards, the 

consumer NPV includes water cost savings from those standards that affect both energy and 

water use (such as standards on clothes washers), as well as energy cost savings from water 

conservation standards that save hot water (i.e., standards on faucets and showerheads).

The cumulative energy savings achieved through 2012 are only 18 percent of the total 

cumulative energy savings. Thus, most of the savings from standards already adopted will occur 

in the future. Furthermore, future savings will grow as new standards are adopted.

Table 2. Cumulative Primary Energy Savings and Cumulative Consumer NPV Through 

2012 for all Standards 

Product type Primary 

energy 

savings 

(quads)

Share of 

primary 

energy 

savings

Cumulative NPV 

(billion 2012$)*

Share of NPV

Residential 19.3 59% $145 - $186 39-38%

Commercial & 

Industrial 3.9 12% $20 - $25 5%

Lighting Products 6.0 18% $52 - $75 14-16%

Plumbing Products 3.5 11% $154 - $198 41%

Total 32.7 100% $372 - $484 100%

* The first value refers to the NPV using 3% interest rate, while the second value refers to the NPV 

using 7% rate.

 

g Additional results, including impacts by each standard, are presented in the Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the 

impacts, which may be found at the page for this report at: http://efficiency.lbl.gov/bibliography/
11

Table 3. Cumulative Primary Energy Savings and Consumer NPV for All Standards (1990-

2070)

Product type Cumulative 

primary energy 

savings 

(quads)

Share of total 

cumulative 

primary 

energy 

savings

Cumulative NPV 

(billion 2012$)*

Share of total 

cumulative NPV

Residential 99.1 55% $518 - $716 47-52%

Commercial & 

Industrial 28.1 16% $83 - $126 7-9%

Lighting Products 43.2 24% $195 - $252 18%

Plumbing 

Products 8.3 5% $308 - $296 21-28%

Total 178.7 100% $1,104 - $1,390 100%

* The first value refers to the NPV using 7% discount or interest rate, while the second value refers to 

the NPV using 3% rate.

Standards set by legislation account for 69 percent of cumulative energy savings through 2012, 

and DOE rulemakings account for 31 percent (Table 4). Standards set by legislation account for 

47 percent of total cumulative primary energy savings and 57-68% of the total consumer NPV 

(depending on which discount rate is used). Standards set by DOE rulemakings account for 53

percent of total cumulative primary energy savings and 32-43% of the total consumer NPV (see 

Table 5).

Table 4. Cumulative Primary Energy Savings and Consumer NPV Through 2012 for All 

Standards by Source of the Standards

Source of 

Standards

Cumulative 

Primary 

Energy 

Savings 

(quads)

Consumer 

NPV at 3% 

discount rate

(billion 2012$)

Consumer 

NPV at 7% 

discount rate

(billion 2012$)

Legislation

NAECA 1987/1988 11.7 121 167

EPACT 1992 8.7 194 251

EPACT 2005* 1.1 10.6 11.4

EISA 2007* 1.2 -2.3 -2.7

Subtotal 22.7 323 426

DOE Rulemakings

Subtotal 10 48.7 57.2

Total 32.7 372 484

* Savings through 2012 are very small since the standards are just taking effect.
12

Table 5. Cumulative Primary Energy Savings and NPV for all Standards by Source of the 

Standards (1990-2070)

Source of 

Standards

Primary 

Energy 

Savings 

(quads)

Consumer 

NPV at 3% 

discount rate

(billion 2012$) 

Consumer 

NPV at 7% 

discount rate 

(billion 2012$)

Legislation

NAECA 1987/1988 21.3 197 223

EPACT 1992 15.3 346 370

EPACT 2005 15.5 117 77.6

EISA 2007 31.0 136 77.2

Subtotal 83.1 795 747

DOE Rulemakings

Subtotal 95.5 595 357

Total 178.7 1,390 1,104

Table 6 presents the annual and cumulative water savings from standards. The results include 

water savings from water conservation standards as well as from energy conservation standards 

that also save water (such as standards on clothes washers and dishwashers).hThe annual savings 

of 1.5 trillion gallons in 2010 are equal to 9 percent of the total water withdrawals for public 

supply in 2005.

i

The estimated dollar savings from reduced water use in 2010 amounted to $10.8 

billon. Lower water use in 2010 due to standards also reduced energy use in municipal sewage 

and water systems by an estimated 0.05 quad.

j

Table 6. Annual and Cumulative Water Savings for All Water-Conserving Standards 

Water Savings (trillion gallons)

Annual Cumulative through

2010 1.5 11.7

2025 1.5 38.6

2040 0.3 51.4

 

h Note that water savings estimates are not available for standards on commercial plumbing products (water closets, 

urinals, and faucets). Thus, the results in Table 6 understate the true savings from standards.

i USGS estimates that water withdrawals for public supply were 44.2 billion gallons/day in 2005.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/

j

The calculation uses an energy use value of 3,000 kWh per million gallons, which is an estimated average for the 

U.S. based on several sources.
13

As shown in Table 7, the estimated reduction in CO2 emissions associated with the standards in 

2012 was 198 million metric tons of CO2, which amounts to 3.0% of total U.S. CO2 emissions in 

2012. The estimated economic (present) value of reductions in CO2 emissions associated with 

the standards through 2055 is $207 billion.

Table 7. Annual and Cumulative Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions for All Energy 

Conservation Standards 

CO2 Emissions Reduction 

(million tons CO2)

Present Value 

(billion 2012$)*

Annual

Cumulative 

through Annual

Cumulative 

through

2012 198 1,917 4.82 49

2025 271 5,203 5.93 124

2040 132 8,504 2.46 192

2055 20.9 9,402 0.31 207

* The present value was calculated using a discount rate of 3%, in keeping with the

method used by DOE in recent rulemakings. See discussion in appendix A.

Figure 2 shows the annual primary energy savings for each grouping of standards, and Figure 3

shows the annual undiscounted net consumer impact. The impacts peak in the 2020-2025 period 

as purchases of products subject to standards increase. The annual savings peak at over $55

billion around 2025. The decline in impacts reflects the analytical convention of counting 

impacts for 25-30 years of shipments for each standard. As current standards are revised and 

new standards are adopted, the impacts from all standards will likely not decline.
14

Figure 2. Annual Primary Energy Savings for all Standards by Source of the Standards

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035

Annual Primary Energy Savings

(quads)

Year 

NAECA 1987 EPAct 1992 EPAct 2005 EISA 2007 DOE rulemakings
15

Figure 3. Annual Undiscounted Net Consumer Benefit for all Standards

Consumer (Residential) Impacts

In 2012, we estimate that the typical household saved $347 in energy and water expenses as a 

result of residential and plumbing product standards. By now, most U.S. households use one or 

more appliances that were subject to Federal energy or water conservation standards. On 

average, the primary energy savings from residential and plumbing standards in 2012 amounted 

to 22 million Btu per household, which is equivalent to 12 percent of the total energy use of 186 

million Btu per household.

k

Sources of Uncertainty

The estimates made by this study are subject to considerable uncertainty. A major source of

uncertainty is the assumed base case against which the impacts of standards are measured. In 

principle, a base case should reflect how the market for a given product will evolve without the 

standards under consideration. Estimating the consumer demand for higher efficiency products

 

k Consumers also saved energy from lighting products standards, but we were not able to disaggregate the estimated 

savings by these standards by end-use sector.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035

Annual Undiscounted Net Consumer Impact

(billion 2011$)

Year

NAECA 1987 EPAct 1992 EPAct 2005 EISA 2007 DOE Rulemakings
16

and the marketing decisions of product manufacturers is difficult. Even more difficult is 

estimating what other policies, either Federal or State, might be implemented if there were no 

Federal efficiency standards for a given product. For the standards adopted by DOE in the past 

five years, a good amount of consideration and stakeholder input went into the construction of 

the base case. For many of the other standards included in this report, the base case reflects 

simple assumptions.

The estimates of per-unit energy savings and additional cost in the sources used for this study are 

also subject to uncertainty. Most of the sources assume that the incremental costs of higher 

efficiency remain constant over time.lThis assumption likely overstates the true costs for two 

reasons. First, manufacturers of appliances and equipment often find ways to reduce the cost of 

producing higher efficiency products when forced to adapt to standards. Second, inflationadjusted prices of many types of appliances and equipment have trended downward in recent 

decades. To the extent that this trend continues, it means that the incremental cost of higher 

efficiency products may decline over time.

The estimates of primary energy savings in the sources we used are based on estimates of “site” 

energy savings (i.e., savings where the product is in operation). Most of the sources we used 

convert site savings to primary savings using an average multiplier. In contrast, the National 

Impact Analysis spreadsheets from the DOE rulemakings incorporate marginal site-to-primary

energy conversion factors. These factors represent the response of the electricity system to an 

incremental decrease in consumption associated with appliance standards. DOE uses annual siteto-source conversion factors based on a version of the Energy Information Administration’s

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). The marginal factors are lower than average site-tosource conversion factors and are likely more accurate. If we had been able to apply marginal 

site-to-source conversion factors to all of the standards included, the estimated primary energy 

savings (and also the reductions in CO2 emissions) would be lower.

For consumer cost savings that occurred in the past, there is some question as to whether the 

compounding of past savings used in this study is appropriate. We have not found clear guidance 

in the literature, but there is some precedent for the practice of compounding past savings to 

estimate their present value.mThere is uncertainty regarding the extent to which the savings from 

appliance standards were invested elsewhere in the economy, and what the appropriate interest 

rate should be. Without compounding, the cumulative consumer NPV for all standards through 

2010 would be around 15 percent less than reported here.

There is some evidence that consumers use higher efficiency appliances more intensively due to 

the reduction in operating cost. The extent of this so-called direct rebound effect varies among 

products.6In recent years DOE has accounted for a rebound effect in many of its rulemakings. 

Thus, the energy savings estimates for many standards adopted by DOE since 2008 include an 

 

l

In 2011 DOE began to account for change in product prices in its forecasts.

m

See for example: http://www.dalemarsden.ca/docs/publications/Marsden_etal_2006.pdf
17

adjustment (subtraction) for a rebound effect.nThe other sources used for this study do not 

include such an adjustment. The lack of this adjustment means that the savings may be 

overestimated by 5%-10%.

Conclusion

We estimate that energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment adopted from 1987 

through 2012 have saved a total of 33 quads through 2012, an amount equal to one-third of total 

annual U.S. energy use. In 2012, the standards saved an estimated 3.6 quads of primary energy, 

which is equivalent to 3% of total U.S. energy consumption. The savings in operating costs for 

households and businesses totaled $51 billion. The average household saved $347 in operating 

costs as a result of residential and plumbing product standards. The estimated reduction in CO2

emissions associated with the standards in 2012 was 198 million metric tons of CO2, which is 

equivalent to 3 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions.

The majority of the savings attributable to the standards adopted thus far are still to come, as 

products subject to the standards enter the stock. The standards are projected to achieve 

cumulative energy savings of 179 quads. Accounting for the increased upfront costs of moreefficient products and the operating cost (energy and water) savings over the products’ lifetime, 

the standards have a past and projected cumulative net present value (NPV) of consumer benefit

of between $1,104 billion and $1,390 billion, using 7 percent and 3 percent discount rates, 

respectively.

The water conservation standards, together with energy conservation standards that also save 

water, reduced water use by 1.8 trillion gallons in 2012, and will achieve cumulative water 

savings by 2040 of 54 trillion gallons. The estimated consumer savings in 2012 from reduced 

water use amounted to $13.0 billon. 

Standards set by legislation account for 47 percent of total cumulative primary energy savings 

and 55 to 66 percent of the total cumulative NPV (depending on which discount rate is used). 

Standards set by DOE rulemakings account for 53 percent of total cumulative primary energy 

savings and 34 to 45 percent of the total cumulative NPV.

 

n DOE does not adjust the energy cost savings for the rebound effect because it believes that, if it were able to 

monetize the increased value to consumers associated with the rebound effect, this value would be similar to the 

foregone energy savings.
18

Appendix A: Methods for Estimating National Impacts from Standardso

General Methods

Energy cost savings were estimated using historical average annual energy prices through 2011, 

and projected average annual energy prices after 2011. The historical prices were taken from 

various DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) sources. The projected prices are based 

on EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2012.

We converted dollars from the year given in the various sources to 2012$ using the Consumer 

Price Index for residential appliances and the GDP implicit price deflator for commercial and 

industrial equipment.

The annual average CO2 emissions factors for the electricity generation sector are derived for 

each year through 2008 from EIA statistics on total CO2 emissions from the electric power sector 

and total primary energy consumption by the electric power sector. For each year in 2009-2035,

they are derived from similar forecasted outputs in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2012. The 

values after 2035 are the same as the 2035 factor.

The social cost of carbon (SCC) values from 2010 onward are from the mid-range series 

developed by a Federal interagency process. This series is based on the average SCC derived 

from the three integrated assessment models that were examined, using a 3-percent discount 

rate.p Because the SCC values are based on a 3-percent discount rate, we used the same discount 

rate to discount the future annual estimates of the value of reduced CO2 emissions. SCC values 

prior to 2010 were estimated based on the post-2010 trend.

NAECA 1987 and 1988 Standards and DOE Updates before 2007

For all of the standards except one, we used the data developed by Meyers et al.

1

That study 

developed a spreadsheet accounting model to calculate energy savings and consumer costs and 

savings for each product. The model tracks the energy use of products sold in each year, 

beginning in the late 1980s. The model uses historic and projected data on annual shipments of 

each product and subtracts units from the stock using a retirement function based on the 

estimated average lifetime of each product.

The key feature of the model is that it associates a specific average energy consumption and 

average product price for each vintage of a given product. (A vintage refers to the products 

 

o

Further details are given in cell comments in the Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the impacts, which may be 

found at the page for this report at: http://efficiency.lbl.gov/bibliography/

p

For more information on these SCC values, see chapter 16 and appendix 16-A of the Residential Clothes Dryers 

and Room Air Conditioners Direct Final Rule Technical Support Document. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/residential_clothes_dryers_room_ac_direct_

final_rule_tsd.html
19

shipped in a given year.) Both of these variables are a function of the energy efficiency assigned 

to each vintage. In most cases, the actual energy efficiency for each vintage of a product is 

assigned based on industry sources.

The approach for estimating the impacts of standards involves deriving a base case scenario for 

average energy efficiency and product price that assumes no standards were or will be 

implemented. In principle, the base case assumes energy efficiency increases over time as a 

result of all factors that shape energy efficiency other than Federal standards. For further 

discussion, see section 2 of Meyers et al.

For the commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating standards with compliance dates 

of 2003 and 2004, we started from the following data reported by Belzer and Winiarski:7(1) 

primary energy savings cumulative through 2030 and (2) net economic impacts at a 7-percent

discount rate cumulative from units shipped through 2030. We used an average lifetime for these 

products of 15 years.

We assume that units retire uniformly over the lifetime and that the annual energy savings will 

go up after the effective date until it stabilizes when all the pre-standard units have been replaced 

by units meeting the standards. This period that it takes for the annual energy savings to reach its 

maximum is equal to the lifetime of the product. Using these assumptions, we calculate the 

annual site and primary energy savings that will match the given cumulative energy savings from 

2003 to 2030. Then we used the Excel Solver to solve for the unit energy saving and incremental 

equipment cost per unit that will give a net present value (NPV) that closely matches the given 

NPV at a 7-percent discount rate. We then extended the time series to include shipments through 

2032 to yield a 30-year analysis period.

EPACT 1992 Standards

We developed new estimates for this study, as described below. We assumed no change in base 

case efficiency over time. To compensate for potential overstatement of savings, we counted 

impacts for only 20 years worth of product shipments. Further details may be found in 

spreadsheets that are available from the authors.

Commercial furnaces and boilers, air conditioners and heat pumps, and water heaters

We modified the analytical structure and some of the data developed by Rosenquist et al. for the 

2004 study for the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP).8

We estimated base case efficiencies and unit incremental costs for these products using PNNL 

(2000). This report presents average efficiencies in 1999 and costs for both an EPACT 1992 

baseline product and an average product in 1999. We applied these differentials to derive an 

approximate pre-EPACT 1992 baseline efficiency and contractor cost for each product. 
20

Electric motors

We developed a simplified NIA model to estimate the impacts of the EPACT 1992 standards for 

electric motors, using one “average motor” as the basis for the calculations. 

The “average motor” energy use was calculated in the base case and in the standards case, using 

market-weighted averages across the covered horsepower (hp) ranges, pole configurations, and 

enclosure type to determine the following parameters: operating hours, load, lifetime, 

horsepower, and efficiency. All inputs were derived from the draft preliminary analysis from 

DOE’s 2011 rulemaking for electric motors. 

The base-case efficiency is estimated assuming 30% of shipped motors are at pre-EPACT 

standard efficiency levels, 30% are already at the EPACT 1992 efficiency levels, and 40% are at 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) premium efficiency levels. The 

standards-case efficiency is estimated using a “roll-up” scenario, which leads to assuming 60% 

of motors are at the EPACT 1992 efficiency levels and 40% are at the NEMA premium 

efficiency levels. 

Motor equipment costs (includes the repair costs) for the “average motor” in the base case and 

standards case were estimated by extrapolating price and weight data from the preliminary 

analysis. Repairs are assumed to occur after 5 years of usage and once in a motor’s lifetime.

Shipment data were obtained from the preliminary analysis and are assumed to be the same in 

the base-case and in the standards-case. The market-weighted average lifetime (12 years) was 

used to calculate the affected stock.

National site energy savings were obtained from multiplying the affected stock by the difference 

in energy use between the base case and standards case for the “average motor”. National 

equipment incremental costs were calculated using the affected stock multiplied by the 

difference in equipment costs between the base case and standards case for the “average motor”.

Fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps

Fluorescent lamps

We calculated savings for full-wattage T12 lamps covered by the standards sold after the 

effective dates of the standards: April 30, 1994 for 8-foot T12 and 8-foot T12/HO lamps and 

October 31, 1995 for 4-foot lamps. To calculate fluorescent lamp shipments, we adapted the 

spreadsheet used to analyze the impacts of the NAECA fluorescent ballast standards by Meyers 

et al. The base-case forecast assumed that 60 percent of lamp shipments in 1994 were fullwattage lamps, while 40 percent were reduced-wattage lamps already complying with the EPAct 

1992 standards, according to a 1989 report on Massachusetts’ lamp standards by Nadel et al.

9

Since the lamps covered by the EPAct 1992 lamp standards (“covered lamps”) were used with 

magnetic ballasts, and very few T12 lamps used electronic ballasts, we assumed that lamp 
21

shipments tracked the pattern of magnetic ballast shipments. When the fluorescent ballast 

standards came into effect in 2005 for ballasts in new luminaires, there was a corresponding 

substantial decrease in T12 lamp shipments. By 2010, when the ballast standards took effect for 

the renovation market as well, very few T12 lamps were sold. 

The shipments of covered fluorescent lamps for 1994 were based on estimates by Geller and 

Nadel.10 For 1995 - 2010 we scaled this 1994 shipment value to decline according to the annual 

decrease in magnetic ballast shipments projected in the NAECA ballast standards analysis.

Beginning in 2011 we made the simplifying assumption that T12 lamp shipments ceased.

Assumptions for unit wattage savings, product service lifetime, operating hours, and market 

shares by lamp type and by new vs. renovation market are from DOE’s 2000 fluorescent lamp 

ballast standards analysis. Lamp prices are from the 1992 Lighting Policy Analysis by Atkinson 

et al.11

Incandescent reflector lamps

We estimated the impacts of the incandescent reflector lamp standards from 1996 – 2015. (The 

standards took effect on November 1, 1995, so we assumed that savings began in 1996.) We 

used shipments data from past and recent analyses to estimate the annual shipments of lamps 

complying with the standards. For the commercial sector, complying shipments were derived for

1996 - 2000 from the 1992 Lighting Policy Analysis (Atkinson et al.), for 2006 - 2015 from 

DOE’s 2009 incandescent reflector lamp standards NIA spreadsheet (DOE 2009),qand for 2001 

– 2005 by linear interpolation. For the residential sector, we estimated complying shipments for 

1995 as 10 percent of total shipments, for 2001 – 2015 from DOE 2009, and for 1996 to 2000 by 

linear interpolation. 

Assumptions for unit wattage savings are from Atkinson et al. Product service lifetime and 

operating hours are from DOE 2009. Lamp prices are from Atkinson et al.

Plumbing products

For showerheads and faucets, we started with product lifetime, 2010 site energy savings (from 

reduced hot water use), and 2010 water savings from Koomey et al.12 For toilets, we used

product lifetime and 2010 water savings.

From the energy savings for 2010, we estimated both the site and source energy savings over a 

20-year period starting from the compliance date, assuming that shipments retire uniformly over 

the lifetime and are replaced (constant annual sales). Based on this uniform retirement function, 

the energy savings from units surviving beyond the 20-year period are also calculated. We 

performed this same estimation for the annual time series of water savings.

 

q

See:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps_standards_final_rule_to

ols.html
22

We derived operating cost savings by applying annual time series of average fuel prices and

water prices to the site energy and water savings.

We estimated that there is zero unit incremental cost for these products because when 

manufacturers first started to comply with EPACT 1992, they generally did not make significant 

changes to the products.

The estimates only cover residential use because no data were available to estimate commercial 

sector impacts.

EPACT 2005 Standards

For all of the standards except commercial air conditioners (AC) and heat pumps, we started 

from the following data reported by Nadel et al.3for each standard: (1) site energy savings in 

2020 and 2030, (2) cumulative energy savings through 2030, (3) NPV for products sold through 

2030, (4) lifetime, (5) unit annual energy saving, and (6) unit incremental equipment cost. Nadel 

et al. used a constant efficiency base case, but they also did not model any increase in shipments;

these two factors would counteract to some extent.

From the energy savings for 2020 and 2030, we estimated both the site and source energy 

savings for 25 years of shipments starting from the compliance year. Using the energy savings

per unit and the annual energy savings, we calculated the shipments in each year. Once we 

derived the shipments, we could calculate the total incremental equipment cost. 

We accounted for impacts to shipments through 2030. The number of years of shipments ranges 

from 21 to 25, depending on the particular standard.

For commercial AC and heat pumps, DOE National Impact Analysis spreadsheets were 

available. For these products, we followed the methods described in the DOE Standards 2007-

2010 section.

EISA 2007 Standards

For most EISA 2007 standards, we started from the following data for each product reported by 

DOE in its technical report:4(1) cumulative energy savings (through 2038), (2) NPV at 3-percent

and 7-percent discount rates. From other relevant DOE sources, we obtained the lifetimes of the 

products. The DOE report used a constant efficiency base case, which may tend to somewhat 

overestimate the savings from the standards. To compensate, we used 25 years of shipments 

instead of 30 years.

We assumed that units retire uniformly over the lifetime and that the annual energy savings will 

go up after the compliance date until it stabilizes when all the pre-standard units have been 

replaced by units meeting the standards. The period that it takes for the annual energy savings to 

reach its maximum is equal to the lifetime of the product. Using these assumptions, we 

calculated the annual site and source energy savings that will match the given cumulative energy 
23

savings. Then we used the Excel Solver to solve for the unit energy savings and incremental 

equipment cost per unit that will give an NPV that closely matches the given NPV at a 7-percent

discount rate. We then adjusted the calculations to account for 25 years of shipments.

For a few EISA 2007 standards (residential boilers, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers), DOE 

National Impact Analysis spreadsheets were available. For these products, we followed the 

methods described in the following DOE Standards 2007-2010 section. 

DOE Standards 2007-2012

We used the Final Rule NIA spreadsheets from the DOE rulemakings for each of these 

standards. We set up the spreadsheets for the compliance year and standard levels that were 

selected in the Final Rules. This gave the annual time series for primary energy savings, 

additional installed cost, and operating cost savings. In some cases, the time series presented in 

the spreadsheets were by individual product classes, so we summed them to arrive at totals for 

the product category or categories in question. In some cases we also made modifications to the 

spreadsheets to arrive at consistent results across products—for instance, always using 30 years 

of shipments and extending energy cost savings and energy savings to the end of the lifetime of 

the units shipped in the 30th year.
24

Appendix B: Quad and Carbon Equivalents

From the U.S. Department of Energy’s 2010 Buildings Energy Data Book.
25
26

REFERENCES

 

1

 Meyers, S., A. Williams, and P. Chan. Realized and Projected Impacts of U.S. Energy and 

Economic Impacts of U.S. Federal Energy and Water Conservation Standards Adopted From 

1987 Through 2011. LBNL- 5515E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

http://efficiency.lbl.gov/bibliography/energy_and_economic_impacts_of_u_s_federal_energy_an

d_water_conservation_standards_adopted_from_1987_through_2011

2 Meyers, S., J. McMahon, and B. Atkinson. Realized and Projected Impacts of U.S. Energy 

Efficiency Standards for Residential and Commercial Appliances. LBNL-63017. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. 2008.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/938510-IKYBEw/

3 Nadel, S., A. deLaski, J. Kleisch, and T. Kubo. Leading the Way: Continued Opportunities for 

New State Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy and Appliance Standards Awareness Project. Washington, DC. January 

2005. 

http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/a051.pdf

4

Technical Support Document-Impacts on the Nation of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007, March 2009; Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/en_masse_tsd_march_2009.

pdf

5 Office of Management and Budget. OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis. Washington, 

D.C. September 17, 2003. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf

6

 S. Sorrell, J. Dimitropoulos, and M. Sommerville, “Empirical estimates of the direct rebound 

effect: a review,” Energy Policy 37(2009) pp. 1356–71.

7 Belzer, D. and D. Winiarski. EPACT-Covered Commercial HVAC and Water Heating 

Equipment: Summary of Energy Savings and Economic Benefits – 2004. 11/4/2004. Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory.

8 Rosenquist, Greg, Michael McNeil, Maithili Iyer, Steve Meyers, and Jim McMahon. Energy 

Efficiency Standards for Equipment: Additional Opportunities in the Residential and 

Commercial Sectors. Energy Policy 34(2004) pp 3257-3267.

9 Nadel, S., H. Geller, F. Davis and D. Goldstein. 1989. Lamp Efficiency Standards for 

Massachusetts: Analysis and Recommendations. June, 1989. American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (Washington DC), Fred Davis Corporation (Medfield MA), Natural 

Resources Defense Council (San Francisco CA). Prepared for Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Energy Resources. Research Report A891.
27

 

10 Geller, H., and S. Nadel. Consensus National Efficiency Standards for Lamps, Motors, 

Showerheads and Faucets, and Commercial HVAC Equipment. American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy. Washington, DC. June 1992.

http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/A921.pdf

11 B. Atkinson et al., Analysis of Federal Policy Options for Improving U.S. Lighting Energy 

Efficiency: Commercial and Residential Buildings. LBL-31469. December 1992. Lawrence 

Berkeley Laboratory.

12 Koomey, Jonathan, Camilla Dunham, and James D. Lutz. The Effect of Efficiency Standards 

on Water Use and Water Heating Energy Use in the U.S.: A Detailed End-use Treatment. LBL35475. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. May 1994.